Leave Musharraf alone, Boucher tells Nawaz

[Interceptor]

Leave Musharraf alone, Boucher tells Nawaz

* Official says US wants to befriend Pakistani people, not one person
* Nawaz says US should not interfere in Pakistan’s internal affairs

LAHORE: US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher has told Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif to avoid a move to impeach President Pervez Musharraf, saying the president’s future should be left to his (Musharraf’s) discretion, a private television channel reported on Tuesday.

According to Geo News, Boucher said that President Pervez Musharraf should be afforded an opportunity to decide about quitting his office, adding that his stay in power had become irrelevant.

He said that the US was willing to befriend the people of Pakistan rather than a single person only.

Various issues of national and international importance including the PML-N’s future strategy, the overall political situation of the region, the war on terror, the ongoing military operation in Bara and the reinstatement of sacked judges were discussed during the meeting held at Nawaz’s residence at Jati Umra Farm House, some 27 kilometres from Lahore.

The channel quoted sources as saying that the purpose behind the meeting was to bring flexibility to Nawaz’s stance regarding the presidential office.

Nawaz however told Boucher that Musharraf was a hindrance in the way of democracy and that his impeachment was therefore essential. He said all steps taken by Musharraf were unconstitutional.

Nawaz told Boucher that he had kept the reinstatement of the sacked judges and Musharraf’s impeachment at the top of his party’s agenda. Boucher agreed that the sooner the issue of restoration of the sacked judges is resolved, the better it will be for Pakistan.

Sources privy to the meeting quoted Boucher as saying that the US wanted to start a new era of development in Pakistan, and that the country’s prosperity and development could only be made possible after the eradication of terrorism, adding that the US was ready to provide all possible assistance to Pakistan in this regard.

Stop intervening: Nawaz said the eradication of terrorism and the maintenance of law and order were Pakistan’s domestic concerns and external forces including the US should refrain from intervening. He added that the US-led war against terrorism should have been approved by parliament.

Nawaz, emphasising on the supremacy of parliament, said one individual would not formulate policy in connection with the war on terror and the matter should be decided through parliament.

He said his party had reservations over the military operation in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) as they believe that talks and not guns should have been resorted to, the sources said.

Senior PML-N leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan told reporters after the meeting that his party chief had told Boucher that the PML-N had not been consulted before the military operation in FATA despite being coalition partners in government.

He said the government had first formulated agreements with notables in the FATA and had now commenced a military operation, with the PML-N kept aware of neither. “We were told that the army chief had been given the discretion to conduct an operation and that the adviser to the prime minister on interior is dealing with the matters,” the PML-N leader said.

Khan said a delegation would soon meet Premier Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani to present the party’s demands.

He said that Nawaz had told Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari at the time of the coalition government’s formation that the government should not make use of force to eliminate terrorism.

Khan said that Nawaz had urged the US diplomat not to support the president, as democracy could not be strengthened with him (Musharraf) in office.

The US assistant secretary also met Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif and said that the US and Pakistan were partners in fighting terrorism. daily times monitor/staff report/agencies

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Interceptor]

US mediocrity at its best, state interference, ties, interests unequivocally known as the secret hand behind Musharraf.

Nawaz has a personal score to settle with Musharraf, I doubt he will shake off the impeachment, that easily.

 

[blain2]

Well Musharraf says bring it on. So lets see what support Nawaz can muster to impeach the President.

Also NS has pretty much taken an "anti" stance on all issues because it is the safest bet right now. It appeals to the man on the street (even through realistically his stances have no substance) but will not yield anything in reality.

His points about GWOT and talking to the extremist elements amongst the tribals are unrealistic. Both the previous and the current governments started off talking and eventually had to rely on force. Even JUI's leader Fazl-ul-Rehman has been quoted as saying that NWFP is out of the hands of the govt and there is no writ of the state.

 

[Interceptor]

NO the previous government started off killing Bugti, which we are regretting right now, no talks were ever initiated, military aid was taken openly to show stance of the governments on the issue.

No development was done to improve standard of living, major Political party leaders were jailed, Mullah FM was licensed by government, the previous government paid off the debt of Taliban something like half a million dollars that came on BBC.

The previous government hid US air strikes from public and media, lies after lies.

 

[Muradk]

I dont know why Nawaz is saying this he was there stooge when he was in power.

 

[Interceptor]

I dont know why Nawaz is saying this he was there stooge when he was in power.

Didn't he approve for the detonation, even though US put huge pressure on his government, sanctions etc. That would suggest he wasn't there stooge.

 

[Muradk]

Didn't he approve for the detonation, even though US put huge pressure on his government, sanctions etc. That would suggest he wasn't there stooge.

Interceptor he had no other choice, we were almost at war that night with our fine neighbours. and it was not his decision these kind of decisions are taken by the security council which incluedes PM ,President all 3 chiefs and 3 vice chief, Joint chief, Chairman Senat, Chairman Parliment, Sec Def, Chairman Civil Aviation Auth,Sec establisment.
Who stopped Kargil?

 

[HAIDER]

The biggest blunder of his govt was detonation. What Pakistan was on the bring of gaining. And how much we lost after that on world political stage. That was no doubt India's smart trap for NPT. Banzir was much more smarter then this stooge. She never encourage detonation, even Pakistan was capable in 1978.

 

[Interceptor]

But in the end the PM has the final say, he is chief executive. There were many thing that were unfolding that day, infact that very week, the US was offering deals to us, security, economic aid how would that compensate with detonation, the Israelis were ready to launch a strike on our Nuclear assets ( I should say they initiated a strike on Pakistan), what are these facts telling us.

Is he still a stooge.

 

[Interceptor]

Who stopped Kargil?

Who initiated Kargil? It wasn't Nawaz.

 

[blain2]

Who initiated Kargil? It wasn't Nawaz.

Read Crossed Swords. No less than Lt Gen Ziauddin (the then DG ISI) who was Sharif's nominee for the post of CoAS in place of Pervez Musharraf incriminates his own boss (NS) saying that he approved stating "I will support this mission for as long as the operation is a success (I.E. we do not suffer any reverses)."

Nawaz allowed the operation to proceed. As the PM of Pakistan, politically responsibility lay with him.

 

[mujahideen]

Who initiated Kargil? It wasn't Nawaz.

This mission was in the works for 10 years. It as General Musharraf who intiated it, because that is the job of a General to lead, but it was done with Nawaz's full knowledge.

 

[araz]

This mission was in the works for 10 years. It as General Musharraf who intiated it, because that is the job of a General to lead, but it was done with Nawaz's full knowledge.

guys
I have asked this question before as well. Reading bear trap there is a reference that the Kargil plan was presented to Zia as well. He did not agree to it--the wording actually was tore the logic apart if I remember it correctly.
the question is what was the thought pattern then? And what changed in 98?
regards
Araz

 

[blain2]

In the times of Zia, there was no interdiction of the Neleem Valley. In the times of Jehangir Karamat (whose DGMO Musharraf was then eventually became Corps Commander), Indian interdiction of the Neelum Valley was becoming problematic.

 

[blain2]

Well Musharraf says bring it on. So lets see what support Nawaz can muster to impeach the President.

Also NS has pretty much taken an "anti" stance on all issues because it is the safest bet right now. It appeals to the man on the street (even through realistically his stances have no substance) but will not yield anything in reality.

His points about GWOT and talking to the extremist elements amongst the tribals are unrealistic. Both the previous and the current governments started off talking and eventually had to rely on force. Even JUI's leader Fazl-ul-Rehman has been quoted as saying that NWFP is out of the hands of the govt and there is no writ of the state.

To add to my point about the "anti" stance taken up by NS and PML-N, here is another editorial that talks about PML-N not having any strategy but just claiming the need for a "political dialogue". What is this political dialogue is known to Almighty alone.

Also PML-N have not been always opposed to action against own people. The operation in Karachi was launched with NS' approval and resulted in a lot of people being killed in an extra-judicial manner.


Editorial: Unfortunate opposition to ‘action’ in Bara

The PMLN and the JUI(S) have opposed the Bara Operation — or ‘action’ as the government would have us believe — because they were not “consulted” before the operation was undertaken. The third coalition partner, the ruling ANP in the NWFP, says it was consulted in two meetings that took place in Peshawar but insists that Peshawar is not “under siege” from the Bara warlord, Mangal Bagh. It apparently has no opinion on the Bara Operation because “Khyber is outside the jurisdiction of the NWFP government”.

The PMLN view was expressed by an outraged Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the National Assembly. It was elaborated by its leader from Peshawar, Mr Iqbal Zafar Jhagra, on TV when he said that apart from the fact that his party was kept out of the loop it had always opposed military operation against Pakistan’s “own people”. He insisted that the only way to deal with the situation in the Tribal Areas was through the “political process” (whatever that means), negotiation and peace agreements.

As for the position of the JUI(S), it has always been well known. It represents not so much Islam as the Pakhtun population living in the Tribal Areas and Balochistan. Its leader Maulana Ghafur Haideri has repeated the plaint that his party was not consulted. He went on to say that military action would be counter-productive and his party would not support it. But will the JUI(S) leave the coalition on this issue? No. Much the same response can be expected from the PMLN. Mr Jhagra made it clear that his party would not abandon the coalition. He must however be conscious of the fact that his party’s status in the coalition is different from that of the other partners who are also a part of the government. By getting out of the government, however, the PMLN has obtained the freedom to openly disagree with decisions taken by the prime minister and his cabinet.

The ANP and the JUI(S) have taken positions that are likely to encourage the building up of opposition to the operation among the Pakhtun. Indirectly, the ANP has opted out of the Islamabad policy on the Taliban, by defending its “peace deals” and by denying that the settled areas are under threat or that Peshawar is under siege from the terrorists. This ambivalence can only be understood in light of the ANP’s restricted electorate among the Pakhtun. As opposed to the policy of moulding Pakhtun opinion, it has unfortunately preferred to defer to a collective mind already formed by the religious parties and the Taliban propaganda on the real “intention” of the operation.

The result is that the PPP will have to face up to the backlash that is going to come from the general public who support the views of the PMLN, and from the Pakhtun hinterland. In the coming days, we may expect the TV channels to reflect this “consensus” with the kind of emphasis expected from the “process of repetition” inherent in competition. But the objective fact is that the operation had become unavoidable. And it is no excuse that it should not have been undertaken because it was not thought of three years ago when the warlords of Khyber first came on the scene.

Pakistan’s best known modern physicist Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy has reflected on the “confusion” in Pakistan over the violent events taking place these days. He marvels at the way we ignore Pakistanis kidnapped and killed by the warlords and our violent reaction to the NATO-ISAF forces on the Mohmand border with Afghanistan: “Had the killers been the Taliban, this would have been a non-event...Compare the response to Gora Prai with the near silence about the recent kidnapping and slaughter by Baitullah Mehsud’s fighters of 28 men near Tank, some of whom were shot and others had their throats cut. Even this pales before the hundred or more attacks by suicide bombers over the last year that made bloody carnage of soldiers and officers, devastated peace jirgas and public rallies, and killed hundreds praying in mosques and at funerals”.

Pakistan is in deeper trouble than it thinks. Considering that the top popular concern is the “judges’ restoration”, over which there is no solution in sight, it is unfortunate that we continue to ignore the fact that our economy can only survive if the world helps us. Eminent Pakistani economist Mr Shahid Javed Burki thinks that Pakistan should not return to the IMF because the Fund will impose “stabilisation” and ignore growth pledges because it doesn’t believe that Pakistan can pull it off. He recommends approaching the “donors” for help. The problem is that all the “donors” want Pakistan to take action against the warlords. *