The discussion about the situation in Balochistan shows no signs of letting up, and we should seize the opportunity to apologise for past mistakes and correct our course so that all Pakistani citizens are afforded their rights. As I have written already this month, a sustainable solution can only come as the result of the democratic political process and not political point scoring – this means not using it as an excuse for establishment bashing, but not using it as a whitewash either.

For example, Ahmed Quraishi argues that the APC should ignore any mistakes made by security forces and instead use the opportunity to create a forum for BLA bashing. As usual, Ahmed Quraishi misses the point completely and even contradicts himself as he does so.

Responding to the bill introduced in the US Congress, Ahmed says “governance in our southwestern province is a domestic issue”. This is true, of course, but human rights are not domestic issues. Just as recognising the rights of Palestinians is not limited to people who live in Palestine or Israel, recognising the rights of Baloch should not be limited to Pakistanis only. This doesn’t excuse the inappropriateness of Dana Rohrabacher’s actions, but it doesn’t mean that we should ignore the situation in Balochistan either.

Ironically, a few paragraphs after declaring Balochistan a domestic issue, the self-appointed defender of Pakistan’s sovereignty actually requests the CIA to send its agents into Balochistan to fight a covert war on our own citizens.

[America] could start by designating the BLA a terrorist group and ordering the CIA to cooperate with Pakistan in eliminating its terror bases in US-controlled Afghanistan.

That’s right. Brig. Ahmed Quraishi (Ghairat Brigade, Sovereignty Division) is requesting the CIA to send assassins to kill Pakistani citizens. Don’t worry, though, he flip-flops again later.

[APC] should take a clear position on rejecting foreign interference in domestic issues. It should outlaw individuals cooperating with foreign governments and spy agencies under the pretext of rights and grievances.

We don’t need CIA agents in Balochistan killing BLA members. We don’t need to escalate the conflict at all – we need to end it. To do this, the APC needs to openly address the concerns and frustrations of the common man in Balochistan whose only desire is to live and work peacefully with his family without the threats from separatist militants or overzealous security forces.

Ahmed Quraishi wants to pretend like security forces never cross the line, as if we had a military made up of angels and not men. A year ago I wrote about how real love requires us to face the imperfections of the ones we love so that we can help them improve. I have said it many times – it is your friends who tell you when there is food in your teeth. It is your enemies who let you walk around look foolish. There is nothing wrong with the APC taking up the issue of abuses by security forces so long as it is done in a fair and constructive manner and not a ‘witch hunt’.

The military is strong enough to take criticism as long as it is fair and constructive. It is the military itself that has brought Brig. Ali Khan to book for ties to extremist groups, and working together with the support of the APC they can also stop any excesses carried out in Balochistan also. That isn’t an attack on the military, it’s supporting it. And it’s the only way to defend both Baloch rights and Pakistani sovereignty – which is real patriotism.

American Congressman Dana Rohrabacher sent sparks flying when he touched the live wire of Balochistan by tabling a bill in the US Congress supporting Baloch separatism. The entire government displayed a showing of unity by responding strongly to the tabling of a bill in the US Congress supporting Balochistan separatists. PM Gilani slammed the bill, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar termed it a violation of UN charter, and the Embassy in Washington issued a strongly worded statement. By responding strongly, is the government turning a blind eye to the situation in Balochistan? Actually, I think it might not be the government that is acting blindly.

Some have questioned whether the government should have responded so strongly when clearly there are problems in Balochistan that need to be addressed. But let me offer another way of looking at it – the government has to respond to the perception of American interference if the issues of Baloch rights can be properly addressed.

Pakistan is not a monolithic country. Just as we have a diversity of languages, ethnicities and religions, we also have a very diverse political makeup. While some are complaining that the government has responded too harshly, there are others who think that the only way to deal with Balochistan is to pretend like there are no legitimate complaints and that it is all part of a Hindu-Zionist conspiracy to destabilise the country and therefore should be dealt with through sheer force and intimidation. This is the same attitude that pushed the Bengalis past the point of no return in 1971, and it is a mistake that should not be repeated.

If the issues of Baloch rights is going to be settled properly and senseless bloodshed finally ended, it will have to be done through the democratic political process. In order for that to happen, parliamentarians and government officials must have the political space required to enact necessary reforms. Dana Rohrabacher reduced that space and in doing so actually hurt the cause for justice in Balochistan.

We don’t live in the world as we might wish it to be, we live in the world as it is. And in the wold as it is, actions of the US are seen as very suspect. This goes back to the 1953 CIA sponsored coup in Iran that overthrew a democratic government and has been reinforced by American foreign policy mistakes many times since. That isn’t anti-Americanism, it’s history. There’s a lot of good that America has done, too – so just as we should not be reduced to our own policy mistakes, neither should the Americans.

But in the world as it is, it is also a fact of life that when an American Congressman tables a resolution supporting Baloch separatism, many very loud and influential voices will point to this as evidence of a foreign conspiracy to break up Pakistan. They will use it to marginalise legitimate Baloch leaders and to dismiss legitimate complaints. The iron fist will be hardened, and the political space required for a political solution will shrink.

And it’s not only Pakistani politics that should be considered here.

Is Dana Rohrabacher really unable to sleep because of the situation in Balochistan? Maybe. Watching the hearing online, though, I couldn’t help but notice that the Congressman didn’t even know how to pronounce the name of the province that he was so concerned about. I also noticed that much of the conversation centered not on actual Baloch rights, but whether this was a good excuse to cut all aid to Pakistan.

With our own political circus in fine form, it is easy to forget that other countries also play politics for a domestic gallery also. I have been informed that Mr Rohrabacher is not being challenged for his seat and that the Congressman Brad Sherman is a Democrat, therefore they cannot be playing politics. But this is silly. As a Republican, Rohrabacher is going to want to make President Obama look like he is not being hard enough on Pakistan. As a Democrat, Brad Sherman is going to want to act tough against Pakistan.

Of course, maybe the Congressmen have heard about atrocities in Balochistan (there’s no denying that there have been some) and were troubled by what they heard. Again, given the benefit of doubt that the Congressmen are truly troubled by the situation in Balochistan (as we all are) we have to ask how this bill could possibly serve to advance Baloch rights. As I have shown, it actually does the opposite.

Dana Rohrabacher can table as many bills in the US Congress as he wants to, but they will not pave a path to peace and justice in Balochistan. That path only exists in Majlis-e-Shura, and in order to move down that path, the elected representatives of the people must have the political space to enact reforms. Unfortunately, thanks to Dana Rohrabacher, that space just got smaller.

The Supreme Court’s decision to formally indict the Prime Minister on charges of contempt on Monday revolves around the question of presidential immunity outlined in Article 248 of the constitution, and yet this important fact seems to have been all but ignored in the discussion of charges against the PM as the court and the media prefer to discussion whether or not the PM is disobeying the court’s order. Before a decision can be made on the wisdom of not writing the court’s desired letter, though, a thorough review of the Supreme Court’s order to write the letter must be undertaken.

When the government responded to the court’s order by explaining that Article 248 prevented them from pursuing cases against the president while he is in office, the first argument that the president’s opponents made was that he only enjoyed “qualified immunity” for actions taken in the course of his official duties. Article 248 seems pretty clear about granting the president absolute immunity, though – “No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or a Governor in any court during his term of office.” Opponents then changed their argument to say that the constitution gives him immunity in Pakistan, but not in foreign courts. Of course, this is wrong, too. Article 248 says very plainly “in any court”, not “any Pakistani court”. This then moved the Chief Justice to make the bizarre claim that the president can’t claim immunity based on what the constitution says, that he has to come and beg His Lordship to grant it. Zardari haters then began claiming that Article 248 required “interpretation”.

Justice Ali Nawaz Chowhan, an International Judge of the United Nations at The Hague, Permanent Judge of the Lahore High Court, a visiting Professor and Co-Chairman of Unesco Appeal (Judicial) Board has explained that such a suggestion is prima facie silly – the language of the constitution is plain and does not require interpretation.

Despite the plain language of the constitution, the Chief Justice has ordered the Prime Minister to write a letter to the Swiss authorities requesting that corruption cases be opened against the president – an act that is clearly against the constitution. This puts the PM in a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ situation.

Rather than disobey the constitution, the PM is following the recommendation of his legal advisors and not writing the letter. For disobeying the Court’s order, he has been charged with contempt. The Prime Minister said that if he is convicted, he will follow the law and step down. Reportedly the government has already prepared for this scenario.

Not so fast.

Article 248 has been widely discussed as the reason why the PM can’t write the letter to the Swiss authorities, but what hasn’t been discussed is the issue of “qualified immunity” for the Prime Minister himself.

Section 1 of Article 248 says:

The President, a Governor, the Prime Minister, a Federal Minister, a Minister of State, the Chief Minister and a Provincial Minister shall not he answerable to any court for the exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions

It names the Prime Minister specifically, and grants him qualified immunity for acts and performance of his office. This is not the same as the complete immunity granted to the president in Sections 2, 3, and 4 – it is the normal immunity granted to government officials that allows them to do their jobs without having the second-guess every act they take. What does that have to do with this case?

If the Supreme Court decides to punish the Prime Minister for not carrying out an order that the law ministry advised was unconstitutional, they will be in violation of Section 1 of Article 248. More worrisome, the court will be setting a dangerous precedent – no longer will government officials be able to rely on the plain language of the law nor the advice of their legal counsel. Every decision taken will have to first be cleared by the Supreme Court, otherwise the officials will never know if any action will result in them being hauled to dock and packed off to jail. That’s not what is supposed to happen in a court of law, that’s what happens in a royal court.

Dick Solomon, Tara Sonenshine, Steven Hadley, the Board at USIP, Moeed Yusuf, and the Pakistan Program Team at USIP Good morning and thank you for giving me the opportunity to address key members of the American policy community assembled here in Washington.

Pakistan’s commitment to the empowerment of women and minorities, and all vulnerable communities is the first place to start any conversation as well as initiative against extremism, because it is a defining contest, among so many others in any plural, diverse society. It is also really rooted in two fundamentals: One, there can be no prosperous, plural, progressive Pakistan at peace with itself and its neighbours if our policies don’t privilege the protection and empowerment of vulnerable groups. Second, this is the stated roadmap laid out by the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah at his most important policy address to the new constituent assembly of Pakistan. It is also a core value of the PPP policy agenda, important to President Zardari, who appointed me to this post, and Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed. She embraced her death fighting for the politics of inclusion, which in our current context, includes taking on the full spectrum of extremists, militants and terrorists, often in one continuum. When it comes to advancing an extremist agenda, this blurring of lines between all three categories, and a multiplication of their strength, often at tactical, political and strategic levels, is a dynamic that often dilutes the force of political as well as state responses.

But this is not an existential or state identity crisis, in my view, neither is this a permanent condition. No government, or even military, can take on such a toxic and lethal combination in one go. The extremists find succor among terrorists to advance their agenda, and civil society and political majorities of the kind that Islamabad votes in need time and capacity to turn back this tide. Pakistan votes in progressive political parties by and large, which if empowered over time, can and must reverse the advances that the extremist idiom and militant muscle has made since Pakistan allied with the US against the war against Communism in Afghanistan.

You will hear me say this again and again in Washington: Pakistan has no shortage of commitment on the effort against extremism, militancy or terrorism today. It is impossible to open all fronts at one time, especially given the conflict in Afghanistan constantly spilling over into Pakistan both twenty years ago, and once again today. So this is a capacity issue as much as a sequencing challenge, and we often feel we are fighting this long battle with one hand tied behind our backs.

At the same time, I am happy to say that we are seeing the first democratic government in Pakistan in over three decades coming close to completing its tenure. This is no small achievement. The Pakistan parliament was able to pass its 20th amendment with near unanimity. This amendment is a singular milestone in our advance towards democracy, as it will set the ground-rules for a truly independent election commission. A level playing field in any electoral contest will add substantial weight and legitimacy to the vote now, and we hope it will draw more citizens in as stakeholders in reform and accountability. An lRl poll tells me that 59% of people now feel that voting gives them the chance to influence decision-making in Pakistan. This is a vital statistic, a bellwether for the path Pakistan is headed on. At this point let me also add, that Pakistan is on course to conduct its Senate polls on March 2nd, 2012, and general elections in its first peaceful and constitutional transfer of power since the 1970s.

After long non-democratic interludes, all institutions of government are seeking a difficult but crucial equilibrium. We see this as a pivotal and often painful transition to sustainable democracy, where the civilian government stands committed to the rule of law and respect for the court. For the first time in the history of Pakistan, the Prime Minister has appeared in the Supreme Court twice, with exemplary confidence with a view to upholding the supremacy of the law.

We are aware that, in the final analysis, a nation’s strength stems from the strength of its institutions and the stake its citizens have in its prosperity. While fighting a full-fledged war against the forces of terrorism and extremism, and coping with millions of dislocated persons, both from disasters as well as operations within Pakistan and from Afghanistan, we have made significant strides in strengthening our federation. Despite critical infrastructure and resource deficits we have invested in deepening fundamental freedoms for the media and judiciary. We have re-allocated long contested resources by consensus in a National Finance Commission award, and are in the process of building the capacity of our provinces which have seen power devolved to them in great historic constitutional strides through our 18th Amendment. Governance remains a challenge with capacity and resource deficits. So does the provision of jobs and skilled human capital in the absence of new opportunities that have not replaced losses in an economy hit by conflict, losses worth 78 billion dollars (not to mention road infrastructure losses worth 122 billion dollars). We realize that we need to strive harder and work faster to deliver on reform promises made by our iconic leader, the late Benazir Bhutto, who gave her life fighting against terrorism.

But Pakistan today is not just about bombs and bullets. Far from it. We are the sixth most populous country in the world, with the largest youth cohort anywhere. Every fortieth person in the world is a Pakistani, in the most urbanized country in South Asia, but all are not intolerant, as tolerance and respect for plural identities is the norm. The outliers have captured street space and militant resource, not to mention media attention. Today the Pakistan story is also about its vast multiplicity of young musicians in the largest pop franchises in South Asia, its resilience in the face of natural calamity, its creativity in art, media, telecommunications, fashion weeks and literature festivals, but equally importantly, about the scale and complexity of ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity we negotiate every day. We boast high rates of political participation and leadership for women and are confident that a slew of recent landmark laws on women’s empowerment too will build serious equities in advancing a progressive agenda. Pakistan’s minorities remain on every serious leader’s minds in the extremist context we navigate every day, and we remain committed to building coalitions with civil society and political actors that seek common ground in the important but challenging task of protecting and empowering minorities. We have already rebuilt some of the churches and temples that Pakistan’s leaders have promised to protect, but we recognize that the protection of religious freedoms have a long road ahead in the region.

As far as Pakistan’s relations with the US is concerned, first of all, I would say that a re set was needed for a number of very good reasons. Some of these were structural, while some of the famous “trust deficit” gaps were informed by a profound cognitive, and even institutional, disconnect Many of the gaps can be mitigated, if we step back, give pause and re-construct. But on the strategic end, this relationship has been burdened with too many expectations, and invested with an inordinately high wattage of emotion. The marriage metaphor for instance, never seems to go away, with its implicit embrace of love and hate, life, death and in fact, divorce, which we seek to avoid. Given the state of strategic flux our region faces at a time of unprecedented challenges, and the responsibilities such transitions bring with it, this is too important and too sensitive a relationship to carry this volume and scale of unregulated hyperbole. The good news is that many of us on both sides think it is time that this relationship matured into a more consistent, stable and transparent equation, with weight given to mutual respect, but once again that would be the subject best reserved right now for our parliament to decide.

I see that in your invite you mention the attack on Pakistani soldiers at Mohmand as a cut-off date for our broader bilateral engagement, but I would take this opportunity to say that the tragedy at Mohmand really served as an end-line trigger that called for a fundamental re-set. It was indeed shocking for the Pakistani nation to see the flag-draped bodies of 24 soldiers martyred in the line of active duty on the international border with Afghanistan, at the hands of our allies. In the absence of an immediate apology, this did cause the Pakistan street to erupt with questions about the egregious asymmetry in the calculus of comparative sacrifice between our two nations in terms of blood and treasure. So while the incident left a strong mark on the Pakistani psyche, spurring a re-think of the modalities of how we had been working together, it was not the sole motive for the Pakistani call for a re-think. As we all know, this event itself came on the heels of a long line of bilateral catastrophes in 2011. As far as this bilateral equation is concerned, as with all national security challenges, we are now on a road where we speak as one united government, where the military defends our borders, and the civilian leadership stands up for its soldiers, just as strongly and clearly as your leadership does for its military in the United States.

For Pakistanis, the notion of territorial sovereignty dominates public space today in important ways, simply because the symbol of its subversion is so repeatedly and unfortunately associated with the United State’s growing footprint in Pakistan. However, make no mistake, to us terrorists represent as much a breach of our sovereignty as state-sponsored unilateralism of any kind. You will be happy to hear though, that despite our resource constraints and much damage to Pakistani terrain, the core assets of Al Qaeda have been defeated and destroyed with Pakistani cooperation. I am also encouraged to note that most interlocutors in the US Administration have echoed this view, which gives cause for hope and mutual appreciation.

Our challenge in the days ahead is to not only re-set this relationship in seminal ways so that we avoid being caught in the cross-hairs of a tough conflict in a very tough neighbourhood, but also build on vital gains that can bring more light than heat to any given situation. Among other tangibles, we clearly need a series of codified protocols where episodes stay off the red line radius, and therefore not contingent on the infrastructure of crisis management. The current rules of engagement, if you like, leave this vital relationship too vulnerable to the enemies of peace, as well as to our own gaps in communication. Volatility is the enemy of delivery in any bilateral construct, and I do believe that the divergence in our two narratives can be bridged if we invest in regular exchanges among our two great peoples, who individually build abiding relationships across great gulfs of space and time. Which is why we need to invest in more traffic between our nationals and not just our two governments. But this is not a prescriptive intervention. From our end, the way forward between the countries is a far more substantive conversation that right now is the prerogative of Pakistan’s parliament.

We have cooperated with the US at key moments in our history, but have managed somehow not to overcome the cognitive dissonance that derails the relationship. The negativity that you often see here is partly a function of information deficits on both sides. The media in both countries is very free and like all media, it flashes the bad news in nano seconds while good news everywhere crawls on it belly. So while Pakistan faces down a crippling internal terrorist challenge, the good news just stays on the ground while the flames from the fire make great footage.
The other thing we can both do better on is managing the official public discourse. Public official messaging has to be clearly and unequivocally non-coercive if it is to mean anything, especially in Pakistan. A consistency in our mutual public messaging will go a long way in bridging the static in our cognitive bandwidth. That will give moderates more space to build back better, stronger ties with the US.

As great political and economic shifts take place in the world, I hope that the response to challenges we face together as well as alone will be based on a recognition and evaluation of the possibilities and resources available to us in the realization of shared goals. Critics of a strong US-Pakistan relationship are questioning its viability in both nations, yet I feel we can use this opportunity to re-set our relationship on a clearer, more stable footing, based on public consent and strong mutually articulated goals that are achievable. The United States’ friendship is a pivotal element in our democracy and capacity-building endeavour.

Today Pakistan’s internal terrorism challenge is mostly a function of its location as well as its capacity in the face of high numbered daily casualties, both civilian and military. These casualties have shattered countless homes and families throughout Pakistan, and do not make the headlines anywhere except in Pakistan. Blowback from military operations and anti-terror offensives spur terrorist attacks on girls’ schools, hospitals, hotels, Sufi shrines, police precincts, all intelligence offices, and soldiers on the frontlines. There is no absence of political will or commitment. We are in full overstretch militarily in all the tribal areas on our western border, and with thin deployments from the Afghan side of the border, we face a substantial security threat from insurgents and militants in that area. The terrain is hostile to monitoring, and border indictments need to match our operations from both sides. As it stands, the NATO charter does not even include narcotics policing as a formal roster of duty for its patrols.

I have no intention of bringing a victim narrative to Washington but I do take this opportunity to inform the House that from today our embassy here will be putting out a weekly scorecard on Pakistani casualties sustained in the effort against terrorism. This will pose in sharp contrast, the staggering quantum of casualties sustained by Pakistan, only in human cost, to the losses sustained by the combined strength of our allies in the war next door. This initiative is not intended to vitiate the atmosphere. To the contrary, if anything, this will reduce the knowledge gap about the limits to Pakistani abilities to degrade, defeat and destroy terrorists of all stripes at the same time. And we hope it will bring sobriety to the sometimes vitriolic narrative in certain political quarters, which is a quality we endeavour to inject into the public conversations back in our country about the US as well.

As part of our vision for a secure, plural, democratic and prosperous Pakistan, we are firmly committed to playing a constructive role in promoting peace and stability in our region. I must draw your attention to a positive shift in Pakistan’s foreign policy agenda on two broad salients. One, Pakistan is pursuing a non-intrusive peace offensive in the region. In English, this means broadening and strengthening our relationship with India, which is stepping up to our offers of multiple and sustained conversations. It is our intent to enhance our dialogue with India and to make it productive and result oriented, with the hope that the Kashmir dispute finds just and peaceful resolution. This also very importantly means we are reaching out to Kabul, where our Foreign Minister has recently met all political coalitions, in order to deepen trust and build mutual capacity for stresses the two countries continue to face, as civilian casualties from the conflict in Afghanistan reach their highest number in ten years. At this point I want to clearly state that Pakistan will support a peace process that is Afghan-led and Afghan owned, in real-time practice, not just as a policy platitude. We do not consider Afghanistan our strategic backyard, as many claim we do, but we do have the highest stakes in Afghan stability since we simply cannot afford the blowback from either a civil war there again, nor any other kind of surge into Pakistan, with its long, porous border. Our motives in the region are driven by a legitimate anxiety about the security transition in a post-US drawdown timeline in Afghanistan, certainly not ambition.

We consider Afghanistan our brother, as President Karzai likes to put it, and we continue to host about 3 million refugees that we seek to repatriate with dignity and respect back to their homeland. In a few days we will be hosting a trilateral summit between Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan at the highest level in order to broaden regional stakes in an Afghan-led peace. None of this of course, and I must emphasize this, precludes nor excludes the value of our core engagement so far with the US until 26/11 on all these important issues, but we do have a full spectrum review ending soon, which will roadmap the terms of our renewed cooperation. And that we hope will be very soon. America is right now the principal agent in the security and stability of Afghanistan and the region, and we do not, and certainly cannot disregard that.

Two, Islamabad is also diplomatically stepping up its strategic outreach to the global community, in which Pakistan sees itself as a productive member of a concentric circle of countries, both in our own continent and abroad. This includes engagement with Central Asian countries, with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Russia as well as China. We will of course seek to renew our important relationship with the US by reinvigorating it with new terms of engagement. We hope that by bringing greater clarity, coherence and operational coordination, we can move towards a partnership that is better hardwired for critical metrics of success, such as mutual respect and mutual benefit. We clearly have converging goals in seeking stability in the region, and hope that they can soon be pursued with greater vigor, openness and clarity. Pakistan can no longer make crucial strategic decisions based on one phone call, and I thank all US officials and other interlocutors who have worked so hard to welcome me to Washington and to exercise patience throughout this “strategic pause” in our bilateral engagement.

Lastly, as my key priorities in Washington, in what is really a red-eye job, given our time difference and contemporary predilection for crises, I would like to strengthen and broaden the bilateral relationship, help set it on a firmer, transparent, equitable footing, and play my part in educating the people of both countries to better understand each other. I hope to give particular attention to the large and robust American-Pakistani community in the USA, and to seek their support in advancing mutual goals. The idea that trade insulates a relationship from the caprice of unintended consequences finds particular resonance with me, and my leadership in Pakistan would hope that the embrace of free trade values and conventions by the United States, whom we look to for inspiration and innovation in the great global marketplace will find accommodation for Pakistan’s goods in an enabling trade environment, reducing dependency from the vexing politics of aid.

I would like most of all to be remembered as the envoy who represented the first sustained elected government in many decades, that in the most challenging and exciting transitions to democracy, stayed the course to unite and reconcile our federation despite onerous odds, and anchored this critical bilateral relationship in the solid ground of public consent. American people know the value of power rooted in democracy, and I for one am known for speaking truth to power.

Thank you.

I will admit, it came as no surprise to me, and neither should it come as a surprise to anybody that a senior Tehreek-e-Insaaf representative was present at a rally that had leaders from banned organizations mustering up jingoism and hyper nationalist sentiments in the awam as PTI has been traditionally more aligned with right-wing religious organizations. According to the article:

He has voted with the MMA, a coalition of hardline Islamic parties, in the national assembly. He has also followed the mullahs’ lead on several policy issues – opposing operations against al-Qaida militants in the tribal areas, railing against madrassa reform, and criticising women who participate in mixed-sex road races. But his most famous stand came last May when, brandishing a story in Newsweek magazine about the desecration of the Qur’an at Guantánamo Bay, Khan declared to journalists that Islam was “under attack” – a widely publicised gesture that inflamed sentiment across the Muslim world and sparked a week of riots in neighbouring Afghanistan that killed at least 16 people.

There are also a bunch of other things that Shibil Siddiqi in his article published in November last year talks about with regards to Imran Khan and his deep ties with such right-wing ideology. For example, Khan opposed the Womens’ Protection Bill in 2006 just like MMA and even though he cites the real problem to be in Hudood Ordinance laws, he did not “introduce any amendments to the Bill, sponsor any separate legislation, or even propose a Parliamentary resolution to deal with the Hudood Ordinance”. What is interesting to note is that he has not talked about it since then.

The above cited article also mentions that the same Ejaz Chaudhry present at the Difa-e-Pakistan rally last Sunday was kicked out of Jamat-e-Islami for facing corruption allegations and now in addition to being the senior vice-president of Tehreek-e-Insaf. He is also PTI’s advisor on religious affairs and Imran Khan’s point person in the Punjab along with being in charge of PTI’s youth wing, the Insaf Students Federation. Another article tells us that these activists wear ‘Al-Jihad’ head bands to PTI events which should clearly tell us about the mind set being fed into the youth by PTI attitudes.

Moreover, this is not the first time PTI’s religious advisor has visited or has been linked with banned outfits/personnel. Ejaz Chaudhry was also rumored to be in attendance of SSP (Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan) conference on 15th November last year at Shahadat anniversary of Hazrat Usman Ghani (R.A) at Press Club Lahore.

Add that to dozens of SSP flags regularly seen at PTI rallies and one can see the dots connecting.

Ejaz Chaudhry was also present at the Istehkaam-e-Pakistan rally in May of last year along with Hafiz Saeed, head of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD)and founder of the banned Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) praising Osama Bin Laden calling him a ‘martyr of Islam’ and offering his Namaz-e-Janaaza.

Same Ejaz Chaudhry is a regular visitor and speaker at the ‘Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e-Nubuwwat’ conference, representing PTI. This is the same conference that haunts the Ahmedia community for their beliefs, and has later also celebrated the murder of Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer.

Coming to blasphemy laws, less than a month after Salman Taseer’s murder, Ejaz Chaudhry along with party activists attended a large rally at The Mall in Lahore on January 30th saying that PTI will stand behind the archaic laws and would not allow any changes to it. The blasphemy laws have not been discussed in either the Lahore jalsa on 30th October 2011, or the 25th December 2011 Karachi jalsa of PTI.

Not only that, Imran Khan personally visited Darul-Aloom-Haqqania, the alma mater of Jalal-ud-Din Haqqani and the university nickname ‘University of Jihad’ before his Peshawar Dharna. This is also the same university that the FIA has charged with hatching the Benazir Bhutto assassination plot. Imran Khan also opposed military operations against militant insurgents and al-Qaeda-linked foreign fighters, even in Swat after the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) took over the region back in 2009.

What is irrefutable is that Imran Khan rarely condemns the hateful activities of right-wing extremist groups that are consistently linked with him and his party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf. Shibil Siddiqi in his piece actually mentions that:

“From the bombing of Benzir Bhutto’s reception procession, to the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team, the bombings on Ahmadi congregations or Salman Taseer’s and Shahbaz Bhatti’s assassinations, Imran Khan blames the victims, the government or “foreign elements” only, never the terrorists”.

When asked about PTI’s representation at Difa-e-Pakistan Karachi rally, Imran Khan gave another of the ambiguous answers that he has become famous for: “We did attend the rally and presented our own point of view as it was purely the issue of the defence of Pakistan.” Enough beating around the bush. Its about time Imran Khan and PTI make an explicit distinction as to what is tolerable or not and their stance on religious fundamentalism and/or having chai samosa, halwa pooori or jalebis with representatives of extremist organizations.

It’s a good thing the government decided to put principle before political expediency, though. On Tuesday, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao signaled a change of direction in his country saying that China will not protect the Assad regime.

Ambassador Haroon made a powerful speech at the UN, laying out that while Pakistan does not condone any infringement of Syria’s sovereignty, there is a strong moral point presented in the Arab League draft – the killings must end. As he said, “Nothing succeeds anywhere against a government without external help.”

If we are going to have credibility on the world stage on issues like human rights and democracy in Kashmir, we must be consistent in applying our principles. If we compromise our principles for political expediency, then we have no principles at all.

Justice Qazi Faiz Esa on Thursday expressed anger at the Foreign Office’s inability to pursue the matter of the record of Blackberry messages between Husain Haqqani and Mansoor Ijaz with the Canadian High Commission in Pakistan.

This struck me as odd for a couple of reasons. First of all, the Foreign Office actually did pursue the matter of the record of Blackberry messages between Husain Haqqani and Mansoor Ijaz with the Canadian High Commission in Pakistan. The Canadian High Commission, being familiar with Canadian privacy law, told the FO that there was nothing they could do.

Justice Faiz Esa thinks the FO is “hampering the inquiry” because they haven’t created an international incident over the issue. The commission went on to complain that the Blackberry company, being a Canadian company, is following Canadian law. According to the judicial commission, “The Blackberry company is operating in Pakistan and they also have some obligations here for smooth functioning”. It is not hard to read such a statement as a threat – either provide us with the data or we will block your access to operate in Pakistan.

But even if the Canadian High Commission decided to become rogue and force a company to violate the law, what would be the point? Even Mansoor Ijaz himself says that Blackberry doesn’t have anything new data.

The reality is that what we found out from BlackBerry was not that; literally the data didn’t exist that we thought existed. Meaning, the chat, the actual lines of the chat exchanges is not stored by BlackBerry on their servers. What they store to some extent is, like a telephone log, here is the PIN number that communicated with another PIN number and here is the date and time which they did that.

The most anyone could prove is that Husain Haqqani had BBM chats with Mansoor Ijaz – something he has never denied. But none of the chat transcripts that Mansoor Ijaz has submitted say anything about a memo. The only way to read those chats as suggesting Haqqani had anything to do with Mansoor Ijaz’s memo is if someone has already told you how to interpret them before hand.

In many ways, the memogate case is similar to another case that is causing frustration to Our Lords on the bench. The Supreme Court continues to distract the government from real issues like poverty,

In the Swiss case, the Swiss have also said that they cannot reopen the case even if asked because the law says that the president benefits from immunity while in office.

A Swiss prosecutor said Wednesday that it would be impossible to reopen a money laundering case in Switzerland against Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari since he benefits from immunity as a head of state.

Nevermind what the constitution or the Swiss themselves clearly say, the Supreme Court has threatened the Prime Minister with jail if he does not write a letter requesting the Swiss to open cases against the president.

And even if everyone decided to ignore the law, what would be the point? The Swiss prosecutor said four years ago when the case was closed that there was not enough evidence to bring Zardari to trial.

On August 26, 2008, Swiss judicial authorities closed the money-laundering case against Zardari and released $60 million frozen in Swiss accounts over the past decade.

Daniel Zappelli, Geneva’s chief prosecutor, said he had no evidence to bring Zardari to trial.

Foreign respect for the notion of ‘rule of law’ seems to have thoroughly confused and frustrated Our Lords. Rather than taking up any of the other countless cases that affect the lives of ordinary Pakistanis, the judiciary continues to waste the national treasury on what increasingly look like witch hunts. Perhaps the judges believe that these cases are giving them more respect and power. But what would really give the court the respect of the people would be to address the issues that affect everyday Pakistanis and leave political vendettas to the politicians.

-Deng Xiaoping
1984 speech to the Communist Party’s Central Advisory Commission

The day before the American hearing, an informal debate on Balochistan situation took place at the National Assembly, and several MNAs gave passionate statements about the situation.

“A volcano is active in Balochistan and can explode anytime,” warned Gul Mohammad Jhakrani, a ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) lawmaker who was of the view that Balochistan had been ruled by the Inspector General Frontier Constabulary instead of civilian government.

“The FC is the ‘de facto master’ of Balochistan while on the contrary the chief minister seems helpless to control the provincial affairs,” he said, adding that ‘some elements’ were deliberately creating law and order situation in the province which he warned might create another “Bangladesh” if problems of Baloch people were not addressed seriously.

Unfortunately, attendance at this important discussion was disturbingly low. Only 54 members were present at the start and the number was reduced to 48 when the sitting was adjourned. This is turning a blind eye to an important issue of national security.

Watching the online video of the American hearing on Balochistan, I was not surprised by comments that seemed, well, crazy. This is to be expected. What struck me was seeing the attendance at the event. In addition to the American Congressmen present on the panel, there were no less than five official speakers who were allowed to give statements including Christine Fair (who I have criticised in the past but actually gave one of the more thoughtful statements) and Pakistan Director Human Rights Watch Ali Dayan Hasan.

When the cameras showed the speakers, I could see behind them a room filled with Pakistani faces. This made me think, why should we have to go to Washington to have an open discussion about such important issues at home.

Amnesty International has released a new report highlighting the danger of ignoring the growing security threat in Balochistan. As their report notes, this is not a one-sided security threat but the combination of military abuses, armed Baloch groups targeting civilians, militant groups, sectarian groups, and criminal gangs.

“Balochistan is one of the most militarised regions of Pakistan, with the military, paramilitary Frontier Corp and levies, and police stationed across this vast province,” the Amnesty briefing said. “Despite this presence, or perhaps because of it, Balochistan is one of the most dangerous parts of Pakistan, with armed groups affiliated with the state, sectarian armed groups, armed groups hostile to the state, and criminal gangs operating with near complete impunity,” noted the briefing paper.

It warned that the province is “gradually heading to a state of perpetual conflict that threatens stability not only in Pakistan but also in the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan and Iran, and throughout the region”.

Just as the threat is internal, though, so is the solution. By raising the issue in National Assembly, MNAs like Gul Mohammad Jhakrani, Humayun Aziz Kurd, Farahnaz Ispahani, and Abdul Qadir Baloch are leading the way towards peace.

Pakistan researcher at Amnesty International Mustafa Qadri Tweeted on Wednesday, ‘International attention of Balochistan is welcome but must not be used for selfish point scoring. This is a matter of justice not politics.’ It should be noted that the MNAs who addressed the issue in parliament were from coalition and opposition parties also. Human rights is not a political issue. Neither should the situation in Balochistan be considered one.

Over the weekend, a UN resolution against the regime was defeated when it was vetoed by Russia and China. The UN resolution backed by the West was not a Western plan for imperialism, it was supporting a plan dictated by the Arab league – Muslim countries that know very intimately the history of Western colonialism and meddling. It should be noted that Pakistan supported the resolution alongside the Americans.

In another Muslim country, another attempt to turn back the tide of democratic change is taking place. In Egypt, the first free elections in decades allowed the people to elect their own leaders and even gave religious parties the opportunity to openly enter politics. Unfortunately, the military has been dragging its feet in letting go of power, and pro-democracy protestors have taken to the streets only to be attacked by their own military.

When religious parties won Egypt’s elections, many expected the Americans to step in and support the military in an anti-Islamic crackdown. But something funny happened. Instead of supporting the military against the religious parties as they had done in the past, the Americans supported the Egyptian people. Egypt’s military has reacted by arresting Americans working for pro-democracy NGOs.

These stories are fascinating to me because they suggest the possibility of a revolutionary change in the direction of world history. Muslim political history went wildly off course in 1953 when the CIA overthrew the democratic government of Iran. Throughout the Cold War, the nation that supposedly supported democracy actually supported vicious dictators in Muslim countries in an effort to ‘contain’ communism.

American support for dictators resulted in suffering across the Muslim world. After a while, it resulted in suffering across the West also. Jihadi groups like al Qaeda struck out against Western countries for their support of the illegitimate regimes that they believed were preventing them from creating a new Khilafat across the Middle East. The West responded to these attacks by supporting the illegitimate regimes even more, creating even more resentment among the people.

Despite the West’s fears, a new jihadi Khilafat was never going to rise up. Majority of Muslims didn’t want to get rid of dictators in military uniforms only to replace them with dictators wearing clerical robes. The people wanted to be left alone to rule themselves according to their own laws and their own customs. They wanted the democracy that was taking root in 1953 before history went wildly off course.

The Arab Spring, then, was inevitable. What was not known was how the West would react. Would they repeat their past behaviour and support illegitimate regimes in a Quixotic quest for ‘stability’? Or would they return to their supposed principles and support the wishes of the people? Recent events provide real reason to hope that the answer is, finally, a return to principles and the support of the people.

History takes a long time to unfold. In the past, the West and especially America has made policies based on short-term thinking. Though it may seem strange, American support for dictators in the Middle East was based on the same short-term thinking as their support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. But this short-term strategy brought long-term problems. Just as it takes 100 lies to tell 1 lie, so it takes 100 short-term policies to enforce 1 short-term policy.

Today, the Americans are throwing their weight behind Arab League plans for a political transition in Syria, and they are supporting the democratic elections in Egypt even after those elections returned a victory for the religious parties. These decisions might not be in the short-term best interests of American policy, but they could signal the turning of the tide away from short-term thinking to long-term thinking by the world’s super power. If this is the case, we could see 2012 as the year not of an Arab spring, but a global democratic spring.

Talk of ‘carrots and sticks’ is often used when discussing American attempts to influence Pakistan’s foreign policy. We have always considered our own carrots to be our willingness to help the Americans in Afghanistan or against India when they were with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But what now? Today we have an opportunity to increase our influence with the ‘carrot and stick’ of our support for them in return for their support for Muslim democracy.

We can bring the Taliban to the table in Afghanistan and help negotiate an end to the war that allows the Americans to leave without losing their pride. In return, we should ask not for aid or weapons, but for continued American support for democracy in Syria, Egypt, and other Muslim countries.

Experts debate what shared interests Pakistan and America could possibly have. If the Americans are serious about turning over a new leaf and supporting Muslim democracy, that is certainly one shared interest that our countries share. And it’s not a bad starting point for developing a relationship based on mutual respect that Ambassador Sherry Rehman spoke about recently. More importantly, though, we have the opportunity to help put history back on track and serve our proper role as a guide for democracy in the Muslim world.