Opposition Agrees on Coalition Deal/ NEW POLL: What Should Musharraf Do?

On Thursday, news sources reported that the Pakistan People's Party, PPP, (technically the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians), and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), the two main victors of Monday's election, agreed to form coalition governments. According to the NY Times, "The speedy accord, just three days after the overwhelming defeat of Mr. Musharraf’s party [PML-Q], was another setback for the embattled Pakistani president as well as his backers in Washington." The Daily Times quoted Nawaz Sharif, who told reporters during a news conference today, We have agreed on a common agenda. We will work together to form the government in the center and in the provinces...We will ensure that you [PPP] complete a full five years’ term." Reuters cited statements by Asif Zardari, the co-chairman of the PPP and the widower of former PM Benazir Bhutto, who further asserted, "We intend to stay together (to establish a government)."

The establishment of the coalition left Musharraf's role perhaps even more ambiguous. So far, Washington has urged the newly elected government to work with the Pakistani president, who emphasized yesterday that he would not step down from his post, despite calls for his resignation. According to Pakistan's Dawn newspaper, "The United States on Thursday was sending conflicting signals on its position on the current political situation in Pakistan, with the White House saying that it’s up to the Pakistani people to decide President Pervez Musharraf’s political future and the State Department insisting that Washington hopes to continue to work with the embattled leader."

An op-ed in today's Washington Post by Robert Novak further discussed this discrepancy. Although State Department spokesman Tom Casey publicly argued that Musharraf is still the president and expressed hope that "whoever winds up in charge of the new government would be able to work with him," privately, U.S. diplomats "pushed hard against any effort to dislodge the retired army general who had just suffered a public rejection." Ultimately, Novak commented, "No Pakistani expects help from Musharraf, who has been repudiated by the public and is not backed by the army now that he has removed his uniform. Only the State Department still takes him seriously."

Would these coalition governments be as close of a U.S. ally as Musharraf? How vigorously would they support the U.S.-led war on terror, particuarly in relation to Afghanistan, and the subsequent conflict that has spilled over our own border? According to a Boston Globe op-ed today by Graham Allison, "The answer to each of these questions is as unambiguous as it is uncomfortable. A Pakistani government whose actions align with its citizens' views on these issues would be at loggerheads with the United States." However much Pakistanis dislike Musharraf, they are perhaps more hostile to the U.S. According to Allison, "When asked to name the 'single greatest threat' to their country, 64 percent of Pakistanis named the United States. Historic archrival India, with whom Pakistan has fought five bloody wars, was second, well behind America."

Ultimately, where does this all leave Musharraf? If the democratic government listens to the constituents who voted them into power, the Pakistani president is left out in the cold. However, if they heed to U.S. pressures and strategic reasoning, his role in the political process is still malleable. The question is, what do you think? This week's poll, just three days after the much-anticipated elections, seeks to gauge your reasoning on this very pertinent question - What should Musharraf do? Resign, cut a deal with the new coalition government, or (God forbid) overthrow the Parliament and call for new elections. Is there another option? [Image from Reuters]

Note: Last week's poll results reflected the national elections - PPP won, PML-N came in a close second, and PML-Q trailed with 20% of the vote.

Pakistan Army Chief Orders Military Out of Civilian Government Agencies; Update on Pakistan Ambassador

According to news sources yesterday and today, the new Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani is withdrawing hundreds of army officers from civilian positions in the government "in a move widely seen as reducing the military's role in politics," noted the AFP. The NY Times reported that this action essentially "reverses an important policy of his predecessor, President Pervez Musharraf." The news agency added that this order by Kayani "was his boldest step to disentangle the military from the civilian sphere of the government since he assumed the post after Mr. Musharraf stepped down as military chief in November." Although army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said he made the decision last week, Kayani only announced it yesterday, less than a week shy of the much-anticipated Feb. 18th elections.

Kayani has gradually shifted the military away from the political arena. Last month, the general warned officers not to maintain contacts with politicians. Although analysts call these actions "overdue," they nevertheless show the army's seriousness in getting out of civilian affairs. A piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday further highlighted this development, noting that that shift "could change how the Bush administration approaches Pakistan and the war against Islamist extremism." The WSJ added, "The moves, say senior Pakistani officers, stand as a clear signal to Mr. Musharraf that he can't rely on his former allies in the military to get 'desirable results' from the vote." Moreover, Kayani seems to be viewed by U.S. officials as a more favorable alternative to the President, and many say his leadership "could enhance Washington's ability to fight Al Qaeda." The WSJ added, "They say he seems to agree more than Mr. Musharraf on the need to cooperate with Afghan and U.S. forces to track militants flowing over the Afghan-Pakistan border."

In other security-related developments, media outlets also provided updates on the kidnapping of Pakistan's ambassador to Afghanistan, Kabul Tariq Azizuddin. According to Pakistan's Daily Times, the "local Taliban" on Tuesday claimed responsibility for his abduction and said "they would release him in return for Taliban commander Mullah Mansoor Dadullah," who was arrested in Quetta on Monday. Geo TV quoted the bureau chief of an Arab television channel, who said the local Taliban had asked tribal elders to convey their message to the Pakistani government.

Suicide Bomb Kills 6 in Rawalpindi

On Monday, a suicide bombing in Rawalpindi garnered significant press attention, and news sources reported the bomber, who was riding a motorbike, rammed into a minibus carrying security personnel, killing 6 people and wounding 30, [although Pakistan's Geo TV reported that 10 people were killed]. The attack occurred during Monday's morning rush hour. The Associated Press cited Bisharat Abbasi, the local police chief, who said, "The bus was destroyed during the blast on a road running through a bazaar near the offices of the army's National Logistics Cell." The AFP provided eyewitness accounts in its report today. One motor mechanic told the news agency, "The bus was completely destroyed. I saw dozens of people lying injured and dead on the road, covered in blood -- most were wearing army uniforms. One was a woman." Another man asserted, "There was a big ball of fire and smoke. Some pellets from the bomb hit the wall of my shop and I dived down, because I was injured in the arm in another blast that happened at this spot last year."

According to BBC News, authorities have blamed Taliban-linked militants for the attack. The news piece added, "A series of suicide bomb attacks have hit Rawalpindi in the last year. In December opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was killed at a rally there." Although the perpetrator of Bhutto's assassination has still not been confirmed, [the Pakistani government claims she was killed by Al Qaeda-linked militants], news sources on Sunday revealed details of her soon-to-be published book, entitled, Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy and the West that promised to add to the speculation. According to the Dawn newspaper, Bhutto noted, "I was told by both the Musharraf regime and the foreign Muslim government that four suicide bomber squads would attempt to kill me. These included, the reports said, squads sent by the Taliban warlord Beitullah Mehsud; Hamza Bin Laden, a son of Osama Bin Laden; Red Mosque militants; and a Karachi-based militant group." According to The News, she had informed Musharraf about the involvement of Hamza bin Laden in planning her assassination. Pakistan's Sunday Times published excerpts of the book, set to be released the second week of February.

Pakistan Kicked Me Out. Others were Less Lucky.

On Sunday, the Washington Post released a piece in its Outlook section by Nicholas Schmidle, a Pakistan-based fellow with the Institute of Current World Affairs whose alleged deportation from Pakistan caused a major stir in the international community, [see CHUP! post January 16th for more information]. He wrote, " The police came for me on a cold, rainy Tuesday night last month. They stood in front of my home in Islamabad, four men with hoods pulled over their heads in the driving rain. The senior officer, a tall, clean-shaven man, and I recognized one another from recent protests and demonstrations. Awkwardly, almost apologetically, he handed me a notice ordering my immediate expulsion from Pakistan. Rain spilled off a nearby awning and fell loudly into puddles." When Schmidle asked, "somewhat obtusely," what this meant, to which the officer responded, "I am here to take you to the airport. Tonight."

Although the document did not include the reasoning behind his expulsion, Schmidle "immediately felt that there was some connection to the travels and reporting I had done for a story published two days earlier in the New York Times Magazine, about a dangerous new generation of Taliban in Pakistan." The truth, he noted, "is that foreign journalists are barred from almost half the country; in most cases, their visas are restricted to three cities -- Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi. In Baluchistan province, which covers 44 percent of Pakistan and where ethnic nationalists are fighting a low-level insurgency, the government requires prior notification and approval if you want to travel anywhere outside the capital of Quetta. Such permission is rarely given. And the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where the pro-Taliban militants are strong, are completely off-limits."

Schmidle's commentary is interesting in light of the recent controversy and criticisms of the Musharraf regime - most notably, the issues regarding the freedom of the press and the judiciary. On Saturday, news sources reported that Aitzaz Ahsan, a prominent Pakistani lawyer, [see op-ed post January 19th for more background] was put back under house arrest after he tried to visit the grave of former PM Benazir Bhutto. According to the Associated Press, Ahsan's detention came just two days after he had been released from three months of house arrest. The lawyer told news agencies that the ban was illegal and had been issued on the federal government's orders. He said, "I was just going to condole the death of our slain leader, but the government is scared and took this illegal action. We will contest this move."

With the elections in Pakistan fast approaching, Aitzaz Ahsan's re-arrest is curious, to say the least. Moreover, the issue of the press and the judiciary has been an increasingly problematic issue and further restrictions on these institutions promise to make the government exceedingly more unpopular. On Saturday, Pakistan's The News released a timely and pertinent piece by Dr. Tariq Hassan, a prominent Pakistani lawyer and the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, who discussed the issue of the courts and the ousted judges, as well as the need for an independent judiciary for the country.

The Rise of Tehreek-e-Taliban

The recent fighting between militants and security forces has dominated news coverage of Pakistan. Yesterday, the hostage-taking of 250 schoolchildren and subsequent surrender of the "gunmen" garnered major media attention, although sources differed on whether the incident was perpetrated by a "criminal gang" or by "Islamic militants." According to an article in today's Daily Times, Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Javed Cheema told the AFP that the gunmen were members of a "kidnapping gang," although President Pervez Musharraf called them "extremists" at yesterday's news conference in London. Today's UK Times further asserted the hostage-takers were "pro-Taliban militants."

Despite the contradicting accounts, the increasing presence of the extremists in the region is very problematic for the current security situation in Pakistan, as well as the region as a whole. Today's Daily Times' editorial focused on the rise of the Tehreek-e-Taliban, the umbrella organization that was formed last month in an effort to coordinate extremist activities and wage a joint struggle against the Pakistani military. According to the Times' editorial, the organization is made up of 40 groups "commanding an army of 40,000 gathered in Peshawar to unite under a single banner." During a television interview cited by the Daily Times' editors, the leader of Tehreek-e-Taliban, Beitullah Mehsud claimed "he had never met Osama bin Laden but had known Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda leader who died in Iraq fighting the Americans." However, according to sources inside the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), Mehsud does receive funding from the overarching AQ organization.

As has been noted before, very little is known about Beitullah Mehsud [see CHUP! post for January 18th], perhaps adding to his hype. On Tuesday, U.S. News and World Report released an article on the militant leader, entitled, "Pakistan's Most Wanted Warlord." In the piece, Kevin Whitelaw wrote, "While the United States has been urging Pakistan to scour its largely ungoverned tribal regions for Al Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden, the Pakistanis have been more focused on tribal extremist figures like Mehsud, who has mounted a serious challenge to the authority of Pakistan's embattled government." Christine Fair, a South Asia expert at RAND, commented, "Baitullah Mehsud is a primary ringmaster for cultivating and deploying suicide bombers. He himself has said so. It's a banner of honor he drapes about himself."According to a report from the United Nations last August, a Taliban source claimed 80 percent of suicide bombers in Afghanistan pass through recruitment centers, training facilities, or safe houses in the Waziristan region before they "reach their targets." [Image courtesy of Reuters]

Pakistan is Turning on Musharraf

The title of today's post was the header of a pertinent Wall Street Journal commentary by Hussain Haqqani, a former adviser to Benazir Bhutto who is currently a professor of International Relations at Boston University. Haqqani wrote, "Pakistan's embattled President Pervez Musharraf is touring European capitals to try and convince Western governments of the country's stability, and his own good intentions. He should instead face the evaporation of support for his authoritarian regime at home." The author cited several reasons to bolster this statement- including the fact that 68% of Pakistanis want the President to "step down immediately," and that 100 retired military officers recently signed a statement in Pakistan "describing him as an embarrassment to the powerful military that has so far been his power base." According to Haqqani, "Western governments should no longer accept Mr. Musharraf's sales pitch that he is a valuable ally in the war against terrorism. A ruler widely hated by his own people is unlikely to be effective in defeating the expanding insurgency waged by al Qaeda's Taliban allies."

The author asserted that Pakistanis are increasingly united in their disapproval for Musharraf, "and of the civil-military oligarchy he represents." In a piece by NPR, entitled, "Imran Khan Brings Anti-Musharraf Effort to U.S.," Pakistani politician and former cricket star Imran Khan criticized U.S. support for the President. He told NPR's Steve Inskeep, "Gen. Musharraf has done a brilliant PR job here where he has convinced the people that he is one man holding these hordes of terrorists, the bastion against these extremists...." This week, Imran reportedly met with U.S. Congressional leaders and spoke at several engagements in the U.S. in an effort to change the image of the Pakistani President. In the interview with NPR, he asserted, "across the spectrum, from the right to the left, [Pakistanis] want Musharraf to go .... The U.S. administration must be getting this information. In Pakistan, according to all the polls, [U.S. officials] are backing someone who is deeply unpopular in the country." When asked whether U.S. influence could cause or prevent a change in Pakistan's government, Imran responded, "Well, at the moment, the only backer of Gen. Musharraf is the U.S. government. The army is only backing him now because they think that the U.S. government backs Musharraf."

However, Musharraf seems to be defending himself abroad and at home. During his Europe tour this week, the President addressed London's Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), where he called for support, not "criticisms and insinuations." According to an editorial in today's Daily Times, Musharraf, in an interview with the BBC, also insisted he was still popular in Pakistan on the basis of his numerous "reliable sources of information" and would "willingly leave if he became unpopular." Although these statements are interesting in light of the vocalized opposition to his rule, the Times editorial conceded, "The truth is that he is the only leader in Pakistan who at least verbalizes against terrorism and its origins. Not even the leaders of his own party, the PMLQ, are willing to speak on the subject. The opposition parties fear retaliation — even more so after the assassination of Ms. Benazir Bhutto — and seldom say anything on the subject. Keen to avoid being targeted, the media too is far more cautious to report against it than against the government and its glaring inefficiencies." At this point, are we capable of crediting the Pakistani President with anything positive? Or are we so jaded that we refuse to see any action in a positive light?

"Democracy Is Not Born in a Minute"

On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to stick to his pledge to hold free elections, but added that she understood that democracy "is not something born in a minute," reported Pakistan's Daily Times today. The official told reporters traveling with her to Berlin for meetings on Iran, "We are all working very hard with the Pakistanis to try and ensure that the elections will be an opportunity for Pakistan to get back on a democratic path and an opportunity for Pakistanis to come together." However, she asserted, "These elections need to be elections that will have the confidence of Pakistanis."

The issue of free and fair elections has recently been a source of contention among Pakistanis and the international community as a whole. Despite Musharraf's recent assertions during his Europe trip that power will be transferred to whomever wins the upcoming February elections, Pakistanis are still skeptical of the leader. A significant article released by the Associated Press today reported that "an influential group of retired officers from Pakistan's powerful military" has "urged" Musharraf "to immediately step down" from power, noting his resignation would both promote democracy and help combat religious militancy. In a statement released late Tuesday to the media by the Pakistan Ex-Servicemen's Society, they stated, "This is in the supreme national interest and it makes it incumbent on him to step down." The AP news agency underscored the significance of this development, noting, "The group of former generals does not speak for serving officers, but its tough stance is an embarrassment to Musharraf whose popularity has waned considerably in the past year. It could strike a chord within the army's current ranks — which are forbidden from expressing political opinions — over how a once-respected institution has lost a lot of support among the wider public as Musharraf's personal standing has eroded over his maneuvering to stay in power."

I think this week's poll falls in line with Wednesday's news coverage - should our focus be on free and fair elections if the security situation is increasingly deteriorating? Will a new, democratically elected regime be able to handle a war that is being waged in our own country? On Wednesday, former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made statements addressing this issue. According to Reuters, Sharif said Pakistan's "perilous" security situation is hindering the campaign for the Feb. 18th elections "with politicians putting their lives at risk when they go out to seek votes." The former PM told reporters, "Elections are around the corner but what sort of an election campaign can one conduct? How can we go out?"

The security situation, inflation, and issues related to the elections all present the chicken and the egg problem - does a more secure country allow for a better electoral process? Does inflation further exacerbate violence, and vice versa? The United States has grown increasingly concerned with the problematic security situation in Pakistan, and the Bush administration has been under growing pressure from Congress to cut aid to the country, "or impose restrictions linking democratic reform to funding levels." On Tuesday, Sec of State Rice emphasized that this assistance was important and would continue, reported the Daily Times. She stated, "We have to have a long-term, consistent, predictable relationship with Pakistan." Such assertions do not mean the U.S. is satisfied with Pakistan's actions regarding extremism and intelligence collection in the country. However, according to an article in Wednesday's Dawn newspaper, a U.S. official noted, "We have to be careful conducting operations in a sovereign country, particularly one that’s a friend of ours and one that has given us a lot of support. The blowback would be pretty serious." The News also cited the U.S. official, Dell Daily, the State Department's counter-terror chief, who added, "Pakistan's new military chief, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, already has shown he is an aggressive commander, and U.S. officials are confident he will make progress. If Pakistanis ask for help, the United States will provide it." [Image courtesy of the Daily Times]

44 Killed in Pakistan Militant Fighting

Today, Pakistani security forces' struggle with militants along the Afghan border and more statements by President Pervez Musharraf dominated press coverage of the country today. According to the Associated Press, the army said that the Islamic militants attacked a fort on Tuesday, "one of two clashes with government forces that left seven troops and 37 fighters dead." The attack on the fort occurred in southern Waziristan, an area the AP described as, "a lawless tribal region where Al Qaeda and Taliban-linked militants operate." It was the second clash on the fort this month.

Speaking in Paris, France today, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf insisted the remnants of the Taliban regime in neighboring Afghanistan is the "most serious issue" plaguing the country. He told reporters, "The 100,000 troops that we are using ... are not going around trying to locate Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri, frankly. They are operating against terrorists, and in the process, if we get them, we will deal with them certainly." However, the President still rejected claims that the violence was a sign of resurgent Taliban, insisting, "There is no Taliban offensive ... being launched. These are pinpricks that they keep doing — and we have to manage all of that." According to BBC News, the President also stressed on Tuesday that it was impossible for "militants to gain any access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal." More specifically, he stated, "There is a zero percent chance of either one of them, they (the weapons) cannot fall into any wrong hands...We don't think it is possible that this Al Qaeda or Taliban can take over in Pakistan. We cannot be defeated like this."

An article in today's NY Times, entitled, "Musharraf Trip Shadowed by Troubles at Home," commented on the "troubles" in Pakistan as the President continues his four-nation tour in Europe, where he intends to show his resolve in fighting terrorism and to "talk up investment opportunites." However, noted the Times, "his pitch, after the assassination of the opposition leader Benazir Bhutto will be made in the shadow of a rapidly escalating jihadist insurgency, an economy suffering from sudden power and wheat shortages, and worries that elections, which have been delayed to Feb. 18, will not be free and fair." Both supporters and critics of Musharraf feel that his past "pillars of strength" as a leader are now being severely challenged."

Today's NY Times editorial also discussed the issue of Pakistan, particularly the rise of violence and the Islamist militancy, developments that are problematic for the country's future. On the topic of U.S. involvement in Pakistan, the Times' editors advised, "The United States, already bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, must be extremely careful about further military entanglement in Pakistan. As a long-term solution, it must encourage political and legal reforms in the tribal areas and spend as quickly as possible a new $750 million allocation by Congress that could improve the lives of Pakistanis and deprive militants of new converts."

I have attempted to provide daily news briefs to keep readers of this blog updated on the media's portrayal of the current events in Pakistan. What has struck me while monitoring the press is that in the struggle between militants and Pakistani security forces, we, as Pakistanis, seem very divorced from this conflict. If you look at the Iraq war, and the way the American media addresses that conflict in the United States, there seems to be unflinching support for U.S. troops - American citizens and lawmakers may criticize the administration's strategy in the war, but never will they "be against" the soldiers fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. In contrast, the military also seems isolated in their fight against Taliban-linked militants. Maybe I'm wrong, but why are we so divorced from the struggle of our own troops? Is it because we do not identify with the Pakistani military, an institution in the country that has acted largely of its own accord, or is it something else?

Musharraf Vows Free Elections, Geo News Back on Air

News coverage of Pakistan on Monday focused on statements made by President Pervez Musharraf as he began his four-nation European tour. The AFP news agency quoted the President, who told reporters in Brussels, "We must have fair and transparent elections [on Feb. 18th]. Whoever wins, obviously power will be handed over to them." Moreover, he emphasized that his administration would not "deny forming a government to whichever party forms a majority." According to Reuters, Musharraf also asserted that there would be no possibility of the elections being rigged.

The President also responded to concerns over human rights and democracy in Pakistan. Although he said he believed in both, he termed Western preoccupation with these issues as "obsessive." The Associated Press quoted him stating, "While we believe in democracy and human rights and civil liberties please allow us time to reach what you have reached. And you have taken centuries to reach it." According to Reuters, Musharraf also told reporters, "We have a feudal tribal environment in some of our provinces, therefore in accordance with our environment we have to adapt democracy, human rights, civil liberties."

According to news sources, Musharraf also commented on the status of media, an issue that been very contentious in Pakistan. Although he conceded the media was "restricted" during the six-week state of emergency in November, he asserted that now, "there was no limit on their freedom." As Musharraf made these statements, news agencies reported that Pakistan's private Geo Television Network was back on air today. According to a Reuters newswire Monday, "Geo was the last channel to come back on the air of several that were blocked when Musharraf imposed emergency rule on November 3..." Although the President lifted the emergency in mid-December, Geo remained blocked on cable channels. According to the Pakistani newspaper, The News, "People from various walks of life have welcomed restoration of Geo News transmissions on cable...Lahore newsmen have termed lifting of ban on Geo News a major success of the journalist community and the entire civil society ..."

Despite the development today, BBC News noted the media still faces restrictions in Pakistan. Therefore, reported BBC's Jill McGivering, Musharraf's "need for foreign friends has probably never been greater." During his Europe trip, "He wants to convince the rest of the world that the public pledges he keeps making are genuine: that the postponed elections next month will be free and fair. That his real goal is for a smooth transition of power to the new government. And also that, if the road is rocky, he is Pakistan's best hope of stability."

An editorial in today's Daily Times noted that Musharraf, talking to six top editors in Rawalpindi, linked the current "turbulent" times to three crises facing Pakistan: (1) the crisis of the transition to democracy, (2) the crisis of the war against terrorism and extremism, and (3) the crisis of the economy if the first two cannot be contained or resolved. According to the Daily Times' editors, "The real 'crises' today have sprung from the government on President Musharraf’s watch and they are: (1) agitation for legitimate constitutional rule, including separation and autonomy of state institutions, (2) public rejection of the intervention of the army in civilian affairs and a struggle for civil-military relations under the constitution, and (3) an intractable crisis in the equation of center-province relations in the country." They added, "What is dangerous, however, is that in these crises, the crisis of fighting terrorism is not included simply because it is no longer close to the heart of the people." We already see the ramifications of the "war" that is currently being fought on the Afghan border between militants and Pakistani security forces. Denying its existence can only be problematic for the country's future.
(Picture from Reuters)

CIA, Pakistan Concur on Bhutto's Death

An interesting development was released today: According to news sources, the CIA (the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency) has added its support to the Pakistani government view that Al Qaeda and Pakistani militant, Baitullah Mehsud were behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on December 27th. In an interview released by the Washington Post today, CIA chief Michael Hayden specifically said the former PM was killed by militants allied with Mehsud with support from the AQ network. He said, "What you see is, I think, a change in the character of what's going on there. You've got this nexus now that probably was always there in latency but is now active: a nexus between Al Qaeda and various extremist and separatist groups." He added, "It is clear that their intention is to continue to try to do harm to the Pakistani state as it currently exists."

Most Western press coverage of Pakistan focused on this announcement. The LA Times, in its article, reported, "The intelligence official said he could not disclose how the CIA had reached that conclusion, including whether the assessment was based, at least in part, on a telephone call that Pakistani authorities say they intercepted shortly after Bhutto was killed. In that call, a man said to be Mehsud congratulates a cleric who claims that his associates carried out the killing." Despite Hayden not revealing the source of his claim, BBC News noted, "Correspondents say that Mr. Hayden's comments are the most comprehensive public assessment by U.S. intelligence of Ms. Bhutto's death." Although the Pakistani government (and now the CIA) has claimed that Baitullah Mehsud was behind Benazir's assassination, the pro-Taliban leader has denied involvement, although the LA Times noted he has not commented on the purported call.

Just who is Baitullah Mehsud, however? Just this morning, before I read this latest development, I was listening to a profile by NPR on the militant leader, and was intrigued by how little is actually known about him [the picture above was posted by the BBC, whose caption read: "Baitullah Mehsud has an aversion to publicity and photographs"]. According to NPR, these are the facts we know: Mehsud is in his early 30s, he is from the Mehsud tribe in southern Waziristan, he fought against U.S. forces in Afghanistan and wants to see the introduction of Shari'a law, and has been fighting against the Pakistani Army. President Pervez Musharraf has called Mehsud a "facilitator for Al Qaeda" and has accused him of organizing a wave of suicide bombings that have left 400 dead and 900 wounded in the last few months. According to the government's logic, Benazir's convoy was attacked by a suicide bomber; ergo, the attack must have been perpetrated by Al Qaeda-linked militants. However, the details become fuzzy when the video of her attack shows her being shot at before the blast occurred. Moreover, noted NPR, although the government cited the transcript of Mehsud's conversation with another man as proof of his responsibility, there is no way to know whether they were indeed talking about Benazir's assassination, or the authenticity of the recording.

With the paralleled poll [see the sidebar] still ongoing, readers of this blog seem torn over just who was responsible for Benazir's assassination. This controversy aside, the rising power of Mehsud is a significant and problematic development for the current situation.

Oh, and another interesting article in today's NY Times that I forgot to list - about the state of the Taliban insurgency in Peshawar.
(Picture from BBC News)

The Deportation of Nicholas Schmidle

Nicholas Schmidle, an American journalist and a Pakistan-based fellow at the Institute of Current World Affairs, was allegedly deported last week by the Pakistani government, reportedly following the release of his January 6th article in the NY Times, entitled, "Next-Gen Taliban." In the piece, Schmidle described the growing strength of the Taliban in Pakistan as well as the increasing struggle among Islamists who wish to be part of the democratic process and those who wish to destabilize the nation. He noted, "The emergence of Taliban-inspired groups in Pakistan has placed immense strain on the country’s Islamist community, a strain that may only increase with the assassination of Bhutto. As the rocket attack on Rehman’s house illustrates, the militant jihadis have even lashed out against the same Islamist parties who have coddled them in the past." However, he wrote, "For now, it is Islamist violence that seems to have the political upper hand rather than the accommodation of Islamist currents within a democratic society."

Following the release of the article, Schmidle told BBC News that he had been given a deportation notice "but no reason for the government's move." The day before, Schmidle recalled, an officer from the Pakistani ISI had stopped by his house and told his security guard, "He told my security guard that my visa had been canceled as I was writing against Pakistan." However, the government denied such claims, and on Saturday said the journalist had left Pakistan "on his own volition." An information ministry official told the BBC, "Initially a deportation order was served to him but it was later withdrawn. He left Pakistan on his own."

The incident, despite the conflicting reports, has sparked much controversy, both in Pakistan and among members of the international community. In a press release, Reporters Without Borders condemned Schmidle's "forced departure," asserting, "This does not bode well for the situation of foreign journalists, especially the many reporters who will be going to Pakistan to cover the legislative elections due to take place in a month from now..." In the country, the PPP also condemned the alleged deportation, describing it as "outrageous." Pakistan's Daily Times cited PPP information secretary Sherry Rahman, who said despite the lifting of the so-called emergency, "the regime continued to hound media on one pretext or the other." She cited a recent report from the aforementioned Reporters Without Borders that described Pakistan as "the most dangerous Asian country for the media in 2007." The Times added, "Most astonishingly she said 34 journalists in the province of Sindh were booked on the charge of rioting following Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. After the November 3 martial law, the regime shut down 45 private satellite TV channels and two radio stations adding to its long list of unconstitutional moves over the last eight years." The alleged forced departure of Schmidle, she concluded, was "another reminder of the fact that an authoritarian leadership never had tolerance for independent voices."

The media in Pakistan has always been independent, vocal, and free-reigning. The recent incident, as well as the treatment of the press in the past few months, has been extremely significant given the current atmosphere and the rising dissent against the government. In a society that has been increasingly plagued by violence, riots, and subsequent crackdowns, what role has, can, and should the media play?

[A reader of this blog recently passed on a very poignant and interesting article by Shahan Mufti on the role of independent television in Pakistan, that is a good resource for this topic.]

Musharraf Under Pressure as Police Probe Bombings

On Monday, 10 people were killed and more than 40 were injured in a bomb blast in a crowded market in Karachi on Monday. News sources, including the LA Times and the Pakistan's Daily Times, noted that an explosive was reportedly rigged to a motorcycle and left near a fruit cart. The Daily Times cited Sindh Police Inspector General Azhar Ali Farooqui, who said, "The bomb had exploded around 7.45pm at a market near the Gul Ahmed Textile Mill, within the jurisdiction of the Quaidabad Police Station." Although no one has claimed responsibility for the recent wave of attacks, authorities say they were designed to exacerbate instability ahead of the February elections. Government officials, not surprisingly, blamed Al Qaeda-linked militants from tribal regions along the Afghan border for the bombing. The LA Times added, "The bomb was detonated in an area dominated by Pashtun tribesmen who have moved to the city."

Following the bombing, President Pervez Musharraf faced new calls for his resignation, reported the Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agency on Tuesday. Monday's blast occurred as Musharraf visited Karachi, although the Associated Press noted that he did not appear to be the target of the blast. Nevertheless, opposition leaders called for the ex-general to resign in the wake of the recent spate of violence, that the AFP reported has killed more than 800 people in the last year. Yesterday, Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Nawaz Sharif told an election rally of about 3,000 people in Islamabad, "Musharraf has destroyed Pakistan. He is blindly following America's orders. The whole of Pakistan is drowned in blood." [For an interesting piece on the militants in the country, see today's NY Times article.]

There has been increasing pressure on the Pakistani President to resign. Pakistan's prominent newspaper, The News, featured recent statements made by Pervez Hoodbhoy, described as "the brilliant Physics professor at Quaid-e-Azam University," who told an Italian journalist, "I want Musharraf to go -- resign or somehow be removed, preferably without bloodshed. I want the independent judiciary restored, a new neutral caretaker government installed for overseeing free and fair elections, and then elections that would decide upon the new parliament and prime minister. This will not immediately solve Pakistan's fundamental problems -- army dominance, maldistribution of wealth, religious fanaticism -- but it would get Pakistan on the track to democracy instead of the self-destruction it is racing towards."

The cycle of violence and instability in Pakistan has been self-enforcing, and many have pointed a finger at the current President, who we have seen become increasingly more defensive as he has come under attack, [see Monday's post with the Newsweek interview as well as his recent interview with CBS News' Lara Logan on Jan. 6th]. I've noted this shift in his interviews with interest - from a man who once instilled hope in Pakistanis to an ex-general who has become increasingly unpopular and on the defensive - when did that change start? Do all Pakistani politicians and leaders have a shelf-life before they, too, are deemed insufficient for the process?

New Pakistan Poll Shows Distrust of Leaders

An opinion poll conducted by Gallup Pakistan found that nearly half of the 1,300 Pakistani men and women surveyed suspect that "government agencies or government-linked politicians" killed Benazir Bhutto, reported an Associated Press article today. According to the news agency, the findings highlighted the "popular mistrust" of the Musharraf government just ahead of the February elections. The government has blamed Al Qaeda-linked militants for the December 27th assassination of Benazir, an incident that has sparked major domestic and international controversy. However, despite the government claims, only 17 percent of Pakistanis suspected Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Reuters provided further statistics from the poll, reporting that 12 percent suspected the U.S. involvement in her death, while 4 percent believed India was behind it.

In a Newsweek interview with Fareed Zakaria released Friday, Musharraf dismissed claims that the government was complicit in the former PM's death, stating, "I refuse to listen to such accusations. I refuse to. I am the government, OK? I am not feudal, and I am not tribal. May I ask you, would you, if you were at the head of affairs, ever think of killing somebody like that? It didn't appear in our minds. Would it appear in your mind that you could get rid of a person through a bomb blast?" On the government investigation into her assassination, Musharraf asserted that the body should be exhumed, "100 percent." He added, "Because I know for sure there is no bullet wound other than on the right side. Whether it was a bullet or a strike, I don't want to comment, I don't know."

The conflicting reports surrounding Benazir's death has generated rumors and conspiracy theories alike. Two new reports "suggest that the killing may have been an ambitious plot rather than an isolated act of violence and that the government of President Pervez Musharraf knows far more than it's admitted about the murder," reported McClatchy News on Friday.

What do you think?