Imran Khan - The Revolutionist: 06/06/12

WASHINGTON - The US intends to keep between 10,000 to 15,000 counter-terrorism troops in Afghanistan, much beyond its troops drawdown in 2014, which could cross over into Pakistan in case of crisis, a top Obama aide had warned Pakistan Army Chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani.

A top Obama aide conveyed this to the Pakistan Army Chief at a secret meeting in Abu Dhabi last October in a bid to spur Pakistan to take strong action against the Haqqani network, a book has claimed.

But the threat didn't appear to have made the desired impact, according to the book 'Confront and Conceal' by the New York Times journalist David
Sanger which hit the stands on Tuesday.

The book depicts President Barack Obama's crisis moments soon after taking over the mantle from George Bush. Kayani refused to give any guarantee of taking action against Haqqani network, as demanded by the Obama Administration.
The details of a meeting between a three-member presidential delegation led by the National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, and Kayani at a secret location in Abu Dhabi have been made public for the first time.
Donilon was accompanied by Mark Grossman, the Special US Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Douglas Lute, Obama's top adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"Donilon had sent ahead a document laying out the long-term American strategy, including a plan to keep somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 American counterterrorism troops in Afghanistan, mostly at Bagram Airfield, a large base just outside Kabul, to protect the interests of the US in the region."
"His meaning was clear: the United States would remain, and its troops would be ready to go over the Pakistani border if they needed to," Sanger writes in his book.
The three Americans told Kayani they had incriminating evidence about the latest two bold attacks against Americans in Afghanistan, the journalist wrote, but noted that even this did not have any impact on Kayani.
Kayani sought assurance from the US that there would be no repeat of raid like the one that killed Osama bin Laden, which according to him violated the sovereignty of Pakistan.
"We will undertake whatever steps we need to protect our forces," Donilon said. "We would prefer to act jointly. But if you refuse.... we will come in and do what we have to do."

"He did not need to add that the American model of success in this regard was Abbottabad, where seventy commandos infiltrated Pakistani airspace, landed forty miles from the Pakistani capital, killed bin Laden and his few protectors, and swept up his computers all without setting off Pakistan's defences," the book said.

The unspoken message was, 'We can do it again'. "Kayani took another drag on the cigarette and blew a little more smoke." Donilon, Lute, and Grossman knew what that meant.
"The Pakistanis had no intention of turning over or taking on the Haqqani network it was their insurance policy for the moment when the Americans would inevitably leave," the book said.
"And when Donilon, Lute, and Grossman got home a seventeen-hour flight aboard a military jet? they knew their first stop: the dry cleaners. Getting the fumes out of their suits would be easy enough.
"Detoxifying the American relationship with Pakistan would be much more difficult," it said reflecting the relationship between the two countries.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/news/1692/

PTI defends change in constitution,The News has more questions

This refers to the latest report of Mr Umar Cheema on PTI, published in The News. The grand conclusions reached on flimsy evidence, the slants and innuendos colouring the story, and morphing personal conduct of individuals into party bashing is clearly not fair play.

In his latest report, Mr Cheema implies that radical changes in the party constitution “would grant immunity to the office bearers facing corruption charges,” etc etc. And what is the radical change that Mr Cheema is referring to? That the earlier version of the constitution while prescribing qualifications for party office bearers says that a person is eligible “who has not been convicted or charged with an offence of moral turpitude”. This has been changed to “who has not been convicted of an offence of moral turpitude”.

Mr Cheema seems to think that by removing the word ‘charged’ a huge door has been opened for corrupt individuals. This is strange because all that has been done is to bring the party constitution in line with the settled principle of law that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Why is this such a strong legal principle? Because, it is the easiest thing in the world to accuse someone; The real test is to back up the accusation with evidence. And if this is not available then accusation itself becomes meaningless.

Also unfortunately, given the predominant culture in Pakistan, false accusations and getting fake FIRs registered is common practice. Why go far, Mr Cheema must be aware of whispering campaigns over the years against prominent journalists for accepting lifafas, against politicians for all kinds of misconduct, against cultural personalities, in fact against anyone who has any prominence. Does he feel that mere hurling of these accusations or in some cases, even FIRs being registered by people in power, should be held against them?

The changes in the PTI constitution acknowledge this difference and hence conviction has been made the basis of disqualification to hold party office. Mr Cheema should also recognize that this change reflects the spirit of a fundamental human right that everyone is entitled to due process of law, which means a fair trial. Thus, instead of concluding that the changes in the Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf constitution actually make it more democratic and in line with the constitution of Pakistan, he has drawn the strange conclusion that it opens the doors for shady characters to join the PTI. What can one say except shake ones head in sadness.

Moving on Mr Cheema digs up details of business dealings between various party members. This part of his ‘charge sheet’ is a masterly example of inferences and innuendos that seem to make straightforward transactions look shady. First, let me say something that was repeatedly conveyed to Mr Cheema. Business dealings between party members or any dispute arising therein has nothing to do with the party. It is between individuals and something that they have to resolve between themselves.

Secondly, Mr Cheema does not say that any of the deals was illegal; only that they happened between certain individuals who are in most part PTI party members. He then rushes to a pejorative conclusion that the party seems like a ‘property guild’. Give us a break Mr Cheema. Either say, that the deals are illegal and let the individual concerned explain himself or report the matter to the police and let the law take its course. Just throwing dirt without alleging illegality is questionable to say the least.

Lastly, Mr Cheema has made a big deal of a dispute between two party members, Col Younis (retd) and Mr Amir Kayani. As I said earlier, this is a matter between two individuals and has no concern with the party. Disputes are common in our society. They can also happen between party members. The correct forum to resolve them is either bilaterally or in a court of law. The party’s responsibility does not include personal business dealings of members unless they are illegal and declared so by a court of law. It certainly would not adjudicate business disputes between party members.

Umar Cheema adds: The PTI’s constitutional amendment might have gone unnoticed had it been consistent with what the party leadership has been preaching to other parties. The PTI has long been demanding resignation from those in power facing corruption allegations, no matter they have been convicted or not. In contrast, the PTI has introduced amendment-cum-NRO for granting amnesty to the accused aspirants/holders of the party offices. This policy of double standard should be abandoned.

The spokesman said throwing accusations is the easiest and the real test is to back up with the evidence. May I know why Naeem-ul-Haq is holding the position of senior vice president notwithstanding the fact he was convicted by a banking court in Karachi on loan default case? When previously asked, Shafqat Mehmood, the author of this clarification, admitted this but defended him on the ground that the bank that offered him loan has been liquidated. Could there be a different fate of such banks or conviction pardoned in the event of liquidation?

Recently a banking court in Lahore convicted Mian Mehmood-ul-Rasheed (PTI president of Lahore chapter) on March 20 in loan default case filed by Bank Al-Falah. I quote one line from the verdict for the consumption of the party leadership: “A decree for the recovery of Rs39,99, 942.98 is passed in favour of the plaintiff (bank) and against the defendants (Mehmood-ul-Rasheed)….” May I know if any action has been taken against him? In case of confusion, he must read again the constitutional clauses governing the qualification criteria defined for the party office bearers. A new entrant of an influential political family has warmly been received in the party, knowing well he was convicted by a US court on heroin smuggling charges.

Refer the spokesman’s point that business dealing among the party members or any dispute therein has nothing to do with the party. He is either unaware of the conflict of interest situation or feigning ignorance.

The conflict of interest is defined as “a situation that has the potential to undermine the impartiality of a person because of the possibility of a clash between the person’s self interest and or public interest.” Amir Kiani, PTI’s Chairman Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Vice President, purchased the party office in Karachi in 2002 and later rented it out back to the party. Again, he purchased 40-kanal land from Imran Khan in 2004 together with Sardar Azhar Tariq (then and now finance secretary), Asad Ansari (then PTI secretary planning & policy) and Col (R) Younis (then and now CEC member). Is it a coincidence that the PTI chairman only found his subordinates to sell the land? Again, Kiani was the man who paid token money from his pocket to purchase 35-kanal jointly registered in the names of Imran Khan, Dr Arif Alvi (secretary general) and Umar Sarfraz Cheema (then secretary information). Also he purchased lands for PTI’s KP chapter president and deputy secretary information.

Not ordering an inquiry into serious allegations of corruption against Kiani bears the hallmarks of a conflict of interest situation as those who were responsible to order this including Chairman PTI Imran Khan and Secretary General Dr Arif Alvi as well as Additional Secretary General Saifullah Niazi were all either real estate business partners or involved in real estate business transactions with him.

The spokesman should keep in mind that Col (R) Younis is one of the buyers of Imran’s 40-kanal lands. Holding inquiry against the accused is important keeping in view the fact that PTI has to eradicate corruption within 90 days if voted to power. What if the party is cleansed from notorious elements at the first place to present it as a model to the people?

The spokesman has also pointed to ‘whispering campaigns’ against the prominent journalists for accepting lifafas. I have been victim of such allegations since I wrote the first story critical to the party as the PTI social media has started a campaign alleging me of doing paid journalism on behalf of PML-N in addition to throwing all dirty allegations and harassment. Shafqat Mehmood has extensively served and travelled with Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif before joining the PTI. He must be aware of any list of the paid journalists. I would welcome if he could share with the readers the amount of money or a favour I have ever received.