As is well known by now, the new American Ambassador Cameron Munter in a speech at the Islamabad Programme in Global Studies, a think tank, included the following statement about US interest in Pakistan’s economic affairs. A full transcript of the statement is available from the home page of the US Embassy web site. Now, let us consider this statement in its full context and not cut and pasted as it appears in the newspapers.

The second criticism is that we have been intrusive on financial and governance issues — that we have been demanding where we should be respectful. Well, the reality is that we are both. We are demanding and respectful. And we will continue to be so when defending or promoting rights and obligations that have been incorporated into multilateral agreements or are accepted universal principles.. But I would add that we make every effort to do so with full respect for and understanding of Pakistan’s traditions, culture and legal and constitutional history.

If we seem intrusive, it is because we care. We are Pakistan’s largest donor. Our aid comes as an outright grant of assistance, which is very different from offering loans that must be repaid. Therefore, we need to be sure that the American taxpayers sees that any foreign government, including yours, is making good use of its resources and responding effectively to its citizen’s needs in a transparent and accountable manner. A large proportion of our aid projects, in fact, are built around the idea of helping Pakistani government institutions – be they federal, provincial, or local – become more responsive. We could just build roads or schools and be done with it. But how would they be sustained? Who would staff and maintain these structures in years to come? That is why we focus so much on helping Pakistan build effective state institutions and a robust economy.

The American Ambassador is clearly saying that, because the US is granting direct aid and not making loans to be repaid, they want to know that their money is not being misused. For a media that collectively seems to think the most important issue facing the nation is corruption, one might be forgiven for thinking such an assurance that the US is not willing to fund corruption would be welcomed. Furthermore, the Ambassador never says that the US has a ‘right’ to interfere – what he actually says is that the US may ‘seem’ intrusive because of its concerns, and then he explains why this is a mistaken impression. Actually the Ambassador says quite explicitly that even when the US gives some advice, it does so “with full respect for and understanding of Pakistan’s traditions, culture and legal and constitutional history”.

But it appears that another one of the media’s bogey men is more easily attacked here – American interference. With the actual context of the statement now easily before our very eyes, let us review a sample of the headlines that have appeared in popular newspapers:

The News (Jang Group): U.S has right to interfere in Pakistan’s economic, governance affairs: Munter

The Nation: U.S has right to interfere in Pak affairs: Munter

Despite the alarmist headlines and the way the reporters and editors cut and pasted Ambassador Munter’s statement, the fact is he never said US has a right to interfere in Pakistan’s affairs. That never happened.

The closest to correct is Dawn‘s headline: Munter’s blunt talk: we pay so we intrude, but even this article begins with a claim that “US Ambassador Cameron Munter has justified American meddling in Pakistan’s ‘financial and governance’ matters for being its largest aid provider.” By using words such as ‘justified’ and ‘meddling’, what we have here is the reporter, Baqir Sajjad Syed, inserting his own bias that does not appear in the transcript.

As is clear to anyone who will read the full speech, Ambassador Munter said that the US wants to be certain that Pakistan “is making good use of its resources and responding effectively to its citizen’s needs in a transparent and accountable manner.”

Again, with the constant refrain from Jang Group and The Nation that a culture of corruption in government is ruining the country, you would think these media groups would be cheering for Ambassador Munter’s call for transparency and accountability.

Far from being a statement that the US has bought the right to interfere with Pakistan’s affairs, Ambassador Munter sounds more like any responsible investor. Surely the US would not be providing billions to Pakistan if it did not believe the country will succeed. But like a man that invests in his brother’s business, he wants to help his brother succeed not only by providing a financial investment but by giving some advice on how the investment can be used to maximize the return.

It should also be noted that none of the newspapers appear to have called the Embassy to ask for a clarification of the statement. Rather the reporters and editors simply cut and pasted the Ambassador’s words and gave their own interpretation. In other countries, journalists will give the courtesy of contacting officials to get a statement and will print that statement in their article so that readers have all the facts and all sides of the story and can make up their own minds.

It appears that in this case, the news media has jumped on an opportunity to twist the words of an American diplomat to promote the belief that the US is duplicitous in its support for Pakistan. As happens far too often, once a transcript of a statement is reviewed, it becomes apparent that what is being reported is not objective facts but a political agenda. Perhaps Ambassador Munter should have chosen his words more carefully. Now that he has been introduced to the way our media is willing to twist people’s words, he surely will the next time.

It was only two days ago that the IMF approved a nine-month extension of Pakistan’s Stand-By Arrangement. Which means that it took The Nation less than 36 hours to invent a new conspiracy to explain how the decision is a tool of American hegemony and government corruption.

The Nation makes several accusations against both the IMF and the government. Most notably by impugning the IMF’s rationale for supporting Pakistan’s economy.

…the IMF’s wider agenda, that of ensuring that the USA’s will is done, should not be lost sight of.

But China is an IMF member country. So is Saudi Arabia. And while the US has the largest quota of a single country, the EU has a combined vote of 32% – almost twice that of the US. In fact, historically the IMF’s managing director has been European, not American, the present Managing Director being Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a Frenchman. For the IMF to be a blatant tool of American interests, one would have to accept that the US was controlling China, Russia, Venezuela and other nations that traditionally oppose or resist American interests. It’s simply beyond reason.

The newspaper goes on to suggest that the US via the IMF is using “the charge of corruption…as a stick to beat the government into obedience”. Ironic considering one of the key themes of The Nation has been cries of rampant corruption in the government. Should we surmise from this, then, that The Nation too is a puppet of American interests?

What makes the claim particularly ironic, however, is that The Nation actually accuses the government of devising the RGST scheme to protect its own corruption!

The plea that is used by the IMF for the RGST is the improvement of the tax:GDP ratio. If that is the case, why would the IMF want the imposition of a tax that would only cause inflation, while the Pakistani state left a major sector, that of agriculture, untaxed. The problem is that agricultural incomes appertain to those in the legislatures, on both sides of the political divide, and they use these positions to prevent any tax being levied on the incomes which enable them to live a life of leisure enlivened only by politics.

If The Nation is correct (which is certainly disputed by many economists) that the RGST will cause inflation in affected sectors, isn’t it also possible that the government did not apply the tax on agriculture in order to protect the common people from price hikes on food essentials?

Regardless of one’s position on the proposed RGST, claiming that it is a conspiracy by the US to keep Pakistan’s cooperation in the war against terrorist militant groups is just silly. Development economists from various nations have made critical analysis of the IMF and its policies in the past. Some of those critiques have resulted in changes to IMF structure and policies as the economic firm adapts to more effectively aid nations hit by economic downturns and natural disasters.

Reading The Nation, however, one could easily believe that the newspaper would rather the economy sink just to spite the present government. Whatever its intentions, though, the logic and analysis of its editorial page is deplorable.

If you recall, The Nation earlier this week published an editorial that claimed that Wikileaks proved a US conspiracy against Pakistan.

The disclosures of the US attempt to remove highly enriched uranium from the Pakistani reactor confirm the suspicions of certain political circles in Pakistan that the US has an eye on our nuclear assets, and while doing everything it can to strengthen India, defence-wise and economically, at the same time, it wants to enfeeble Pakistan.

Today, though, the same newspaper publishes an editorial that says that actually Wikileaks is a US conspiracy to embarrass Muslims.

The suspicion that the latest WikiLeaks are actually at the instigation of the US government gained strength when it was noted that the leaked documents are more likely to cause conflicts within the Muslim world than to embarrass the USA. Starting with Saudi King Abdullah’s reported views on Pakistan’s President, and going on to reports about Iran and Afghanistan, the State Department seems to devote an inordinate amount of time to the problems of the Muslim world, even more than is justified by its interest in the Palestinian problem, or the war on terror.

Whether the US government is devoting “an inordinate amount of time to the problems of the Muslim world” is open to debate. But paranoia is not evidence, and this appears to be the only thing supporting the belief such a claim. Naturally, this conspiracy theory comes from former COAS Gen (retd) Alsam Beg who has also been quoted saying that Osama or his al-Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, despite all evidence to the contrary (including the statements of Osama bin Laden himself).

More interesting, however, is that The Nation is willing to accept any conspiracy theory that casts some blame on their favourite bogeys, even if those conspiracy theories are in direct contradiction to each other.

It will be interesting to see what conspiracy the editors at The Nation can invent next. Already they have published not only the two conspiracy theories mentioned above, but also that the Americans are using some top secret weather control machines. Is there no limit to the silliness that The Nation will publish? Pakistan does not need any more silly conspiracy theories. We need facts and informed opinion. Sadly, The Nation seems to be allergic to facts and is daily becoming less relevant as a news source because of it.

Shireen Mazari claims that drone attacks have killed more civilians than militants. According to Shireen Mazari’s column,

…we are unable to deal with our terrorism threat internally because we are following US diktat and using a military-centric policy which is simply creating more space for militants within the country. The drone attacks, killing more civilians than militants, are one glaring case in point.

Mazari provides no research to back up her claim, so it is not known why she says this. But Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database at the New America Foundation (NAF) shows that more militants have been killed by drone attacks than civilians. Furthermore, the NAF research is transparent as to its sources and analysis:

The research on these pages, which we have created in a good faith effort to be as transparent as possible with our sources and analysis and will be updated regularly, draws only on accounts from reliable media organizations with deep reporting capabilities in Pakistan, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, accounts by major news services and networks—the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, and the BBC—and reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan—the Daily Times, Dawn, and the News—as well as those from Geo TV, the largest independent Pakistani television network.

Here are the estimated death counts:

Estimated Total Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004 – 2010

*Through October 4, 2010

Estimated Militant Deaths from U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2010

*Through October 4, 2010

Estimated Militant Leader Deaths from US Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2010

*Through October 4, 2010. Included in estimated militants and estimated totals, above.

Later, in the same paragraph, Mazari claims that “there are the NATO incursions into our territory and targeting of even our military personnel”. While there was the well-reported NATO incursion into our territory, the claim of “targeting” is misleading.

An investigation of the incident has found that Pakistani soldiers fired warning shots at the helicopters, which returned fire. The US and NATO have apologized for the incident and pledged to work more closely with the Pakistani military and government to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

Shireen Mazari’s account could lead readers to believe that the US was intentionally and aggressively attacking Pakistani soldiers, which would be an act of war. This doesn’t make any sense. If the US military wanted to go to war with Pakistan, why would it provide so much support and supplies to the Pakistani military? And why would the US apologize and pledge to work more closely in coordination with the Pakistani military?

Mazari goes on to repeat the discredited conspiracy theory that the US is planning to steal our nuclear arsenal. Her evidence is a statement by an American conservative historian Arthur Herman. But Arthur Herman is not a member of the US government or military and would have no access to such sensitive information. He is simply describing a hypothetical ‘worst-case scenario’ based on no evidence.

Actually, the article that Mazari is referring to is an opinion column in an American newspaper New York Post which has been criticised by the Columbia Journalism Review who said, “The New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem.” According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the New York Post was rated the least-credible news outlet in New York. The Wikipedia entry on New York Post includes a long list of controversies surrounding the newspaper.

Shireen Mazari then goes on to repeat another discredited conspiracy theory saying that Visas are being granted “with no proper scrutiny and with all normal procedures being abandoned”. Mazari provides no evidence for this claim, which would be a quite serious breach of protocol. Notably, Shireen Mazari does not accuse anyone by name of committing this act, possibly because she knows that it would be defamatory for her to do so. Instead, she merely states that it is being done which could possibly result in readers mistakenly believing that she has some evidence to back her claim.

Shireen Mazari has every right to believe that the US is the root of all of the country’s problems, but she must make this claim with facts and not inventions and conspiracy theories. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but facts are facts. Making statements to support a particular political agenda even when the facts are the opposite is not journalism, it is merely propaganda. Please, Shireen Mazari, stick to the facts.

Gulmina takes to task reporter Yousaf Ali from The News for an article he wrote last week claiming that “Islamic charities most effective in relief activities”.

If I were associated with an ‘Islamic’ charity, I would file a suit against the reporter because he goes on to mention organisations that are old wines in new bottles. In other words, banned militant organisations operating under new names. There are a number of Islamic charities that are doing excellent work and do not use militant ways and means. They are funded not by mafias, crime and drug money as the militant organisations are, and have transparent, audited accounts.

The reporter is supposed to report, not give an opinion. Opinions are reserved for the op-ed pages. However, in the said news story, in the very title, the reporter has given his considered opinion. Throughout the four-column story, he fails to establish what is the basis of his sweeping conclusion displayed prominently in the heading.

Clearly, there is a problem raised by the fact that the author makes a bold claim that is not supported by the facts presented in his reporting. The reporter may believe that his claim is true – in fact, the claim could be true – but without providing evidence to support the claim, the reporter is wrong in making it.

But even the reporters claims are questionable. Yousaf Ali writes that,

Cooked food has been distributed among 0.25 million so far, while 23,046 packages were distributed among 161,322 families, the handout stated.

But according to Daily Mail News, the US has sent over 77,000 food packets for flood victims.

Talking to a privet television channel, the NDMA chairman said that they had demanded 380,000 food packets from the US for the flood stricken people in the country. He said the US sent a first batch of 77,000 food packets through C-130 plane which had been dispatched to affected areas.

Nadeem Ahmad said that another 43,000 boxes were expected to reach soon. “The US has assured of more cooperation to ease the miseries of people,” he said. Meanwhile, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W Patterson announced that the US government is continuing to send assistance for flood relief efforts in Pakistan. “The United States supports Pakistan’s emergency relief efforts on behalf of people affected by recent monsoon floods,” she said.

Surely Mr Ali knows that 77,000 is more than 23,046. So why does he ignore such facts in his article?

Gulima suspects a bit of spot-fixing going on at Jang Group’s English newspaper:

The news story further goes on to declare that the “most effective among the Islamic charities” is “the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation which is linked with the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD)”. The reporter clearly is aware of the way the Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation is linked with the JuD. Is the reporter not aware then that the JuD is a banned organisation? As if the heading of the news story was not enough, the reporter, to really imprint it in the reader’s mind, further states, “much discussed in the international media, the Falah-e-Insaniat is another major contributor in the relief activities”.

Since, in this space, I am clearly asked to give my opinion, I will venture to state that it seems to be a paid, placed piece to do some damage control and spin some ‘feel good’ stories about the Falah-e-Insaniat, given the fact that “much has been written in the international media” about it.

Banned organizations are well known to change their names in order to avoid being closed down. Despite this, they are well known. They are also being praised by some in the media – as evidenced by Yousaf Ali’s column as well as articles in The Nation, and Dawn.

And this is not an issue that appears only in English media, of course.

Leading English newspapers do not have the monopoly over promoting irresponsible reporting nor is the militant media confined only to English. Just this week, an Urdu paper prominently displayed a statement of Hafiz Saeed, head of JuD, claiming that “there is no al Qaeda”. If there is no al Qaeda, then how is it that there is a group that has, to date, claimed responsibility for global terrorism attacks? Another question that begs to be answered is what is the basis for this claim of Mr Hafiz Saeed?

Just yesterday, Urdu newspaper Daily Khabrian included an article claiming that “foreign hands” were involved in the Lahore attacks. The evidence for this conspiracy? A statement from Rana Munir of Pakistan Muslim Rajput Federation.

The reporter for Daily Khabrian did not feel it necessary to ask how Rana Munir knew of such a conspiracy, and the newspaper’s editors did not (as evidenced by the publication of the article) feel it necessary to ask why such a statement by Rana Munir was significant enough to be a priority for publication. All of this despite the fact that banned group Lashker-e-Jhangvi claiming responsibility for the attacks.

These articles raise important questions: How is it that banned groups are getting a disproportionate amount of positive press coverage for the relief work that they are doing? Why do media outlets continue to publish conspiracy theories absolving banned groups from responsibility for attacks – even after the groups admit responsibility? And why do major news outlets like The News (Jang), The Nation, and Dawn consider it a priority to publish articles praising the work of banned groups over others?

Take, for example, a front page story from the Nawa-i-Waqt newspaper about a Christian church in Florida, USA that has organized a rally to burn copies of the Holy Quran. This article makes the claim that “Western countries have resorted to presumptuous attacks”, and reports that some Ulema have condemned the West and the United Nations for their silence.

But the truth is, there has not been a silence on this matter. It has been widely condemned by Christian religious groups in the US and even the the US government and the UN.

A quick Google search revealed that a newspaper of Baptist Christians in Texas reports that the National Association of Evangelicals has condemned the threat of burning Quran and demanded that it be canceled. Other Christian religious leaders have also condemned the threats. In fact, the newspaper USA Today reported that the officials in the city denied any permits for such an act.

This is an act being threatened by a small group of extremists, and clearly does not represent any official action by American Christians any more than the actions of Hizbut Tahrir represent the official position of the majority of Muslims here.

It should also be noticed that recently in the US there are even churches that have burned bibles.

A North Carolina pastor says his church plans to burn Bibles and books by Christian authors on Halloween to light a fire under true believers.

Pastor Marc Grizzard told Asheville TV station WLOS that the King James version of the Bible is the only one his small western North Carolina church follows. He says all other versions, such as the Living Bible, are “satanic” and “perversions” of God’s word.

Obviously, nobody will accuse the US or the UN of being anti-Christian. And yet they even allow the burning of bibles in America. This is because it is considered part of the right of free speech granted in their Constitution.

Despite this freedom, there has been a loud outcry in the Christian community against the plans for Quran burning, as shown above. But that is not all.

American Ambassador the United Nations Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe has written a public letter to United Nations High Commissioner for Human Right Navanethem Pillay supporting complaints from Ambassador Zamir Akram and condemning the threat to burn any Qu’rans or show any disrespect to Islam.

As United States Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Council, I wanted to register strong support for the request sent to you by my colleague, Ambassador Zamir Akram of Pakistan, in his capacity as Coordinator of the OIC Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues in Geneva, dated July 9, 2010. In his letter, Ambassador Akram called to your attention a report that the Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida plans to hold an “international burn a Koran Day” on 11 September 2010 in alleged remembrance of the victims of 9/11 and to demonstrate against “the evil of Islam.”

The United States government in no way condones such acts of disrespect. To the contrary, the United States is deeply concerned about deliberate attempts to offend members of religious or ethnic groups. President Obama made clear in Cairo in his speech on June 4, 2009 that he considers it part of his responsibility as President to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they occur, a responsibility I share. I also note that many Americans of all faiths disagree with this initiative by the Dove Outreach Center. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, for example, is using education and outreach to counter this “Burn the Koran” campaign with a campaign to share the Koran.

As you know, Madame High Commissioner, the United States strongly believes that the best antidote to intolerance is a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression. As we have discussed in the past, the United States supports the full use of your office and moral authority to speak out against intolerance and instances of hate speech where they occur.

The front page report in Daily Nawa-i-Waqt is misleading and based on false rumours that are easily disproven with the smallest amount of research. Considering that the vast majority take their news from Urdu sources, it is essential that the people get fair and accurate information, not hysterical falsehoods and religious exploitation.

Her column, “Our collective shame and some troubling questions,” actually begins quite well. She sees the slaughter of innocent Ahmadis in the middle of prayer as a wicked act that speaks to the degredation of our society acted out by religious imposters.

Islam which teaches brotherhood and tolerance has all but disappeared in spirit and essence from within us and, instead, we are filled with hatred, intolerance and a desire to simply kill all those who may differ from us. As for the Pakistani nation, how far we have sunk from the ideal of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah should be shamefully visible to every sane Pakistani.

In fact, Shireen Mazari goes on to call on us to stop looking to blame others for our own problems, and to take responsibility for the extremist ideologies that have infected our society.

 There can be no shying away from this horrendous act in Lahore and it is time that the Pakistani nation took stock of itself and its leadership and made a determined effort to restore the spirit of tolerance and accommodation that is the essence of Islam and that must be the essence of our nationhood since Pakistan comprises a rich diversity of people – all of whom are equally dedicated and loyal to this land.

This is all quite good! I must admit, when I read it my heart began to lighten. Shireen Mazari is an excellent writer, though her hatred of America has blinded her too often to the realities under her own roof. It has led her to concoct the most ridiculous conspiriacy theories, so poorly constructed a school child could disprove them quite easily. She has aligned herself with the Ahmed Quraishi and Zaid Hamid school that teaches that facts and reason are to be avoided, leaving her isolated from former colleagues who lament her fall into paranoia. So for Shireen Mazari to finally write a column like this was a breakthrough to be applauded.

Or so I thought.

It wasn’t until I reached the end of the column that that familiar voice began to seep through the page. There had to be some mention of the Americans. There had to be some conspiracy. Nothing could simply be a horrible, wicked act perpetrated by sick minds under the influence of religious imposters. And there it was.

There are also some troubling questions about the Lahore targeting of the two Ahmadi places of worship:

First: The timing comes at the peak of US pressure for the Pakistan Army to begin its operations in North Waziristan Agency. Mere coincidence or not, every time the US has wanted the Pakistan military to commence an operation in FATA, there have been such acts of terror prior to the commencement.

Second: The incidents happened when Pakistanis were celebrating Youm-i-Takbeer, the anniversary of our going overtly nuclear – something that still is not acceptable to the West and Israel.

Third: What is equally relevant is that our Government and our national security managers need to seriously look into how friendly spy agencies from West Asia and the US-UK were allowed to establish direct links to Kashmiri freedom groups based in Pakistan, especially central and south Punjab, during the Bosnia war.

It’s sad, really, to so clearly see the sickness that is a paranoid obsession. Shireen Mazari is not a stupid person, by any means. She knows that the Americans had nothing to do with this. She knows that these murders had nothing to do with nuclear assets. Sometimes an apple is only an apple. But her mind is like a warped glass that reflects a distorted view of the world. It is as if she cannot help herself, no matter how hard she tries.

Shireen Mazari begins with a noble call to shed the hatred and intolerance that can cause some terrible event like we suffered this week. But then she ends overcome by her own hatred and intolerance. Someday, perhaps she will be cured of this sickness and finally know some peace.

I am getting quite fed up with the planted, biased, illiterate, and highly unprofessional so-called reporting by the The News International.  Its current owner Mir Shakil ur Rehman was not above cheating in the exams. More about this in a moment.

At one point of time, I was very negative about Asif Zardari, and still am, [read my article of Sep. 04, 2008] but whatever he is or his past, he is at least a known commodity. And to be honest, what the PPP government under President Zardari has achieved in political terms in just two years, Zia and Musharraf could not achieve in the twenty two years, these murderers and traitors ruled the country. Zia killed ZAB and Musharraf killed Akbar Bugti. Whatever ZAB and Bugti’s wrongs might have been, every one deserves a fair trial. Both Zia and Musharraf violated the constitution and the law of the land with impunity and contempt. So it is not out of line to accuse them of murder and treason.

Now about the Jang Group. On Saturday, April 10, 2010, the News published a report by Ahmad Noorani that claimed, “a highly controversial clause regarding the judges’ appointment in the 18 Amendment bill has changed the whole scenario of lawyers’ politics with the government trying to gain their loyalties. According to the Law Ministry sources, sensing the lawyers’ reaction on the passage of the controversial clause of judges’ appointment, the law ministry has decided to launch a full-fledged campaign against the country’s independent judiciary. Credible sources confided to The News that senior officials of the ministry had been deputed for this purpose and they had been assigned to give cases to certain lawyers so that they feel obliged and sympathise with the government at an appropriate time.”

What kind of nonsense, unprofessional, planted and inspired reporting is this or for that matter reporting at all. Law Ministry sources, credible sources, reliable sources.. and so on! Another one was “lawyers plan to challenge the 18th amendment” without naming a single lawyer. This is not reporting. Name the sources or have the guts to say that it is your opinion. But then put it on opinion pages and stop publishing one-sided and inspired material as front page news items.

First of all, to term the clause regarding the judges’ appointment in the 18 Amendment bill as highly controversial is ludicrous, dishonest, and factually incorrect. The Amendment won an overwhelming majority and this particular clause was passed without any opposition, whatsoever, by the National Assembly. Would any one who is a journalist worth his salt and has any professional caliber, term this as “highly controversial” unless he is either very biased or is working on some agenda.

Such journalists should join politics and then they would be free and entitled to say whatever they fancy but as long as they profess to be journalists, they should learn to observe some professional standards. Or is that too much to expect. Maybe it is.

Specially from the Jang Group. This Group has played a special role in Pakistan’s history in promoting dictatorships, jingoism, sectarianism, ethnic conflicts, and in general keeping its readership in a world that can be described as xenophobic. Its role in projecting Jamaat-e-Islami in the 1970s, turning the newspaper into a pamphlet and printing highly inflammatory slogans [as a border] that provoked the language riots in Sindh (1972), barely six months after the dismemberment of Pakistan, remains one of the darkest chapters in Pakistani journalism.  Jamaat Islami Chief, Tufail Mohammed was an uncle of Zia ul Haq and an agent of the CIA as Mr. Bhutto documented in detail in his book, If I am Assassinated.

Jang Group’s TV channel has promoted people with dubious credentials like Aamir Liaqat Hussain who have fake degrees. GEO, on its website,  prides itself as the CNN of Pakistan, totally oblivious of the reality that in most countries outside the United States, CNN is considered to be a biased mouth piece of American establishment and is not exactly known for objectivity or independent reporting. GEO TV colloborates with the Voice of America, which is an official news arm of the government of the United States. Yet, it claims to be indpendent and objective.

Observing this lowly and sleazy standard of journalism, I have been reflecting on an evening in the distant past. I was preparing for my final exams for the B.Com in 1976 in Karachi. One evening, when I was studying, my door bell rang. When I went out, it was my friend Zain Ghazali, son of Commander Ghazali, a former manager of Pakistan’s cricket team. He asked me to come and sit in the car parked outside my house. As I got into the volkswagen, I saw a nice looking boy on the wheels. It was Mir Shakil ur Rehman. He was very excited as he had managed to get the Accounting paper “OUT”. So I asked what then was the problem?  “I don’t know how to solve it”, was the answer. I hope the readers get a picture.

I believe, Shakil has now moved to Dubai with his family and does not even live in Pakistan. I wonder if such people, who did not have the ability to even cheat in an exam and do not even live in Pakistan despite making so much money here, would have even bothered to provide some elementary training in journalism and its basic standards to the members of their staff. It seem not.

Immediately from reading the title I began to laugh out loud. Why would the Supreme Court’s ‘resolve’ unnerve the USA? Only recently we were being told that the USA had abandoned Zardari, now the US is trying to protect him from the judiciary? Which is it?

Of course, it is no surprise that Ansar gets this confused. He also confuses quite a bit about the Americans. Let’s examine what he writes in his article:

Contrary to what the US media writes about the Pakistani rulers and the widely respected judiciary, the US takes pride in the independence of its judiciary that has not only refused to accept the question of immunity in the case of President Clinton but also did the same in the case of President Nixon.

It was primarily the US media that forced Nixon to resign without being tried or impeached. The US media also ignores the role of Washington and London in the introduction of the widely condemned NRO, which was promulgated to close down corruption cases against a select class of politicians, bureaucrats and past rulers including the incumbent president of Pakistan.

Where to begin? First, Nixon was not forced to resign by the American Supreme Court or the American media. Rather, he chose to resign when he understood that the parliament was going to impeach him. When Nixon knew that he did not have the political support to withstand a vote of impeachment in parliament, he resigned.

Mr. Nixon said he decided he must resign when he concluded that he no longer had “a strong enough political base in the Congress” to make it possible for him to complete his term of office.

Compare this to Clinton, who actually was impeached. But even though he was impeached, he was not removed from office. Again, too, this was a decision by the parliament, not the judiciary or the media.

The first vote was 228 to 206 in favour of impeaching President Clinton for perjury in front of a grand jury. Congressmen also passed another charge on obstruction of justice by 221 to 212.

However, he will not yet be removed from office.

So, we have shown that Ansar is wrong about the US impeachment of Nixon and Clinton. What else is he wrong about?

Interestingly, he is wrong about the NRO and the US. Mr. Abbasi says, “One wonders if the US media would allow the introduction of an NRO-like legislation in its own country.” Actually, the USA did just this after its civil war. The “Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction,” gave the President the “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

Mr. Abbasi, you must wonder no longer. I have done your research for you and answered your question. You may thank me at a later time.

Not only was Mr. Abbasi wrong about this, but in his own newspaper yesterday, Mr. Shafqat Mahmood remembered history a little bit differently than Ansar might want to admit: “The media welcomed the NRO…” Perhaps Ansar just had a bad memory that day.

Ansar goes on and on with a conspiracy theory about how the US media is being dictated to from Pakistan’s Embassy in Washington. This is ridiculous fantasy. Look at some of the many stories about Pakistan in the American media. Pakistan: A Mounting Problem for Obama, Pakistan attorney general quits amid graft dispute.  Was this dictated by the Embassy also?

Even the Time article that Ansar takes great pains to point out quotes an unnamed PPP leader also quotes an unnamed source from the Supreme Court that supports the Chief Justice.

On the contrary, says a legal expert at the Supreme Court and Chaudhry associate speaking on condition of anonymity, the conflict is caused by the “government [wanting] a chief justice and court which is compliant, not independent.”

Mr. Abbasi does not tell his readers this, though, instead leading many unsuspecting people to believe that the Time article is biased when it is clearly not. Why the dishonesty and hypocrisy?

Now let’s look at Mr. Abbasi’s own newspaper, which on the same day published an article by Shafqat Mahmood that points out that the judiciary has become controversial because of its actions.

There is no better example of this than the perceptions regarding Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the judiciary. On March 9, 2007, Mr Chaudhry became a media and public hero. This happened because of the perception that Musharraf dismissed him illegally and then mistreated him and his family.

Thus began the lawyers’ and people’s campaign for an independent judiciary. This was not individual adulation, although it seemed so. The chief justice symbolised society’s protest against a wrong done. And the lawyers who were in the forefront of the struggle were champions of liberty and freedom.

Fast-forward to 2010. There are increasing voices in the media that the superior judiciary is transgressing its mandate and at times behaving like a political institution. By frequently visiting the bars, it seems to be cultivating lawyers and often senior advocates and bar officeholders speak on its behalf.

Serious transgressions by lawyers are also ignored. For a lawyer to slap a judge and for the superior judiciary to arrange a rapprochement is just not right. This man should have been behind bars.

But congratulatory sounds emanating from all levels of the judiciary indicate as if a great conclusion to the crisis has been arrived at. Earlier, too, the judiciary had ignored lawyers beating up policemen and media representatives.

This is not about the NRO or Asif Zardari. The media welcomed the NRO, and Asif Zardari does not pass the bar of morality as far as society is concerned. The problem is that the PPP’s charge of one-sided accountability is beginning to get resonance. And the language and attitude being shown in open court by the judges is creating a backlash.

Was The News under the influence of some vast conspiracy when they published this article? Obviously not this is silly. But notice that Mr. Shafqat Mahmood’s article appears on the opinion page, while Mr. Ansar Abbasi’s column appears as “news analysis.” Now who is showing some bias?

Mr. Abbasi has the cheek to criticize Time for quoting an unnamed PPP leader, but even in his same article Ansar Abbasi quotes an unnamed, “credible source in the Pakistan embassy in Washington.” Why the hypocrisy Mr. Abbasi?

Here is the point: There are articles in the international press – not only in the USA, but around the entire world, that are critical of the judiciary. There are also some that are praising the judiciary. This is also true at home. Why? Because different people have different opinions.

It is silly to suggest that there is some PPP ability to dictate to the international media. If this were the case, why can’t they even control the media at home? It is sad to see a journalist of Mr. Abbasi’s career level making such ridiculous claims.

Mr. Abbasi, I beg of you, please learn to check your facts. Learn to tell the truth. Learn to present an unbiased analysis. At a minimum, learn to put your opinion on the opinion page. You must learn to learn. Otherwise, you will continue to write pieces that are “flawed, based on half-truths, highly biased and far from the facts.” And we all know how much you hate that!

The article, by Sabir Shah, claims that:

“…lawmakers in every country of the world are required to have crime-free life history in order to qualify as members of legislative houses or even after they manage to get elected to the houses.”

This is incorrect. In fact, it was easily found to be wrong with a simple Google search. I did a Google search for the phrase ‘legislators with criminal records’ and found that in India, ”As many as 125 candidates with criminal records have won in assembly elections of five states that have just concluded, says a study conducted by the National Election Watch (NEW).” In the USA, there are many legislators who have served with criminal records. Actually, according to Article 1 Section 6 of the American constitution grants immunity to legislators while they are in attendance to the Congress.

They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

While there are certainly measures in many nations to remove from office individuals who commit high crimes such as treason or murder, it is not true that any criminal conviction will disqualify individuals from the legislature. More to the point, while “character” often makes up a qualification for holding office in many nations, what defines “character” differs greatly.

For example, the constitution of Saudi Arabia Says in Article 5 that “Rule passes to the sons of the founding King…the most upright among them is to receive allegiance…” This not only makes character an issue, but it also makes character comparative. That is, one of the sons will gain power no matter what (obviously, as it is a monarchy) – but that good character only matters in relation to the other sons. So, it is not necessarily a matter of the most righteous but could be the least bad! This is not the case, but it does show how these matters of character are very different from nation to nation and must be considered as such.

The News article is particularly curious as it is not only factually questionable, it seems to serve an ambiguous lesson. In other words, what is the point of this article? It is easy to assume that it is a thinly veiled swipe at NRO beneficiaries. Perhaps it is an article better published on the opinion page. First, though, the reporter should probably check his facts.