PAKISTAN: Under no circumstances should the elections due to February 18 be postponed

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission

PAKISTAN: Under no circumstances should the elections due to February 18 be postponed

The reports coming out of Pakistan state that a group of 100 ex-military personnel including former generals, admirals, air marshals and other retired officers are calling for the resignation of President Musharraf with immediate effect. These former senior officers of the armed forces have formed an organization with the name of 'Ex Servicemen's Society' with the sole aim of campaigning for the resignation of the president before the general elections, which are to be held on 18, February, 2008. This Society is organizing meetings to bring pressure on the president to resign.

The observers see several complex problems relating to the rule of President Musharraf and also regarding the proposed general elections being reflected in this move. President Musharraf who was at one time the chief of the armed forces no longer holds that office although he is still the supreme commander as the head of the state. His departure from direct control of the armed forces would naturally have its impact on his capacity to control these forces. The emergence of such a large number of ex servicemen who have begun to openly demand the resignation of president Musharraf is indicative of a discontent within the armed forces itself against the president. As it is well know that president Musharraf no longer enjoys popular support in the country this new move by the ex-senior officers of the armed forces indicates also that he is losing control and support of the armed forces. Therefore the call for his resignation seems to be gaining a greater agreement in Pakistan.

However, the observers also see that this move by the ex-senior officers of the armed forces may also be an attempt to have the general elections fixed for the 18th February postponed. All the members of the 'Society' have served during the previous martial law periods and some members are believed to be instrumental in toppling the elected governments. The head of the Society, Air Marsal Asghar Khan, was the author of a letter to the then chief of army staff, General Zia Ul Haq in 1977 demanding that he take over the government of the elected Prime Minister, Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and hang him at the hills of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. His demand was fulfilled when Zia Ul Haq imposed martial law in 1977.

The suspicion about the move of this Society is based on the fact that in the past when elections were due to be held officers of the armed forces have acted together with some political parties to sabotage the elections and continue martial law.

Under no circumstances should any excuse be accepted for the postponement of the general elections due to be held on 18th February. The fate of the present system of governance headed by president Musharraf must be left to the will of the people. While Musharraf's resignation and even holding him accountable for violations of the rights of the Pakistani people is a legitimate demand the central issue at this time which is just weeks before the election is to ensure that the general election will be held and that it will be held in a free and fair manner. The duty of the armed forces at this time is to carry out their constitutional obligations by adhering strictly to their legal and professional obligations by supporting and all the tasks required of them to ensure a free and fair election.

About AHRC: The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367

The Benazir I Knew, by Aitzaz Ahsan

"The first thing I want to do is to release all political prisoners," she announced as our meeting on November 30, 1988 began at Dr Zafar Niazi's house in Islamabad. In the elections held after the death of General Zia-ul Haq, the PPP, despite all efforts of the agencies, had succeeded in the elections. After failing to prop up any rival, then-President Ghulam Ishaq had finally agreed that very day to accept her as prime minister of Pakistan.

The historic meeting of PPP leadership was being held to set top priorities for Bibi's first government. It was here as prime minister-designate that she showed her mettle. So far her life and emotions had been premised on the bitter fact that her dearest father had been deposed, imprisoned, humiliated, falsely charged, hanged and then buried without due ceremony. But she brought to that meeting only her winning smile and the undiluted optimism of a political idealist.

Zia had left behind a large number of political prisoners and convicts of military courts. Each had been denied due process. Releasing them, she said, was going to be her number one priority.

"What pledge should we make to ourselves?" she asked. "That we must ensure press freedom," I suggested. "For anything that it may print?" she asked. "Yes, for anything. We must set a precedent," I said. And she agreed at once, excited that it was a good idea.

Next day I was sworn in as her interior minister. In that capacity, I received countless recommendations to prosecute this or that publication. I turned down each of these even when our government was brutally and deliberately slandered.

Once a cabinet colleague complained to her that I was not prosecuting publications for false propaganda against her husband Asif Zardari. "But Malik Sahib," she retorted, "we have pledged to allow full freedom to the media. We will have to bear with it." Then she turned to me and asked: "Is there anything that can be done without the government getting involved?" "Yes," I replied. "Asif should file a civil suit for damages in his personal capacity." And so it was that Mr Asif Zardari, husband of a serving prime minister had the grace to file a private civil suit for damages as an ordinary litigant.

That is what she was: at once humane and proper. How can I recount in such a short piece, all aspects of a life lived to such fullness, particularly when I have worked so close to her during her life? Even books will fail to do justice. Presently only a few instances establishing her more prominent qualities must suffice. One was fortitude.

Between 1990 and 1993 there were as many as 18 prosecutions against her and Asif Zardari. Both were also slandered and defamed. I had publicly promised to turn these prosecutions "from the trial of Mohtarma into the trial of Ishaq Khan". In the end, they were both acquitted in all those cases, with her husband bravely facing adversity and she standing by him like a rock. She had the fortitude to bear the designed torment aimed at her by the notorious regime of Jam Sadiq Ali in Sindh.

Never will I forget that day in 1992 when I entered the outer gate of Landhi Jail to defend Asif in a trial being conducted inside the jail itself. There she was, the former prime minister of Pakistan, carrying two young infants, Bilawal and Bakhtawar, in her arms, and sitting on a pile of bricks. I was furious and immediately went to the Jail Superintendent. But she calmed me down saying that she had learnt not to expect any decency from the jail staff. After all, she herself had remained imprisoned for five years as a young girl.

Through all her trials and tribulations, she demonstrated amazing charm and stamina. When she came to stay with us in Gujrat in December 1986, she arrived at 3 am on that freezing December night having travelled a full 10 hours from Lahore, but she sat up chatting with Bushra for another one hour with Zaynab, our youngest, in her lap. Early in the morning she was up, fresh as a flower, all ready to meet local party officials.

She kept punishing schedules and was the only politician who had toured the entire Pakistan, city by city, town by town, village by village and hamlet by hamlet at least five times. She knew the party workers by face and the towns by the streets.

And through it all she remained a model of womanhood at its most sublime. While being the most hardworking, hands-on, leading politician of the country, she was unabashedly feminine at the same time. In this intolerant and male dominated country, she refused to be uncomfortable about her womanhood. She gave birth to her first child in the middle of 1988 election campaign and another child while she was the first woman prime minister of Muslim Pakistan.

Then there was her courage. She was afraid of nothing. I was on her truck at the time of the blast of October 18. Next morning when I met her she was in her normal routine. I did not know that I was seeing her for the last time. When I sought her leave to return to Lahore for my Supreme Court Bar elections, she said, "It will be a landslide in your favour. Good luck. And thanks for being here." When I was withdrawing from the parliamentary contest I sent word to her and she consulted me through Senator Safdar Abbasi on my choice for my substitute. She accepted the choice. But I was arrested the day after my election as president SCBA and denied permission even to attend the funeral or soyem of the one who believed in freeing political prisoners and the media, and in politics of non-violence.

As a political leader she could organise and mobilise the biggest political organisation in Pakistan, set the political agenda, make millions of ordinary people dream the greatest dreams for this land and yes, in fair elections, win elections too. She could do all that. But what she could not tackle were certain self-appointed guardians of the state, who refused to allow people the right to solve their problems themselves and who harassed, hounded, threatened and conspired against her. They did not permit her a fair shot at the democratic game because they knew that she would win, not by breaking the Constitution or at gun point but through the sheer will of ordinary people who are supposed to be sovereign. Even on the last day of her life, her foremost concern was not how to win the elections but how to prevent them from being rigged. I wonder if people understand that in this lies a tragedy, not only for Bibi, but for this nation.

Many sincere analysts questioned the integrity of her politics. They did not understand that after facing conspiracy after conspiracy, Bibi was forced to factor painful ground realities in her decision-making, always striving to achieve one day her true political ideals.

This fundamental question may indeed be addressed through another question: Why, during the 30 years from 1977, when an elected and popular prime minister was ousted at gun point to the date when Bibi lost her life to another gun, the total period for which she, the most popular political leader, was allowed to govern the country was three times less than the time that Chaudhry Shujaat's party remained in power? The real source of this country's problems may be revealed by the answer. In kowtowing to the civil and military bureaucracy there is a premium. He and his ilk can do it. She could not. They survive. She had to be eliminated.

One cannot help wondering why our establishment that claims to be obsessed with maintaining the federation, could not bring itself to see in Bibi that glorious human chain that kept all four provinces together, and as an asset and an ally instead of a foe.

Above all else I will remember her for three qualities: a constant urge to reach out to her people, a willingness to take on Herculean challenges, and for her ability to forgive, even embrace, her enemies. These three qualities made her superhuman. And all three took her to her tragic, yet heroic death.

All I can now say is: 'Bibi it is an honour to have worked for you and with you. The Himalayas wept the death of your father. The world weeps for you.'

The US in Waziristan by Dr. Akbar Ahmed

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=6737

U.S. Covert Action in Waziristan (Part I)
By Akbar Ahmed | Wednesday, January 23, 2008

 

The global spotlight is on Waziristan. Osama bin Laden is said to be there, as well as a new generation of Al Qaeda leaders. Worried about the destabilizing effect of Al Qaeda, the U.S. government wants the CIA to conduct more aggressive operations there. American University Professor Akbar Ahmed, a former civil service administrator once in charge of Waziristan, told The Globalist what the United States can expect.

 

How do you view the U.S. plan to step up its covert activities in Waziristan?

Waziristan has been invaded by empire after empire, and was never subjugated.

Akbar Ahmed (AA): I hear about plans for U.S. air strikes and special operations and I am speechless. Hasn't the Bush Administration learned anything from history? Don't U.S. policymakers read anything at all? It seems they don't have any memory at all.

What should be the U.S. goal in Waziristan?

AA: The key for the United States in dealing with Waziristan is to work through the government of Pakistan to pacify or calm the tribes, get hold of Osama, if indeed he is there, and to make the tribes respond positively to them. The Pakistani government hasn't succeeded in that.

What makes this situation so tricky?

But the Americans just walked away. That was the fatal error. When the United States walked away they left a vacuum. The warlords came back.

AA: The people of Waziristan feel that they are the toughest, the noblest, the bravest of the very brave and noble people, the Pashtuns. Their self esteem is very high. They are not intimidated by anyone.

Throughout history, Waziristan has been invaded by empire after empire, and was never subjugated. With that history in mind, the Wazir and Mahsud tribes are very confident.

What is the legacy of American involvement there?

AA: After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the tribal peoples and the peoples of the region — not just the tribal peoples — thought the United States and the Americans were fast friends; and they, together with the Americans, faced a common foe that was the Soviet Union.

They are simple people. They saw Americans as god-fearing — and the Soviets as godless. And they saw the Soviet Union as a bully, a superpower that had charged into Afghanistan and was raping, looting and killing people.

  Remember, these people have a great sense of local democracy and fair play. They felt that this invasion had to be resisted. So the tribal areas were enthusiastically sympathetic to the Afghans — not just because they are ethnically akin to the Afghans. In the 1980s, the Americans were popular with the local people.

  Did you feel that U.S. intelligence officials at the time understood the people and culture of Waziristan?

AA: Not really. The area was off limits to them and they had no access. It remained a mystery.

 

These people have a great sense of local democracy and fair play. They felt that the Soviet invasion had to be resisted.

What reputation did the CIA and Americans have in Waziristan after the Soviets were expelled?

AA: Initially, Americans had a good reputation. After all, it was because of the Americans, especially the CIA, that the Afghans won the war in Afghanistan. The CIA, working with the Pakistani intelligence, was able to provide weapons to the Afghans and especially the "Stingers" to shoot down the Soviet helicopters. Afghans remember that Ronald Reagan had called them 'freedom fighters.'

The people of Waziristan feel that they are the toughest, the noblest, the bravest of the very brave and noble people, the Pashtuns. They are not intimidated by anyone.

But not long afterwards, Afghans looked at their land and said, 'My god, look at the devastation, we are destroyed, our homes are destroyed. One-fourth of our people have lost a limb or a leg because of the Soviet's brutalities. Our homes have been uprooted; there is starvation in parts of Afghanistan.' And they thought, 'our American friends will help us.'

But the Americans just walked away. That was the fatal error. When the United States walked away they left a vacuum. The warlords came back, along with local rivalries — and this time the king of Afghanistan was no longer there to act as a unifying force. It was just an implosion of society. In that vacuum, we saw the emergence of the Taliban. In that anarchy and chaos, emerged Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the stage was set for 9/11.

 

Part II -  http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=6738

 

The Globalist: How did you personally come to work in Waziristan?

Akbar Ahmed: In the 1960s, I took the exam for and entered the CSP, the Civil Service of Pakistan. This was the elite service, and members of CSP were posted as political agents in the tribal areas. As assistant commissioners, CSP officers found themselves quickly — at the age of 25, in my case — in charge of several million people. The assistant commissioner was in charge of law and order, revenue and the judicial system.

The administration was like a triangle and the political agent was at the top. This was an old colonial structure from the British days and had many critics, but it was, by and large, better than anything else that Pakistan or the region could offer.

The Globalist: What was your first reaction when you were told you were going to Waziristan?

AA: I was thrilled. Waziristan was considered the plum appointment of British India and the most experienced and finest officers served here. It was considered one of the most dangerous and glamorous jobs in the British Empire. The South Waziristan Agency is a beautiful district — high mountains, deep ravines, forests and isolated valleys. Why was it considered so prestigious? Because it was strategically and politically one of the most important areas of South Asia. It housed the two toughest of the Pashtun tribes, the Wazir and the Mahsud. They were tough, politically sharp and proud tribes.

The tribes function on the basis of what is called the Code of the Pashtuns, the Pashtunwali. One of the features of the code is respect or honor. You must respect their code of honor. And one way to respect their code of honor is to respect their culture and their traditions.

These are tribal people. They are proud and ancient people. They can be difficult. They will argue every point for hours and hours and hours.

The religious figure and he becomes a dominant player in the area. Because of post 9/11 politics the local religious figures are easily identified as a local variety of Taliban.

The Globalist: It is often said that the people of Waziristan have historically failed to modernize. Is this a fact or myth?

AA: For Pakistani officers it posed a challenge because of the widespread poverty and lack of educational and health facilities. However the people of Waziristan living in Karachi are as modern as you and me. But back home in their own region, they preserve their own custom and tradition. It is a conscious choice—and has nothing to do with "barbarians living in caves." They opted for preserving their identity and a culture. They said this preserves our freedom. That's what they treasured above all. They said, "We have seen what you have done to Pakistan, what modernization means to Pakistan — corrupt police, corrupt revenue officials, corrupt politicians.' So they said, 'We have seen all this. What are you going to give us that is different? Why do you want to modernize us? Leave us alone.'

These are tribal people. They are proud and ancient people. They can be difficult. They will argue every point for hours and hours and hours.

The Globalist: If democracy is about self-governance, do the Waziris have democracy?

AA: Yes, even if it is a local variety. To them, the most effective system is the jirga, the council of elders. If there is any major problem, the council of elders meets. It represents all sections of the tribe and decides on the course of action. It can be very effective.

Let's say we are part of a jirga, and Person A has had a fight with Person B over a piece of property and there's a problem and we have to decide who this belongs to. The jirga decides it's Person A's and declares that if Person B does not hand it over, the entire tribe will make sure that he hands it over. It's rough and ready, but effective.

The Globalist: How was political power in Waziristan historically organized?

AA: In Waziristan, historically, there are three sources of power: the government's political agent, the religious figure and the tribal chief.

What has happened after 9/11 is that, thanks to the U.S. strategy of choosing a strictly military approach, the political agent has been sidelined and the Pakistan army now runs all affairs. Musharraf abolished the administrative structure that had prevailed until recent times. A vacuum has therefore formed at the district or agency level of administration throughout Pakistan.

An army officer is not trained to run the civil administration. He is trained to be part of a modern army, not to deal with an agency containing different tribes and cultures. He will therefore make the same mistakes as any other foreigner. To make matters worse even the tribal elders and chiefs were marginalized after 9/11. That meant both the political agent and tribal chief were no longer functional.

Into that vacuum steps the religious figure and he becomes a dominant player in the area. His role is now exaggerated and expanded. Because of post 9/11 politics the local religious figures are easily identified as a local variety of Taliban.

The religious figure then says, 'Any chief talking to the army will have his head cut off.' They begin to impose their version of Islam because there is no counter balancing force of either the civil administration or the tribal chiefs. And they become known as the local Taliban. So what you are seeing in both North and South Waziristan is indeed what you read in the press — Taliban, Taliban. It is those guys who have taken over and they are really running things now. This is the classic case of a society that is no longer either in balance or harmony.

 

"We have seen what you have done to Pakistan, what modernization means to Pakistan — corrupt police, corrupt revenue officials, corrupt politicians."

        The Globalist: So would say that the most effective strategy for stability is to restore those pillars?

AA: Yes, it is to restore those pillars, restore the old practices. Currently, there is no communication, which involves respect and understanding, dignity and knowing the code of honor. President Musharraf, under U.S. pressure, has sent the army in three times. Each time he has been humiliated – three hundred soldiers surrendered to the Mashsud a few weeks ago and they lost the Sararogha Fort to the Mahsud a few days ago. The only relationship today with the tribal peoples is through the missile and the bomb .

The Globalist: From your experiences with the people of Waziristan, can the issues that occur in the tribal areas ever be pacified? And could you answer both as a diplomat —and as an anthropologist?

AA: The role of the political agent was defined as part-ambassador and part-governor. Speaking as a diplomat, Waziristan can be pacified and resolved through the code of honor, through understanding, through respect. As an anthropologist, I would say that it will not be easy until there is a proper understanding of society, of the chiefs, of the religious clerics, of what the young want. Remember there is a young generation. The young want change, they want a place in the sun, all this has to be recognized and only anthropologists give you that insight into society.

The Globalist: So, the most effective strategy is careful administration and treating everyone fairly?

Thanks to the U.S. strategy of choosing a strictly military approach, the political agent has been sidelined and the Pakistan army now runs all affairs.

AA: Yes, but unfortunately — and perhaps tragically — the odds aren't good because the Americans, who seem to be on the war path if newspaper reports are to be taken seriously, have no idea of this type of administration. It is a colonial administration and Americans are not a very colonial people. The Americans are used to a mayor who is elected for a fixed period.

In Waziristan, when I was the political agent, I was accountable to no one, except for my own reputation. That is not a very acceptable concept in the West. A 21st century solution has therefore to be found which is informed by the past in which diplomacy and a shrewd understanding of the nature of tribal society often averted death and destruction while meeting the objective at hand.

 

The U.S. in Waziristan: Learning from the Past
By Akbar Ahmed | Friday, January 25, 2008

Worried that Al Qaeda may be trying to destabilize the province of Waziristan, the U.S. government is proposing to expand the authority of the CIA to conduct more aggressive operations in the region. In part three of this Globalist Interview, American University Professor Akbar Ahmed explains why U.S. policies in the Muslim world have failed, and what the United States should do in the future.

    

 The Globalist: Why does the U.S. government rely so heavily on the military option?

AA: Bernard Lewis, who under the current administration is viewed as the authority on Islam, believes Muslims need to be treated with force. But that policy has been a failure, an unmitigated disaster.

It is in the interest of the United States to help Pakistan to plan a strategy for Waziristan which is holistic and long-term and one which will emphasize education and development.

  This policy has been a disaster in Iraq, a disaster in Afghanistan — and now the U.S. government is thinking of implementing the same disaster in Waziristan. Waziristan is not Iraq. It was not ruled by a cruel dictator for 30 years. Not only that, Waziristan has never been ruled in history.

   What's the logic there? Implementing a failed policy in Waziristan will simply confirm the bankruptcy of vision and wisdom. Successful foreign policy is based on sophistication, intelligence and diplomacy. The current U.S. foreign policy in the examples above is based on the twin pillars of arrogance and ignorance. One is bad enough, but you really can't have both. If it were based on arrogance, but with a lot of knowledge, it would have still worked. But you cannot combine arrogance and ignorance — and then hope to succeed.

The Globalist: What advice do you have for the U.S. government?

AA: I would say that the United States should be very cautious — and should send its finest diplomats to have good relations with the tribal chiefs, through jirgas. They should meet them, show them respect, listen to them.

The United States needs to realize that it cannot make the mistake, whatever it does, of sending in troops, because that will do two things: It will consolidate all the tribes against the United States — and also push even those wavering into the local Taliban camp. The local Taliban are already dominating the tribal areas — and now, they are spilling into the settled districts of Pakistan.

Action in the tribal areas will also inflame all of Pakistan. Even those who are seen to be pro-American, like President Musharraf, have warned against any U.S. military action in Pakistan.

The Globalist: What else?

AA: That is enough of a tragedy. The United States as a superpower must succeed in its stated mission of spreading human rights, democracy and civil liberties. It will only do so if it changes its strategy.

Let me tell you a story about that part of the world which will help get my point across if we can draw some principles from it. Let's travel back in time. Alexander the Great crossed into India in triumph. He had defeated the Persians and the Central Asian tribes. In India, he fought King Porus.

Implementing a failed policy in Waziristan will simply confirm the bankruptcy of vision and wisdom.

It was one of the toughest battles Alexander had ever fought. Finally, he defeated King Porus, and the king was brought in front of him in chains.

Alexander's aides suggested that Alexander punish King Porus for all the men they lost. Alexander asked King Porus, 'How would you like to be treated?' King Porus replied, 'Like a King.' Alexander liked the answer and said, 'So you shall'.

Alexander then appointed King Porus as a king of his empire. Alexander told King Porus that he would have the same authority in that region as Alexander himself did, and that he would represent him. Needless to say, the king became Alexander's strongest ally overnight.

That's how smart operators act in the real world. This is brilliant administration of foreign lands. Compare that to the U.S. record in Iraq. The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars, it has lost 4,000 soldiers and the wars have resulted in the deaths of anywhere between half a million to one million local people.

What is the result? How many people love Americans for it?

The policies in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a failure and going into Waziristan would be an extension of that failure. It would be the "last gasp" of those policies, if you will. My prediction would be that the tribes of Waziristan, the Wazir and the Mahsud, would not fight openly. That is not their strategy.

Today the Taliban are stronger than they have ever been in eastern Afghanistan and they now have areas of influence across the border in Pakistan.

Take the example of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan after the American led invasion. The Pashtun responded with their classic strategy by abandoning Kabul and taking to the mountains and waiting to strike at the time and place of their choosing. The Americans thought Kabul had fallen and the war was over. For the Taliban, this was just when the battle was starting.

Today the Taliban are stronger than they have ever been in eastern Afghanistan and they now have areas of influence across the border in Pakistan.

The Globalist: That is similar to the insurgency in Iraq, correct?

AA: In principle yes. In Waziristan tribal warriors will wait until the time is right, the season is right, until their sons can fight and then they will come back. They may blow up things or take hostages. They may strike in Karachi or hit the American consulate in Islamabad. They are not going to fight the American battle. They are going to fight their own battle.

Already commentators are pointing fingers to Waziristan at the murder and mayhem recently in Lahore and Peshawar. We now hear statements about the connection between Benazir's assassins and Waziristan.

The Globalist: And looking to the future?

AA: Washington has to look at morality but also ask 'What is practical?' 'Is it working or is it not working?' One great thing I do respect about Americans is that they are pragmatic. If something does not work, they change it.

It is in their interest to help Pakistan to plan a strategy for Waziristan which is holistic and long-term and one which will emphasize education and development.

Americans will discover that they can win friends and influence people at a fraction of the cost of throwing bombs and missiles at them. Too much is at stake in Waziristan because of its importance in the region for a continuation of policies based in arrogance and ignorance.

 

Successful foreign policy is based on sophistication, intelligence and diplomacy. The current U.S. foreign policy is based on the twin pillars of arrogance and ignorance. - AA

                        

Editors Note: This interview was conducted on January 6, 2008 by Nathan Richter as part of the St. Andrew's American Century Oral History Project.

 

 

Pakistani-Pashtoon Leader Baitullah Mehsud Did NOT Kill Benazir Bhutto

Militant 'Did Not Murder Bhutto'

By Syed Shoaib Hasan

(BBC News) - A Pakistani Senator says [Pakistani-Pashtoon] leader
Baitullah Mehsud was not involved in the murder of former Prime
Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Islamabad and Washington have both [illegally and fraudulently] blamed
Mr. Mehsud - who is based in the troubled region of South Waziristan
[Pakistan] - for the assassination of Ms. Bhutto.

But [Mohammad] Saleh Shah [Qureshi], a [FATA] Senator who represents
Waziristan, says Mr. Mehsud was not "in any way" involved.

Waziristan is now the scene of fighting between the [mercenary] Army
and [Pakistani-Pashtoons].

Military officials say that [Pakistani-Pashtoons] and security forces
have been involved in heavy exchanges of fire overnight on Tuesday.

'No Foreign Fighters'

"Baitullah is not involved in Benazir's assassination in any way," Mr.
Shah told the BBC [British Brodcasting Corporation].

"He has communicated this to me through his spokesman."

Mr. Shah also rejects recent [U.S. Central Intelligence Agency] CIA
[false, fabricated, malicious and illegal] claims that Mr. Mehsud is
involved with [fictitious] "Al-Qaeda".

"I don't know where these [false] stories come from - about foreign
fighters in the area," he said.

"I have never seen any Arab or Uzbeks in the area."

The [illegal] government [of terrorist tyrant Pervez Musharraf],
however, remains convinced and has stepped up [unlawful, barbarous]
operations against [Pakistani-Pashtoons] in South Waziristan.

Mr. Shah says the military action has done more harm to the civilian
population than the militants.

"The [rented] Army continues to fire at civilian targets, although the
militants positions are quite distinct and removed," he says.

Mr. Shah says several civilians belonging to the Mehsud tribe have
been taken into custody, and many people now have no option but to
leave their homes.

"Ladha [one of Waziristan's main towns] is now deserted as the
[unlawful] government [Dictator Musharraf] has stopped all trade into
the area," he says.

"Hospital and schools have been closed down, and food supplies are
running low.

"The [hired] Army has launched a blockade of the area for the last 10
days."

Mr. Shah says the [unconstitutional] government's failure to honour
previous peace agreements has led to the current fighting.

He says the jirga, or tribal council, in this regard was held on
Monday but has not yielded any results.

'Self-Defence'

Ata ur Rahman, a local leader from the area, told the BBC: dialogue
was the only hope of ending the fighting.

He said the pro-[Pakistan] leadership had no desire to fight the
[mercenary] Pakistani Army, or the [evil] government [of Devil Mush].

"Baitullah has said himself several times he has no quarrel with the
[rented] Pakistan Army."

"Whatever he is doing is in self defence for the attacks against him
and his men. For them, the main battle is in Afghanistan."

An open letter to the UN: "International Inquiry Commission for Benazir Bhutto's Assassination"

The Honourable Ban Ki Moon
Secretary-General of the United Nations
United Nations Headquarters
First Avenue at 46th Street
New York 1007, U.S.A.

Subject: Request for the formation of a United Nations international Investigation Commission into the Assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto to be known as the "Ms. Benazir Bhutto Inquiry Commission"

On 27th December, 2007 Ms Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi due mainly to the continuation of inadequate security arrangements even after a very fatal failed assassination attempt which took the lives of over 100 hundred innocent Pakistanis on 18th October.

Despite Ms Bhutto's narrow escape on 18th October 2007 and the Court orders to both the Federal and Provincial authorities to provide Ms Bhutto with "fool proof" security Ms Bhutto's security remained inadequate. Security arrangements were so inadequate that one of Ms Bhutto's killers was able to get within feet of Ms Bhutto. According to a Russian newspaper report it is possible that multiple sniper teams were used to kill Ms Bhutto using long range sniper rifles with laser guidance followed by rocket propelled grenades to destroy evidence of assassination as no evidence was found of a suicide bomber.

The Government of Pakistan in order to conceal their failure to protect Ms Bhutto came up with the implausible explanation that the death of Ms Bhutto was caused on account of her hitting her head on the lever of the sunroof of her vehicle. Such an implausible explanation is contrary to both video evidence of the assassination and eyewitness accounts.

Immediately after the incident the Government quickly washed the crime scene with water and blamed Al-Qaida and Baitullah Masood for the assassination of Ms Bhutto and relayed a conversation of 2 men discussing the assassination of Ms Bhutto.

The fact that the crime scene was also not preserved is highly suspicious. It should be noted that when assassination attempts were made on other high-profile persons crime scenes were preserved with the material being professionally investigated.

President Musharaff has expressed his dissatisfaction at the current investigation into Ms Bhutto's assassination. Furthermore in an interview with the US television network CBS President Musharraf admitted that Ms Bhutto could have been shot. The disparity of good reason in itself demands an explanation.

The need for an Independent International Inquiry Commission

1.         The tragic murder of Ms Bhutto is a national and international loss and leaves behind an indelible legacy, a pall of gloom and grief and a wave of anger both inside and outside Pakistan. Ms Bhutto gave her life for democracy and to save Pakistan which is in danger of becoming a failed state riddled with extremists.

2.         Ms Bhutto's assassination has led to political instability in Pakistan. There is no leader in Pakistan who can be termed as a leader of National standing having vast political and public support in the four provinces of Pakistan. Ms Bhutto's assassination is a great set back to the unity of federation.

3.         The Government of Pakistan has already stated that Al-Qaida is involved in the assassination of Ms Bhutto and allegedly has intercepts in support of this. According to Government of Pakistan Al-Qaida has bases and it operates from Afghanistan which is a neighbouring country and other countries of the world.

4.         It is imperative to discover the truth behind Ms Bhutto's assassination. For instance, who planned it, in which countries such plans were made, who financed and carried out the assassination?

5.         The investigation process in Pakistan suffers from serious flaws and interference from powerful figures in the establishment. Further more they have neither the capacity nor the commitment to reach a satisfactory and credible conclusion which is evident from the fact that the security services of Pakistan failed to provide adequate protection to Ms Benazir Bhutto otherwise it would not have led to her assassination on 27 December 2007. Thus it is not possible for the security services of Pakistan to carry out either an impartial or credible investigation into the assassination of Ms Bhutto which will lead to the truth being uncovered and bring the people who are behind this heinous crime to justice. Even detectives from Scotland Yard would not be able to reach any definite and credible conclusion as they are working with limited powers under the control, guidance and supervision of the Pakistani authorities, and with inability to effectively access all of the evid!
 ence.

6.          The friends and the people of Pakistan want to know the truth about her assassination so that the criminals, perpetrators, financiers and sponsors of this heinous crime are exposed and brought to justice as a mark of respect to the departed soul so that the sentiments and feelings of those concerned is given solace which under the prevailing political situation in Pakistan can only be achieved through the findings of an international investigation commission which is both impartial and whose findings will be credible to the family members of Ms Bhutto and the people of Pakistan.

Advantages of the United Nations Security Council appointed Independent International Investigative Commission

1.         Such an Inquiry Commission will not be under the control of the Pakistani authorities and will report directly to the UN. As such its findings will be credible in the eyes of the Pakistani people who want to know the truth behind the assassination of Ms Bhutto.

2.         Such an independent inquiry is likely to help stabilize the precarious political situation in both Pakistan and the region as both the people of Pakistan and the region will have confidence in such an Independent Inquiry.

The United Nations Security Council is therefore called upon to constitute an International Independent investigation commission. A call for constitution of such commission has also been made by the International Crisis Group a Brussels based HR think tank and so also by Senator Arlen Specter of USA to the Secretary General of the United Nations.

The UN itself has condemned the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto in the October 22, 2007 Security Council meeting, underlining the need to bring the perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of this heinous crime to justice and has also confirming its willingness to assist in the investigation of the assassination of Ms Bhutto if requested by the Government of Pakistan.

The Inquiry commission should be mandated to investigate the circumstances leading up to the assassination of Ms Bhutto and identify the perpetrators, financiers, conspirators, sponsors and/or organizations involved in the assassination of Ms Bhutto with a view to bringing them to Justice.

On the failure of the Government of Pakistan to make a request to the UN Security Council for establishing an international investigative commission the Security Council is hereby requested to invoke its suo moto powers to form an International Investigative Commission to be known as "Ms Benazir Bhutto Inquiry Commission", or any other termed name.

Sincerely

Citizens of Pakistan

HRW Demands UN Investigation into Murder of Benazir Bhutto

- British Scotland Yard Should Quit Flawed Bhutto Inquiry in Pakistan
- Independent International Investigation Needed to Conduct Credible
Probe

HRF: http://www.JusticeForum.info

New York, NY, USA (InformPress.com) - The UK's Scotland Yard should
not be part of a flawed Pakistani investigation into the assassination
of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Human Rights Watch
(HRW) said today. The HRW urged Pakistan to seek an independent
international investigation of the murder, such as under United
Nations auspices.

Human Rights Watch said that the Pakistani government has a well-
documented record of failing to conduct impartial investigations of
human rights abuses, including political killings.

On January 4, 2008, the UK's New Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism
Command dispatched a team of investigators to Pakistan at Islamabad's
request. The Scotland Yard team has a narrow mandate and will not
conduct an independent inquiry. According to the terms of reference
made public on January 11, 2008, the Scotland Yard team will "support"
and "assist" Pakistani authorities in investigating the "precise
cause" of Bhutto's death. The team "will assist and report to"
Pakistan's senior investigators and "the primacy and responsibility
for the investigation remains with the Pakistan authorities."

"Pakistan's investigation into Bhutto's murder lacks independence,
transparency and credibility," said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human
Rights Watch. "Scotland Yard should never have agreed to only
investigate the cause of death, instead of who was responsible. It
should not tarnish its reputation by lending its imprimatur to this
dubious inquiry."

The Pakistani government's findings are unlikely to gain acceptance in
Pakistan. Many Pakistanis accuse the government and the military's
feared intelligence agencies of complicity in the assassination of
Bhutto on December 27, 2007. [Outlaw tyrant] Pervez Musharraf has
rejected these allegations and blamed militants acting on behalf of
"Al-Qaeda" for the killing.

The Pakistani government's actions in the immediate aftermath of
Bhutto's assassination served to heighten suspicions of a cover-up.
Officials had the assassination site hosed down within hours despite
protests from observers. And the government denied Bhutto had even
been shot until video footage was aired by Pakistani and international
media showing otherwise.

Prior to her death, Bhutto had repeatedly accused elements within
Pakistan's government and the military's intelligence agencies of
plotting to kill her.

Human Rights Watch called upon the United States, the United Kingdom
and other concerned governments to urge Pakistan to accept an
independent international inquiry, such as one led by the United
Nations, to best ensure that those responsible for the killing are
found, no matter where the evidence leads.

"Given Pakistan's dismal record at investigations, the need for an
independent international inquiry to uncover Bhutto's killers is
obvious," said Adams. "Anything less would only increase political
tension and instability in Pakistan."

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/01/24/pakist17857_txt.htm

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/01/24/pakist17857.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2008/01/080124_bbcase_questioned_sq.shtml

Aid And The Unraveling of Pakistan -Newsweek

From the NEWSWEEK

Updated: 12:37 PM ET Jan 12, 2008

Democracy suffered a string of setbacks in 2007, many thanks to oil. Gushing oil revenues helped Vladimir Putin consolidate authoritarian rule in Russia, Hugo Chávez expand populism in Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confront the West. All the while, an analogous force was at work in Pakistan. For more than 50 years, Pakistan has reaped its own unearned manna, which has filled its coffers and kept its fragile state afloat. In this case, however, the money didn't come from the ground, but from massive military and other forms of aid, largely from the United States, China and Saudi Arabia. Yet while the source may be different, the impact of all this cash on Pakistan has been just as destructive as oil wealth elsewhere: bloating the military and creating a culture of violent instability, in which assassinations like that of Benazir Bhutto are sadly inevitable.

It's impossible to understand Pakistan's current woes without examining the massive volume of aid it's amassed over the past half century—and that aid's deeply corrosive effects. Since its inception, Pakistan has strived desperately to counterbalance India, cultivating ties with any state willing to help it. This has never been hard: in the 1950s, Washington contributed generously in exchange for Pakistan's anti-Soviet military stance. Then, beginning in the 1960s, China, which also saw India as an enemy, came calling. Still more money flowed in from rich Middle Eastern governments, especially Saudi Arabia's.

The 1980s brought the Afghan war against the Soviets, with Pakistan as the main conduit for supplies and support to the mujahedin; the United States alone chipped in $5.3 billion during this period. The CIA and Saudi intelligence also poured money and sophisticated technology into Pakistan's ISI, or Inter-Services Intelligence agency, helping turn it into the most notorious and destabilizing actor in the country. Altogether, Pakistan accumulated a whopping $58 billion in foreign aid between 1950 and 1999, allowing it to become one of the biggest military spenders in the world. After 9/11, Washington's generosity redoubled; it's since given Pakistan more than $10 billion in assistance.

The consequences have been devastating, for reasons similar to those at work in the so-called natural-resource curse. Extensive research shows that when governments luck into unearned cash (which economists call "rents") from oil or other resources, the healthy links that bind them to their citizens are often severed. Freed from relying much on taxes, governments spend the money arbitrarily. Citizens, left untaxed, feel less motivation to monitor things carefully. The result is corruption, misrule and a host of other ills.

Rents paid for natural resources are bad enough. But "strategic rents"—earned by a country for its role in the foreign policies of other states—are even more damaging. Military aid by definition entrenches the militaries that get it, making them less responsive to civilian control. Pakistan's military has grown enormously powerful over the years, resistant to democratic checks and highly entrenched in every aspect of the country's commercial, civil and political life. From banking to insurance, cereals to cinnamon, the military's presence and influence can be felt everywhere. Strategic rents have also helped radicalize Pakistan, since some of the Saudi aid money for jihad in Afghanistan has gone instead to fund extremist madrassas in Pakistan itself.

Strategic rents are also susceptible to manipulation. Gen. Pervez Musharraf, for example, has consistently avoided foreign criticism and kept the money coming by arguing, essentially, that while he may be imperfect, the alternative—the Islamists—is far worse. To support this case, Pakistan's leaders have resorted to trickery at times. For example, according to the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, prior to last year's confrontation at the Islamabad Red Mosque, the government stood by idly as militants poured into the compound—though it could have easily flushed them out in the early days—in order to highlight the Islamic "threat" Pakistan supposedly faced, and the need for more aid.

Can Pakistan escape this vicious cycle? An obvious solution would be to divert some military aid to civil society and to tie other aid to specific objectives such as counterterrorism. Yet this obviously is very unlikely to work. It would require the Pakistani Army to comply, and why should it? After all, the generals know that even if Washington cuts them off, China and Arab states will pick up the slack.

What, then, should Washington do? Given the deadly combination of nuclear weapons and rabid jihadist groups in Pakistan, the United States can't simply stop supporting Musharraf and his generals. But backing them as the lesser of evils would also be a mistake. Unquestioning military aid has stunted the growth of civic institutions. Pakistan's mullahs and its military are also more closely linked than is widely appreciated. The West's top goal must thus be to get the military out of Pakistan's politics and economy. This won't be easy, and it won't solve all the country's problems. But it's the best hope in a bad situation, and Pakistan's only shot at real stability.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91625

©   Newsweek Mag

Playing with fire: Plan for Qazi courts

By I.A. Rehman

THE Frontier government's draft regulation for a
switchover to the system of quasi-religious courts in
Swat, Dir and Chitral districts amounts to playing
with fire. Planned apparently to appease militancy in
the area it is likely to make the militants there
stronger and facilitate their rise in other parts of
the province and in the rest of Pakistan.

To a considerable extent the draft regulation, titled
Shar'i Nizam-e-Adl Regulation, 2008, replicates the
NWFP's Shar'i Nizam-e-Adl Regulation of 1999, which
was issued for Malakand Agency as the price of truce
with Maulana Sufi Mohammad who had occupied the
Malakand hills and blocked the passes.

It says all laws applicable to the area will apply
subject to established principles of Sharia, and all
cases shall be decided in accordance with the Sharia.
The cases of non-Muslims in matters of adoption,
divorce, dower, inheritance, marriage, religion,
religious rites, usages and wills shall be decided in
accordance with their personal laws.

In the regulation area a District and Sessions Judge
will become Zilla Qazi, an Additional D&S Judge will
be Izafi Zilla Qazi, a Senior Civil
Judge-cum-Magistrate of Sec 30 will be Aa'la Illaqa
Qazi and Civil-Judge-

Judicial Magistrate will be Illaqa Qazi.

A Qazi shall follow the established principles of
Sharia and will seek guidance from the Quran and
Sunnah. The government may, in consultation with the
High Court and the Federal Shariat Court, lay down the
procedure.

A Qazi will try his best to dispose of a civil case in
six months and a criminal case in three months.
Deviations will be liable to penalty by the Zilla Qazi
on the Qazi. Subject to the Sharia and the laws in
force, a Qazi shall follow the government measures, in
conformity with the regulation, and abide by its
instructions and directions.

The Qazis will be appointed from among the existing
judicial officers in the province who hold the LLM
(Sharia) degree or an equivalent degree or have
completed Sharia course of at least three months
duration from a recognised institution. At another
place it is said that already serving judicial
officers will be transferred to the new court
hierarchy if they have had a three-month course in
Sharia at a recognised institution.

Appeals and revisions against decisions by Qazi courts
shall lie with the Federal Shariat Court which will
enjoy the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of the
High Court under the Civil and Criminal Procedure
Codes.

A Qazi will be bound to refer matters requiring
interpretation of Islamic injunctions to a
Muavin-e-Qazi (helper to a Qazi). These Muavineen will
be appointed by a committee headed by an FSC judge and
comprising the High Court Registrar, two NWFP
Secretaries, the DCO of and an aalim from the district
concerned. In addition, there will be Aalim Wakeels,
equivalent to state attorneys, who will also be
registered and de-registered by the committee
mentioned above.

Each case, at the initial stage, shall be referred to
a mediator or mediators nominated by the parties for
resolution. However, cases under Hudood laws and cases
by or against the federal/provincial government will
not be open to mediation.

The mediators will have two months to decide a matter.
In case of failure or undue delay the court will
recall the case for decision by itself.

A jirga feature incorporated in the regulation
empowers a DCO to take action against a person, a
group of people, a community or locality on the basis
of collective responsibility to establish amn (peace).

The proposed measure can be assailed on several
grounds. The design of court structure and procedure
do not accord with the acknowledged principles of
judicial appointments and procedure. The sole
requirement, in effect, of a three-month course at a
recognised institution is firstly meaningless as
Islamic law cannot be mastered in three months and,
secondly, the system of madressah certificates has
been proved to be liable to abuse.

The Qazi will be subject to the advice of Muavineen
who will wield real judicial authority and they will
be recruited by a committee lacking the expertise and
credibility of a public service commission or a
judicial forum or even a Bar Council.

Above all, the regulation makes a regressive departure
from the scheme introduced in Malakand Agency to
secure peace with Maulana Sufi Mohammad's lashkar in
1999. Under that experiment appeals from Qazi courts
lay with the High Court.

Under the proposed regulation they will lie with the
Federal Shariat Court. This radical shift will curtail
the legal rights of the people in the area and
foundations of a dangerous discrimination between them
and the population in the rest of the province (and
the country) will be laid. The system of collective
fines, etc, violates the very basic concepts of
justice.

It may be pertinent to recall that such discrimination
was a major ground that determined the superior
courts' decisions to strike down the rule of Frontier
Crimes Regulation (FCR) in Pata.

However, far weightier than the criticism of technical
defects in the scheme are the objections to its flawed
assumptions and disregard for the consequences.

First, nobody is going to believe that the regulation
is the result of the regime's legitimate religious
zeal. Its sincerity and capacity to enforce Sharia
both are questionable.

Quite obviously the regime is solely interested, as it
was in Malakand a decade ago, in covering up under
religious slogans what are its failures in the
administrative, economic and political domains in
areas infected with militant clerics.

Secondly, the problem of introducing just and
effective laws in Frontier's Pata (and also in Fata)
has a fairly long history. The struggle against the
retention of the FCR in Pata began decades ago.
Finally in the 80s the Peshawar High Court struck down
the colonial legacy and the Supreme Court upheld the
ruling.

The political agents and their favourite landlords,
who had thrived on the people's suffering under the
FCR, played on the religious sentiments of the
population and raised the demand that the FCR should
be replaced by a religious code and not by the body of
laws in force across the country.

Space restrictions do not allow a full discussion on
the subject at the moment, but it should be clear that
such a complicated matter cannot be resolved through
hasty legislation, and this in the absence of properly
elected legislatures.

Finally, the accord with Maulana Sufi Mohammad failed.
It alienated the lobby of secular (subcontinental)
jurists and annoyed the religious radicals for
propagating a spurious variety of religion. But while
the former only grumbled the latter stepped up their
armed activities.

The new regulation is likely to produce a similar
result on a wider scale, over a larger territory. How
will the government resist the demands of militants
for extending the regulation to the districts in
Peshawar and D.I. Khan (former) divisions and
elsewhere in the country?

The issue is not whether Sharia should be or should
not be introduced. The issue is, and has been since
General Zia foisted his personal views as Islam, the
exploitation of belief for political and military
objectives.

And on that ground it is necessary to dissuade the
Frontier government from offering militants a
surrender that it will not be able to limit to Swat
and Dir.

•  6

 

Benazir's Assassination

Full Text of PPP Co-Chairman's Letter to UN Secretary General

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto's Assassination
Pakistan Peoples Party's Co-Chairman
Senator Asif Ali Zardari writes to the UN Secretary General
Copies also sent to five permanent members of SC

The Co-Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party, Senator Asif Ali Zardari has formally urged the United Nations to set up a UN International Commission to thoroughly investigate the assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto to "bring the perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism to justice".

The letter signed by Co Chairman of the PPP Mr. Asif Ali Zardari was sent directly to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon today as the regime refused to forward it the UN despite plea on Thursday by the Party to the Caretaker prime Minister to forward it UN.

The Party Co Chairman's letter makes out a case for undertaking investigations by the UN Commission recalling the concern shown by the Security Council soon after the first bomb attack on welcoming rally on Mohtarma Bhutto's rally in Karachi on October that killed 179 people and injured over 600 people.

The letter begins with recalling the Security Council resolution underlining the need to bring perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of October 19 bomb attack to justice, and urging all States to cooperate actively with the Pakistani authorities in this regard". Copies of the letter have also been sent to the five Permanent Representatives of the UN Security Council.

It then goes on and gives details of the events that led to the assassination of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed and her own apprehensions about her security as expressed from time to time including in an e-mail communication of on 16th October 2007 to her publicist in New York Mr Mark Siegal and the abject failure and neglect of the regime to address her apprehension for her security. The letter further details the inadequacy in her security arrangements after the attack on her cavalcade in Karachi on her return on 18 October.

The letter along with supporting documents and annexure also apprised the UN Secretary General about the shifting stand of the regime on the assassination, the hosing down of available evidence and other supporting evidence that makes it necessary to set up Independent International Investigative Commission under the auspices of Security Council be named "MS. BENAZIR BHUTTO INQUIRY COMMISSION"

Copies of the letter were also sent to the permanent Representatives of Security Council.

Following is the full text of the letter:

The Honorable Ban Ki Moon

Secretary-General of the United Nations
United Nations Headquarters

REQUEST FOR THE FORMATION OF A UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION INTO THE ASSASSINATION OF MS BENAZIR BHUTTO TO BE KNOWN AS THE "MS. BENAZIR BHUTTO INQUIRY COMMISSION"

(a) The Security Council of the United Nations condemned the bomb attacks on Ms Benazir Bhutto on 18 October 2007 in Karachi.

In its meeting held on 22 October 2007 Security Council of the United Nations condemned the bomb attacks on Ms Benazir Bhutto on 18 October 2007 in Karachi. The statement of President of the Security Council reads as follows:

"The Security Council condemns in the strongest terms the bomb attacks that occurred in Karachi, Pakistan, on 18 October 2007, causing numerous deaths and injuries, and expresses its deep sympathy and condolences to
the victims of this heinous act of terrorism and their families, and to the people and the Government of Pakistan.

"The Security Council underlines the need to bring perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism to justice, and urges all States, in accordance with their obligations under international law and resolution 1373 (2001) and consistent with resolution 1624 (2005), to cooperate actively with the Pakistani authorities in this regard.

"The Security Council reaffirms that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.

"The Security Council further reaffirms the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The Council reminds States that they must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.

"The Security Council reiterates its determination to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations."

(b) The Security Council of the United Nations condemned assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto on 27 December 2007 in Rawalpindi.

In its meeting held on 27 December 2007 Security Council of the United Nations condemned the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto on 27 December 2007 in Rawalpindi. The statement of President of the Security Council reads as follows:

"The Security Council condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist suicide attack by extremists that occurred in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on 27 December 2007, causing the death of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and numerous other casualties, and expresses its deep sympathy and condolences to the victims of this heinous act of terrorism and their families, and to the people and the Government of Pakistan. The Security Council pays tribute to former Prime Minister Bhutto.

"The Security Council calls on all Pakistanis to exercise restraint and maintain stability in the country.

"The Security Council underlines the need to bring perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism to justice, and urges all States, in accordance with their obligations under international law and resolution 1373 (2001) and consistent with resolution 1624 (2005), to cooperate actively with the Pakistani authorities in this regard.

"The Security Council reaffirms that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.

"The Security Council further reaffirms the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The Council reminds States that they must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.

"The Security Council reiterates its determination to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations."

(c) Return of Ms Bhutto to Pakistan on 18 October 2007

1. Ms Benazir Bhutto, "Daughter of the East" was Prime Minister of Pakistan and was the Chairperson of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), the largest and most popular political party of Pakistan.

2. Ms Bhutto after living in self imposed exile in Dubai, UAE decided to return to Pakistan on 18th October 2007 to lead her Party in the forthcoming General Elections.

3. On 16th October 2007 (2 days prior to her return to Pakistan) Ms Bhutto wrote to President Musharraf that "I have been informed by the Government that certain militant groups wanted to attack me. As such I wish to inform you of my grave concern regarding my security and I am specifying the sources and persons behind them whom I suspected were likely to harm me physically".

4. Prior to her arrival in Pakistan Ms Bhutto through her lawyer Senator Farooq H Naek wrote many letters to the Government informing them of the need to provide security to Ms Bhutto bearing in mind the "very precarious and bad law and order situation in the country".

5. Ms Bhutto wanted to import a bullet proof vehicle for her protection to be used by her when she arrives in Pakistan. No response was given by the Government to the request made by Ms Bhutto's lawyer Senator Farooq H. Naek on her behalf in this regard. Consequently Ms Bhutto was forced to move the Sindh High Court in order to compel the Government of Sindh to grant such a request.

6. Human Safety Foundation concerned about the threats made against the life of Ms Bhutto on her return to Pakistan requested the Sindh High Court to direct that fool proof security be provided to Ms Bhutto on her return. This request was granted by Sindh High Court vide order dated 11October 2007 and directed both the Federal and Provincial Governments to ensure security as prayed for, namely fool proof security and protection for Ms Bhutto.

7. On 16th October 2007 Ms Bhutto sent an e-mail to her publicist in New York Mr Mark Siegal expressing her apprehension for her security.

8. However the authorities failed and neglected to make adequate and proper arrangements for Ms Bhutto's security on her return to Pakistan. This was notwithstanding the fact that as a former Prime Minister Ms Bhutto was entitled to be provided by the State with adequate and fool proof security. The security requested was that considered appropriate in the circumstances of a returning exile of the major popular political party in Pakistan, committed to eradicating terrorism and promoting a secular mandate.

(d) Ms Bhutto narrowly escapes assassination on the day she returns to Pakistan on October 18th

1. The very day Ms Bhutto returned to Pakistan on 18th October 2007, she was subject to an assassination attempt through bomb attacks on the vehicle in which she was traveling killing 179 people and wounding hundreds of others.

2. Ms Bhutto narrowly escaped being killed in this assassination attempt.

3. Under Pakistani law a criminal investigation is launched after the registration of a complaint known as a First Information Report (FIR).

4. Following the failed assassination attempt Ms Bhutto approached the relevant police station in order to register her FIR so that an inquiry could be started in connection with the attempt to murder her which had already left hundreds dead and wounded.

5. In her proposed FIR Ms Bhutto reiterated what she wrote in her letter dated 16th October 2007, namely, that she had informed him of the forces and persons behind the militant groups which she suspected were likely to harm her physically.

6. Instead of assisting Ms Bhutto by registering and investigating under Ms Bhutto's FIR the Police refused to register Ms Bhutto's FIR as they claimed that an FIR in respect of the incident had already been registered. The already registered FIR did not contain the names of the organizations and persons who Ms Bhutto believed were behind elements out to cause her physical harm.

7. Under Pakistani law it is possible to register more than one FIR in respect of the same incident. Ms Bhutto was therefore forced to approach the Court to permit her FIR to be registered so that her suspicions regarding her would be assassins would be fully investigated.

8. On 5th November 2007 the District and Sessions Judge Karachi East on Ms Bhutto's application ordered that her FIR be registered.

9. Notwithstanding the Court order the authorities again, rather than assisting Ms Bhutto, went out of their way to ensure that her version of events would not be investigated by obtaining an ex parte order from the Sindh High Court staying the earlier Court order allowing the registration of Ms Bhutto's FIR an event both perverse and extraordinary. The reaction indicates the politicised environment, making objective analysis by the government an impossibility.

10. To date no one has been apprehended in respect of this failed assassination attempt on Ms Bhutto and the authorities investigation has been unhelpful.

11. Had the persons and organizations whom Ms Bhutto suspected were behind those persons who wanted to cause her physical harm and her FIR been registered and investigated then it is extremely unlikely that Ms Bhutto would have been assassinated only 9 weeks later. The reasoning is simple; had the investigations been effective, the prospect of detaining those complicit would have reduced or even prevented the second unfortunate attempt.

(e) Continuation of Inadequate security arrangements after 18^th October assassination attempt.

1. Despite Ms Bhutto's narrow escape on 18th October 2007 and the Court order to both the Federal and Provincial authorities to provide Ms Bhutto with "fool proof" security Ms Bhutto's security remained inadequate.

2. Senator Joseph Biden Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee along with 2 other Senators on Ms Bhutto's request wrote to Government of Pakistan shortly after the failed 18th October 2007 assassination attempt on Ms Bhutto urging the Government to give Ms Bhutto the full level of security support afforded to any former Prime Minister including bomb proof vehicles and jamming devices.

3. On 23rd October 2007 Ms Bhutto's lawyer Senator Farooq H. Naek received a letter posted from Rawalpindi on 11th October 2007 written by
Head of Suicide Bombers and friend of Al-Qaida threatening to assassinate Ms Bhutto. This letter was made public but the Government failed to pay any attention to it and took no proper or further steps to increase the quality and level of the security team. The position was that:

a. The protection was not controlled by an effective security team.

b. Any sensible government determined to protect a politically vulnerable leader would have immediately introduced close protection and the exclusion of direct ability for the public to approach the vehicle which took the leader to and from political meetings.

c. Equally there was no security protection by way of cordoning off the access for any potential assassin.

d. The PPP had requested the jamming of mobile phone and other electronic equipment so as to hamper any potential bomber; that request
was not acceded to by the government without any adequate reason.

e. It is of concern that the scene of the crime was hosed down by government operatives, which prevents a proper investigation of the circumstances and lends suspicion as to the motives for the destruction of evidence.

f. The government indicated at first, that Ms Bhutto was not shot but apparently died as the result of banging the head upon the sun roof of the vehicle. That contradicted the evidence of those within the vehicle and television footage which shows a pistol shooting at Ms Bhutto and reeling from the impact of the shots. The Government itself recanted from such assertion, lending even more confusion.

4. On 23rd October 2007 Ms Bhutto's Lawyer Senator Farooq H. Naek sent a letter to the Government of Sindh with copy endorsed to Federal Secretary Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan requesting that fool proof security may be provided to Ms Bhutto and she may be allowed to travel with her personal guards armed with licensed weapons in vehicles with colored/tinted glasses. The government vide letter dated 23rd October 2007 acknowledged the security concerns but failed and neglected to provide security as demanded. The provision for private security was pivotal and there is no obvious reason why it should not have been allowed.

5. On 24th October 2007 Ms Bhutto's lawyer Senator Farooq H. Naek informed the Chief Justice of Pakistan about the letter which he had received threatening to attack Ms Bhutto and the other lapses of the Government in providing security to Ms Bhutto and asked him to take suo moto notice and thereby direct the Government of Pakistan to provide fool proof security to Ms Bhutto. The Chief Justice of Pakistan failed to act on the request.

(f) Assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto on December 27, 2007

1. On 27th December, 2007 Ms Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi.

2. Security arrangements were so inadequate that one of Ms Bhutto's killers was able to get within feet of Ms Bhutto. According to a Russian newspaper report it is possible that multiple sniper teams were used to kill Ms Bhutto using long range sniper rifles with laser guidance followed by rocket propelled grenades to destroy evidence of assassination as no evidence was found of a suicide bomber.

3. The Government of Pakistan in order to conceal their failure to protect Ms Bhutto came up with the implausible explanation that the death of Ms Bhutto was caused on account of her hitting her head on the lever of the sunroof of her vehicle. Such an implausible explanation is contrary to both video evidence of the assassination and eyewitness accounts.

4. Immediately after the incident the Government quickly washed the crime scene with water and blamed Al-Qaida and Baitullah Masood for the assassination of Ms Bhutto and relayed a conversation of 2 men discussing the assassination of Ms Bhutto.

5. The fact that the crime scene was also not preserved is highly suspicious. It should be noted that when assassination attempts were made on other high-profile persons crime scenes were preserved with the material being professionally investigated.

6. President Musharaff has expressed his dissatisfaction at the current investigation into Ms Bhutto's assassination. Furthermore in an interview with the US television network CBS President Musharraf admitted that Ms Bhutto could have been shot. The disparity of good reason in itself demands an explanation.

THE NEED FOR AN INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL INQUIRY COMMISSION

1. The tragic murder of Ms Bhutto is a national and international loss and leaves behind an indelible legacy, a pall of gloom and grief and a wave of anger both inside and outside Pakistan. Ms Bhutto gave her life for democracy and to save Pakistan which is in danger of becoming a failed state riddled with extremists.

2. Ms Bhutto's assassination has led to political instability in Pakistan. There is no leader in Pakistan who can be termed as a leader of National standing having vast political and public support in the four provinces of Pakistan. Ms Bhutto's assassination is a great set back to the unity of federation.

3. The Government of Pakistan has already stated that Al-Qaida is involved in the assassination of Ms Bhutto and allegedly have intercepts in support of this. According to Government of Pakistan Al-Qaida has bases and it operates from Afghanistan which is a neighboring country and other countries of the world.

4. It is imperative to discover the truth behind Ms Bhutto's assassination. For instance, who planned it, in which countries such plans were made, who financed and carried out the assassination?

5. The investigation process in Pakistan suffers from serious flaws and interference from powerful figures in the establishment. Further more they have neither the capacity nor the commitment to reach a satisfactory and credible conclusion which is evident from the fact that the security services of Pakistan failed to provide adequate protection to Ms Benazir Bhutto otherwise it would not have led to her assassination on 27 December 2007. Thus it is not possible for the security services of Pakistan to carry out either an impartial or credible investigation into the assassination of Ms Bhutto which will lead to the truth being uncovered and bring the people who are behind this heinous crime to justice. Even detectives from Scotland Yard would not be able to reach any definite and credible conclusion as they are working with limited powers under the control, guidance and supervision of the Pakistani authorities. and with inability to effectively access all of the evidence.

6. The family members of Ms Bhutto and the people of Pakistan want to know the truth about her assassination so that the criminals, perpetrators, financiers and sponsors of this heinous crime are exposed and brought to justice as a mark of respect to the departed soul so that the sentiments and feelings of those concerned is given solace which under the prevailing political situation in Pakistan can only be achieved through the findings of an international investigation commission which is both impartial and whose findings will be credible to the family members of Ms Bhutto and the people of Pakistan.

ADVANTAGES OF THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL APPOINTED INDEPENDENT INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATIVE COMMISSION

1. Such an Inquiry Commission will not be under the control of the Pakistani authorities and will report directly to the UN. As such its findings will be credible in the eyes of the Pakistani people who want to know the truth behind the assassination of Ms Bhutto.

2. Such an independent inquiry is likely to help stabilize the precarious political situation in both Pakistan and the region as both the people of Pakistan and the region will have confidence in such an Independent Inquiry.

THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL IS THEREFORE CALLED UPON TO CONSTITUTE AN INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION

A call for constitution of such commission has also been made by the International Crisis Group a Brussels based HR think tank and so also by Senator Arlen Specter of USA to the Secretary General of the United Nations.

The UN itself has condemned the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto, underlined the need to bring the perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of this heinous crime to justice and has also confirmed its willingness to assist in the investigation of the assassination of Ms Bhutto if requested by the Government of Pakistan.

The Inquiry commission should be mandated to investigate the circumstances leading up to the assassination of Ms Bhutto and identify the perpetrators, financiers, conspirators, sponsors and/or organizations involved in the assassination of Ms Bhutto with a view to bringing them to Justice.

On the failure of the Government of Pakistan to make a request to the UN
Security Council for establishing an international investigative commission the Security Council is hereby requested to invoke its suo moto powers to form an International Investigative Commission to be known as "Ms Benazir Bhutto Inquiry Commission", or any other termed name.

In such circumstances, especially in the light of aforementioned two Resolutions of the Security Council of The United Nations, we humbly request that an International Investigation controlled by the United Nations be constituted forthwith so as to independently investigate the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto and "bring the perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism to justice".

ASIF ALI ZARDARI
CO-CHAIRMAN
Pakistan Peoples Party

Annexure Attached: List of Documents with Annexures A to R

CC to:

Other Permanent Representatives of Security Council

1. H.E. Mr. Wang Guangya, Ambassador Extraordinary and Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations 350 East 35th Street, New York, NY 10016.

2. H.E. Mr. Vitaly I. Churkin, Ambassador Extraordinary Russian Federation, Permanent Mission of the Russain Federation to the United Nations 136 East 67th Street, New York, NY 10021, U.S.A.

3. H.E. Sir Emyr Jones Parry, KCMG, Ambassador, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 885 Second
Avenue, New York, NY 10017, U.S.A.

4. H.E Mr. Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, 245 East 47th Street, 44th Floor, New York, NY 10017, U.S.A.

5. H.E. Mr. Zalmay Khalizad, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Mission of the United States to the United Nations 140 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, U.S.A.

AND

Senator Arlen Specter, 711 Hart Building, Washington, DC 20510, U.S.A.

With the request to assist in the formation of International Independent Commission to be known on "Ms Benazir Bhutto Inquiry Commission".