The federal minister for interior affairs Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan called upon members of the press to announce the official stance of the Pakistani government on the recent drone killing of Taliban commander Mullah Mansoor, by the United States. The minister said that the killing of Mullah Mansoor inside Pakistani territory was absolutely out of any permeable context. He said that had Mullah Mansoor been a hurdle, as the US government states, the Murree peace dialogues would never have happened. The murree dialogues were a milestone in the strive for regional harmony and stability and as observers, US and Chinese representatives were also present. Moreover, the accused Haqqani group had also sent a representative to sit through the dialogue. 31st of July was decided for another round of dialogues, and three days prior to that a controversial news was deliberately leaked to sabotage the dialogue. The top priority on the agenda was the declaration of Kabul as a conflict-free zone. This was agreed upon by the Taliban, but the whole process was sabotaged and brought to square one. The minister commented that we cannot expect to kill their leader with a drone and ask them to come to a dialogue. He further added that Pakistan has been cornered into a very difficult situation. Mullah Mansoor, if he was in fact such a threat, could have been killed anywhere else. He was being tracked, he had traveled to Iran, Bahrain, Dubai and stayed in Afghanistan; was he not a threat then? The incentive isn’t clear, as to why this attack took place in Pakistan, out of all the countries. No incentive for this attack is permissible. A territorial violation of this nature could have serious implications on Pak-US diplomatic relations. The US Government stating that whoever is a threat to the United states, wherever he may be, will be targeted, is a direct abrogation of international laws. Mr Khan went on to state that if every country in the world adapts this demeanor then the world would turn to total chaos. The minister said that the Pakistani government strongly condemns this drone attack. The incentive that was given to the world for this attack by the US is illegal, it is without cause, unacceptable, against the sovereignty and independence of Pakistan and in complete violation of the UN charter and international legislature.
Janjua Press Briefing About Peace Process with Taliban !!!
Lieutenant General (R) Nasir Janjua, the National Security Advisor to the state spoke to the press regarding the TTP-PAKISTAN-US scenario and build-up. This was a few days prior to the drone attack on the Taliban Leader Mullah Mansoor. The General said that the US chooses the convenient path of blame shifting when it comes to dealing with its failures. There are reasons for not succeeding, but for the US government blaming the Taliban, Haqqani network and Pakistan just suffices. General Janjua said that you cannot expect a man to agree to a dialogue, after you’ve slapped him. That, he said, was how a decade was wasted. General Janjua said that in the current situation, the peace process which was initiated and brought to murree, was destroyed and it is extremely hard to re initiate that. The NSA commented that if there is a fragile political dispensation, a question that is to be asked is what is it that the Taliban seek? After all, he said, they have been a part of this for so long. Gen.Janjua said that it is between the other players. Pakistan is a mere facilitator, like everyone else. Then why is every blame put on Pakistan? The world has yet to realize how treacherous the terrain is, and while Pakistan is striving hard to protect itself and take care of everything, there is nobody on the other end. He said that the international community is oblivious of the fact that while Pakistan wants to fence the border, Afghanistan doesn’t. That is why the continuous border violation is so easy and convenient. The world doesn’t wish to relieve Pakistan of the Afghan refugees. Most of these facilitate the Taliban and provide them with sanctuaries. He commented on the hypocrisy; you want to defend your house, but there are no boundary walls or doors. He stressed upon the need for clearer narratives on the US and Afghan ends.
Tonight With Moeed Pirzada: What Strategic Game is US Playing? !!!
Dr. Moeed Pirzada in the first segment on Friday, 27th May, 2016 expressed his deep concerns over the American’s recent activity in the region. What they actually trying to get? Are they trying to increase chaos to keep their presence in the region for longer time and to flourish ISIS in Afghanistan which will make justification for them to keep their forces in Afghanistan? Dr. Pirzada said that there was a report of Foreign Affairs magazine that Russians and Talibans had established relations and had been collaborating with each other against ISIS. Similar reports were also seen about Tehran and Taliban’s relations. But the question arises that what actually Americans want to achieve?
US President Barak Obama in Hiroshima on Friday said that conflicts should be resolved through diplomacy. But few days back after the drone attack on Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, President Obama and US Foreign Secretary John Kerry portrayed that he was serious threat for US forces in Afghanistan. Dr. Pirzada showed some figures of fatality rate of American forces in Afghanistan in which only three American forces were targeted in 2016 and only 27 in 2015 which weaken American stance. Dr. Pirzada backed Federal Interior Minister Ch. Nisar’s stance, who said that Talibans were in favor on declaring Kabul No-Conflict Zone during Murree Peace Process in June 2015 and just before second round, peace talk was sabotaged by leaking the death news of Mullah Omer by NDS.
Dr. Pirzada also pointed out that Taliban’s late leader Mullah Mansoor have been travelling around the world for negotiation in Germany, China, Qatar, etc, but why he was targeted in Pakistan. He also expressed his concerns over yesturday’s arrests of six NDS agents who were under direct supervisions of three Afghan Generals.
Question arises that what US wants to do and what strategic game is being played in the region?
Tonight With Moeed Pirzada: Shah Mehmood Qureshi Perspective On TOR’s !!!
While talking to Dr Moeed Pirzada PTI Leader Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that no investigation can take place until the joint opposition ToRs are considered. He added that the joint opposition had not withdrawn Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif name from the ToRs. We have included the names of Maryam Nawaz and Hussain Nawaz in our ToRs. Today’s talks did not move forward even an inch. The government had refused to accept any of the proposed TORs by the joint opposition, said Shah Mehmood Qureshi.He said that the opposition is firm on its core questions and would not step back from any of its proposed TORs at any cost. He added that the opposition had offered the government to add any clauses or points that they wished to the list of TORs but they will not back down from their own proposed issues that need to be investigated. The government rejected our 15 points. If they reject our proposal we will consider the four-point preamble null and void too, he said.
Tonight With Moeed Pirzada: WHAT DOES US WANTS BY KILLING MULLA MANSOOR !!!
Dr Moeed Pirzada talks to two prominent analysts on afghan issues Imtiaz Gul and Rustam Shah Mehmand. Topic under discussion is what US is looking for after killing of Taliban Ameer Mulla Akhtar Mansoor in a drone strike near Pakistan Afghanistan border. Ex Ambassador Rustam Shah Mehmand said that although US made statement that Mulla Akhtar Mansoor was interrupting afghan peace process but in fact Mulla Akhtar mansoor was supporting peace dialogues. Rustam Shah Mehmand said that Mulla Akhtar Mansoor initiated peace process and for that purpose he either himself made trips to four countries or sent his representatives to countries like china, Qatar, Russia for that purpose. Imtiaz Gul was of the view that US doesn’t want to proceed with peace talks between Afghan government and Taliban. He said name of Mulla akhtar mansoor was not even in the terrorists list of US so his killing will definitely bring a halt to peace dialogues. Rustam Shah Mehmand said that it is not the first time that US sabotaged peace dialogues, it happened in the past when dialogues of Pakistan government with TTP leadership also suffered due to dama dola in bajour agency drone attack .Rustam Shah Mehmand said that US wants to justify its presence in Afghanistan. US also want to keep an eye on Pakistan being a nuclear power, and it wants to curtail china in this region as well.
Dr Pirzada also highlighted through US based data that number of US troops in Afghanistan killed in 2015 and 2016 is far less then it was in 2006 till 2013. So it was false excuses by US to kill Mulla Mnasoor that Afghan Taliban are attacking US soldiers in Afghanistan. Imtiaz Gul said during discussion that India, Afghanistan and Iran want to give an impression to the world that Afghan Taliban leadership easily travels to Pakistan.
Pakistani Establishment & Nawaz Sharif: Fighting a Noora Kushti? by Waqar Ahmed
Pakistani Establishment & Nawaz Sharif: Fighting a Noora Kushti? by Waqar Ahmed
Nawaz Sharif has either outsmarted and defeated the Establishment or both are fighting a ‘Noora Kushti’ for public consumption? This provocative piece is a note written by Waqar Ahmed at my Facebook page; and I have turned that into an article, with his permission, for wider discussion. Nothing has been changed or edited; it is also available on my Facebook page in posts of 24th May.
The moment you consider your opinion to be absolutely true, right there and then you stop learning. So, I will not stick to what we all commonly know. Rather, I will want to infer more from what we all commonly know.
- There are at least 146 “planted” people in MPAs and MNAs of PML-N. Yes! you read that right. “146 ex-Q Leaguers”
- They are “establishment’s guys”. One nod and they will shift their sympathies and loyalties both
- If anyone is thinking of challenging me on point number 2, please count how many “Shairs including those 146” came out while Mush was spanking Nawaz like anything?
- IK is stubborn, genuinely popular in educated populace, financially immaculate and possesses sound integrity. Even his most bitter critiques with an iota of conscious can’t accuse him of being “not patriotic” or “dishonest financially”
- Even in 2013, our establishment was not so weak to let Nawaz / Zardari play games at their own. Without their consent or a “pat”, Nawaz simply could not form a majority govt
- A volatile, outspoken, strong headed and genuinely popular IK could become a headache for everyone. (Imagine a Dharna outside GHQ) LOL
Keeping in mind above stated facts, there are only two PRACTICAL possibilities
(a) “Establishment” was and has been in partnership with Nawaz throughout this time creating a very intelligently and carefully designed perception of Nawaz being “anti-establishment” and presenting him to be at a war with establishment. It gave establishment the breathing space to launch some very key moves. Zarb e Azab, CPEC, Karachi, Sindh, military courts etc. A “noora kushti” in short between Noon and Establishment thus making all active segments of society i.e., lawyers, liberals, seculars, self styled anti-establishment heroes, nationalists of ANP, Balochistan etc getting under the flag of Noon. So an image of IK to be an “establishment’s guy” was deliberately created and reinforced
(b) Establishment chose the “lesser evil”. A CLEAN and arrogant Khan would be far more difficult to handle than a “Kana” Nawaz. IK’s popularity could not be damaged by personal scandals of the past and he could not compromise on financial affairs. Nawaz on the other hand, has looted so much in the past that it becomes easy for establishment to “tame the lion” and make it dance, the way they want on their finger tips
The third possibility but widely believed:
Nawaz is politically very strong. He has developed a grip over every institution, using media and angling, he has been able to defeat establishment. Thus he is the savior of “civilian supremacy”. He is suffering at the hand of establishment and yet fighting with it. Practically, he has surrendered every authority to establishment. But he is still FIGHTING well good luck with that and he is not a dead horse after Panama episode he will easily get a “clean chit” from a “tooth less” commission even now. And it will not affect his political strength in any way etc.
Ultimate Decision, I leave it up to the readers. Which one is more likely to be true? And why?
[Reproduced from Facebook Page, with permission of Mr. Waqar Ahmed, who offered this for discussion of readers]
Was Mullah Mansoor not even on the US designated terrorist list?
US State Department’s Question & Answer Session with Media, on 24th May 2016
Discussion is about the Killing of Mullah Mansoor Akhtar; killed in a US Drone Strike, by the orders of the US President. What is surprising is that the State Dept Officials cannot even confirm to the US based media where exactly Mullah Mansoor was killed; or if the man killed in Noshki attack was indeed Mullah Mansoor or if the attack in Noshki was indeed the drone strike the whole world is talking about. (because those on ground are not convinced that the damaged car was hit by two hell fire missiles; looks like a RPG attack) – but the most frightening thing comes at the end; Mullah Masnsoor was not on the ‘designated terrorist list’; he was actually someone US was negotiating with through the QCG or Quadrilateral Dialogue. Will history’s greatest power not even respect the basic principles of warfare and conflict established over thousands of years?
QUESTION: — has Pakistan officially responded or protested to the U.S. on the strike?
MR TONER: Has – I’m sorry, I missed your last part of your question.
QUESTION: Has Pakistan officially responded or protested against this strike – against this strike on the Taliban leader inside Pakistan?
MR TONER: Right. Well, again, I’d refer you to the Pakistani Government to tell – to say whether they responded or not. I don’t have any readout to provide or anything like that.
QUESTION: Pakistan says that by doing so, U.S. has violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and also has violated the respected UN Charter.
MR TONER: So a couple things about that. First of all, this was a strike directed against this individual, Mansour, in the Afghan-Pakistan border region. We certainly do respect Pakistan’s territorial integrity, but as we’ve said before, we will carry out strikes to remove terrorists who are actively pursuing and planning and directing attacks against U.S. forces.
QUESTION: One question that falls from that, if I may.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Sure.
QUESTION: Was that the motive of this attack or did it perhaps also have a political motive to try to influence the lack of peace talks?
MR TONER: Well, I think – I mean, that’s – it can be – there can be multiple reasons for it, but I think the primary, and the President spoke to this earlier today when he confirmed the success of this strike, that this is about removing someone who was actively pursuing, planning, carrying out attacks against U.S. and Afghan forces in the region.
QUESTION: And then one other one.
MR TONER: But also – I’m sorry, just to finish – it also sends a clear message that those who target our people and the Afghan people are not going to be given a safe haven, and then also that it – that there’s only one option for the Taliban, and that is a – to pursue a peaceful resolution to the conflict. So, sorry.
QUESTION: No, no. There are reports that – that – and they’re not definitive as far as I can see, but that a passport was found near his body but in someone else’s name, and that that passport had been used to travel into Iran. Do you know if Mullah Mansour traveled to Iran, and if so, do you have any idea why?
MR TONER: I don’t. I’ve seen those reports, but no further clarification, no further information, about that.
QUESTION: Mark, can —
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: One more. You said that – when he mentioned Pakistan’s complaints about violation of sovereignty, you said it happened in the Af-Pak border region.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Are you denying that it happened on Pakistani territory?
MR TONER: I don’t have any more clarity of where the actual strike took place. What I can say was in that border region. I just can’t say on which side of the border it was.
QUESTION: So you don’t know if – so are you doubting the claim from Pakistan that it was in their territory?
MR TONER: I’m not going to speak – I mean, the Pakistani Government is able to speak on behalf of itself. I’m not going to doubt its claim. I’m just saying the information that we have right – are able to share.
QUESTION: But this was a – this is a —
QUESTION: So you don’t know where you targeted him? You just guessed? I mean, how could you fire something out of the sky and blow something up and kill people and not know what country it’s in? Come on.
MR TONER: I understand what – your question, Brad. All I’m saying is what we’re able – I said what we’re willing to share is that it was in —
QUESTION: You check these things before you fire, usually, right?
MR TONER: — the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. We certainly do.
QUESTION: On that, what impact this has on the Taliban itself? Can you say it’s defeated now?
MR TONER: No, by any means I wouldn’t say that, and I don’t mean to imply that if I said that. What I think it does send is a clear message, as I said, that if you’re going to carry out attacks, if you’re going to lead attacks against our forces and against Afghan’s forces – Afghanistan’s forces – then you’re going to be targeted and you’re not going to have safe haven. And I also think that it sends the message that the Taliban must decide what its future is going to be and whether it’s going to be part of a peaceful political future for Afghanistan. And there is a path towards that. They can sit down with the Afghan Government and begin negotiations and talks. We’ve encouraged that; we support an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led process.
QUESTION: But how can you expect someone to come to peace talks when you have just killed their supreme leader?
MR TONER: Well, again, I think it presents them with a clear choice. And Lalit, you know that there’s ways to engage and identify the fact that you’re willing to engage in a peaceful way. And, frankly, Mansour showed no – absolutely no predilection towards engaging in any kind of peaceful political process.
QUESTION: From the public statements that’s coming from Pakistan, it’s very much evident that they are very upset with your action. Do you see any kind of retaliatory measures coming out of Pakistan?
MR TONER: No, we – look, Lalit – I mean, I’m – again, I’m not going to speak on behalf of the Pakistani Government, what they may or may not do. We have been in touch with them, obviously. We’ve talked about this airstrike. We continue to talk to them about how we can collaborate and cooperate on rooting out these terrorist organizations and these organizations or these groups that continue to use Pakistanis – Pakistan’s territory to carry out attacks.
QUESTION: Can we move on to —
QUESTION: One more quickly. Was —
MR TONER: One more and then – okay.
QUESTION: Was Mullah Mansour on the terrorist designated list, the —
MR TONER: I don’t believe he was, no.
QUESTION: He was not.
[Note: this is from the transcript of the US State Departments’s media Question & Answer Session of Monday 24th May 2016]
Was Mullah Mansoor not even on the US designated terrorist list?
Moeed Pirzada |
Discussion is about the Killing of Mullah Mansoor Akhtar; killed in a US Drone Strike, by the orders of the US President. What is surprising is that the State Dept Officials cannot even confirm to the US based media where exactly Mullah Mansoor was killed; or if the man killed in Noshki attack was indeed Mullah Mansoor or if the attack in Noshki was indeed the drone strike the whole world is talking about. (because those on ground are not convinced that the damaged car was hit by two hell fire missiles; looks like a RPG attack) – but the most frightening thing comes at the end; Mullah Masnsoor was not on the ‘designated terrorist list’; he was actually someone US was negotiating with through the QCG or Quadrilateral Dialogue. Will history’s greatest power not even respect the basic principles of warfare and conflict established over thousands of years?
Read more: Pak-Afghan ties: Any way to end the blame game?
QUESTION: — has Pakistan officially responded or protested to the U.S. on the strike?
MR TONER: Has – I’m sorry, I missed your last part of your question.
QUESTION: Has Pakistan officially responded or protested against this strike – against this strike on the Taliban leader inside Pakistan?
MR TONER: Right. Well, again, I’d refer you to the Pakistani Government to tell – to say whether they responded or not. I don’t have any readout to provide or anything like that.
QUESTION: Pakistan says that by doing so, U.S. has violated Pakistan’s sovereignty and also has violated the respected UN Charter.
MR TONER: So a couple things about that. First of all, this was a strike directed against this individual, Mansour, in the Afghan-Pakistan border region. We certainly do respect Pakistan’s territorial integrity, but as we’ve said before, we will carry out strikes to remove terrorists who are actively pursuing and planning and directing attacks against U.S. forces.
QUESTION: One question that falls from that, if I may.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Sure.
QUESTION: Was that the motive of this attack or did it perhaps also have a political motive to try to influence the lack of peace talks?
MR TONER: Well, I think – I mean, that’s – it can be – there can be multiple reasons for it, but I think the primary, and the President spoke to this earlier today when he confirmed the success of this strike, that this is about removing someone who was actively pursuing, planning, carrying out attacks against U.S. and Afghan forces in the region.
QUESTION: And then one other one.
MR TONER: But also – I’m sorry, just to finish – it also sends a clear message that those who target our people and the Afghan people are not going to be given a safe haven, and then also that it – that there’s only one option for the Taliban, and that is a – to pursue a peaceful resolution to the conflict. So, sorry.
QUESTION: No, no. There are reports that – that – and they’re not definitive as far as I can see, but that a passport was found near his body but in someone else’s name, and that that passport had been used to travel into Iran. Do you know if Mullah Mansour traveled to Iran, and if so, do you have any idea why?
MR TONER: I don’t. I’ve seen those reports, but no further clarification, no further information, about that.
QUESTION: Mark, can —
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: One more. You said that – when he mentioned Pakistan’s complaints about violation of sovereignty, you said it happened in the Af-Pak border region.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Are you denying that it happened on Pakistani territory?
MR TONER: I don’t have any more clarity of where the actual strike took place. What I can say was in that border region. I just can’t say on which side of the border it was.
QUESTION: So you don’t know if – so are you doubting the claim from Pakistan that it was in their territory?
MR TONER: I’m not going to speak – I mean, the Pakistani Government is able to speak on behalf of itself. I’m not going to doubt its claim. I’m just saying the information that we have right – are able to share.
QUESTION: But this was a – this is a —
QUESTION: So you don’t know where you targeted him? You just guessed? I mean, how could you fire something out of the sky and blow something up and kill people and not know what country it’s in? Come on.
MR TONER: I understand what – your question, Brad. All I’m saying is what we’re able – I said what we’re willing to share is that it was in —
QUESTION: You check these things before you fire, usually, right?
MR TONER: — the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. We certainly do.
QUESTION: On that, what impact this has on the Taliban itself? Can you say it’s defeated now?
MR TONER: No, by any means I wouldn’t say that, and I don’t mean to imply that if I said that. What I think it does send is a clear message, as I said, that if you’re going to carry out attacks, if you’re going to lead attacks against our forces and against Afghan’s forces – Afghanistan’s forces – then you’re going to be targeted and you’re not going to have safe haven. And I also think that it sends the message that the Taliban must decide what its future is going to be and whether it’s going to be part of a peaceful political future for Afghanistan. And there is a path towards that. They can sit down with the Afghan Government and begin negotiations and talks. We’ve encouraged that; we support an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led process.
QUESTION: But how can you expect someone to come to peace talks when you have just killed their supreme leader?
MR TONER: Well, again, I think it presents them with a clear choice. And Lalit, you know that there’s ways to engage and identify the fact that you’re willing to engage in a peaceful way. And, frankly, Mansour showed no – absolutely no predilection towards engaging in any kind of peaceful political process.
QUESTION: From the public statements that’s coming from Pakistan, it’s very much evident that they are very upset with your action. Do you see any kind of retaliatory measures coming out of Pakistan?
MR TONER: No, we – look, Lalit – I mean, I’m – again, I’m not going to speak on behalf of the Pakistani Government, what they may or may not do. We have been in touch with them, obviously. We’ve talked about this airstrike. We continue to talk to them about how we can collaborate and cooperate on rooting out these terrorist organizations and these organizations or these groups that continue to use Pakistanis – Pakistan’s territory to carry out attacks.
QUESTION: Can we move on to —
QUESTION: One more quickly. Was —
MR TONER: One more and then – okay.
QUESTION: Was Mullah Mansour on the terrorist designated list, the —
MR TONER: I don’t believe he was, no.
QUESTION: He was not.
[Note: this is from the transcript of the US State Departments’s media Question & Answer Session of Monday 24th May 2016]
Moeed Pirzada is prominent TV Anchor & commentator; he studied international relations at Columbia Univ, New York and law at London School of Economics. Twitter: MoeedNj. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Global Village Space’s editorial policy. This piece was first published in Moeed Pirzada’s official page. It has been reproduced with permission.
Tonight With Moeed Pirzada: Impact of attack on Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor !!!
On Sunday, May 25th, 2016 Dr. Moeed Pirzada in the first part discussed the important development of the day in which Mullah Akhtar Mansoor killed in a drone attack with former Ambassador Rustam Shah Mohmand who is an expert on Afghan affairs. Amb Rustam said that it has been confirmed by NDS and Afghan official that Mullah Akhtar was target in drone attack by US. Taliban leader Abdul Rauf also confirmed his death but one of the fractions is still denying the death of Taliban Leader. He further said that the ambiguity of the attack by RPG and drone do exist and possibly both took place at same place. Such high profile targets outside Afghanistan are decided by President of US but RPG attacks could be ordered by local commander. Dr. Pirzada asked that could be the impact of the Taliban’s spring offence after the death of Mullah Akhtar? Amb. Rustam told that if the successor will be elected soon then the possibility is that attacks will be greater. This incident could create mistrust among Pakistan and Taliban because Pakistan was taken into confidence as US foreign secretary John Kerry stated that they had informed Pakistan’s PM Nawaz Sharif. PM should have consulted its impact on Pakistan with expert. In response to Dr. Pirzada’s question, was it was an attack on the policy of reconciliation and peace process by QCG? Amb. Rustam told that it was already a dead process. It was not direct talks with Taliban, QCG member failed to bring Taliban on table. And in coming six months to one year there are no signs of any negotiations because of anger in Taliban.
Tonight With Moeed Pirzada: Lawyers Deadline on Panama TOR’s !!!
Exclusive discussion with Barrister and MQM senator and President Pakistan bar council Dr. Mohammad Farogh Naseem who is a leading constitutional lawyer. Farogh Naseem explained in details the outcomes and decision taken during All Pakistan lawyer’s representative’s convention held under Supreme Court bar association and Pakistan bar council on Panama leaks investigations. He threatened to launch a countrywide campaign against the government if the parliamentary committee failed to formulate a consensus-oriented terms of reference (ToR) to probe the Panama Papers leaks. Dr Faroogh said that his organization is under pressure from lawyer community to investigate on corruption as revealed in Panama leaks.He said that resolution adopted by the convention emphasized that the parliamentary committee should include in its deliberations on ToR that the investigation should start from the prime minister and his children in phase one to find out if Mr Sharif had invested or owned any offshore properties or some crime or wrongdoing had been done inclusive of the trail of money / funds and reconciliation with the declaration before the Election Commission of Pakistan and income / wealth tax authorities from January 1985 till date.
He said that inquiry should be restricted to parliamentarians and holders of public office as they have to conform to the requirements of Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution and not against the businessmen or loan defaulters because being Pakistani they don’t want to threaten business community.
He said that Democracy doesn’t give license to corruption. Lawyers are asking Pakistan bar council to formulate their own TORs but farogh naseem said that they don’t want to derail parliamentary system. Dr Faroogh naseem also said that they partially support seven questions asked by Opposition to Prime Minister but not all important questions were compiled. Mr Nawaz sharif should provide Monet trails of his offshore and inshore properties and the matter will be solved.
Tonight With Moeed Pirzada: PTI’s clear Position on Panama Leaks !!!
Mr Asad Umar, a senior Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf leader was on board to comment on the current turn of events regarding the Panama disclosures that came out and cause political whirlwinds last month. Mr. Umar said that the PTI is firm in its resolve of the execution of the investigative probe by the honorable judiciary. Commenting on his speech on a pre-budget seminar conducted by the Dunya News group on 21st May 2016, he said that the government had nothing to show for in its supposed economic arsenal. Mr. Umar was also asked about his apparent slip of tongue about the current finance minister taking up the ministry again in the next term, to which he responded that that was an honest mistake.
Tonight With Moeed Pirzada: Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s Perspective !!!
Shah Mahmood Qureshi, a senior Pakistan Tehreek Insaf leader was on board to comment on the parliamentary committee that was formed to decide the Terms of Reference for the judicial commission in the light of the Panama disclosures. On a question asked about the isolation of the PTI on this resolve, Mr Shah said that the Tehreek stands united.
On another question about the apparent confusion of the PTI, Mr.Qureshi said that Tehreek e Insaf is very clear on its stance, that the Prime minister should resign, replace himself with another PML N leader for the duration of the judicial probe.
Tonight With Moeed Pirzada: Is MQM supporting Government or Opposition on Panama investigations?
While explaining about MQM party position on Panama Paper investigation senior leader of the party Dr Farooq Sattar said in this part of program that from the beginning of Panama revelations MQM took clear stance that Prime minister should have resigned on Moral Grounds. But their party never demanded or stressed that PM Nawaz Sharif should resign. Dr Sattar said that accountability should be started and there is need for an effective system to do so. He showed his concerns over the prevailing situation due to politics on Panama leaks investigations. Dr Sattar said that Government and Opposition should sit together to formulate new Terms of Reference for Judicial Commission for Panama leaks Inquiry. He said that MQM viewpoint has slight resemblance with Government. He said in the history of the country no one can find such precedent when any Prime minister resigned. Dr Sattar showed his concerns that democracy in the country is weak and fragile and that’s why cannot tolerate political crises. Dr Sattar warned the Government and Opposition not to do any adventure. He also said that current trend of organizing rallies. While commenting on PPP position Dr Sattar said that it has gone from high gear that was asking for resignation to low gear for panama investigation. Dr Sattar said that MQM is cautious regarding this matter. When Dr Pirzada asked him about chances of MQM joining Government, Dr Sattar categorically denied this chance.Dr Farooq sattar said that MQM was among opposition parties who had staged walk out during National assembly session on Monday after speech of PM Nawaz sharif in the parliament. He said that next fifteen days were important as Government and Opposition will sit together to work on mutually agreed terms and conditions for Judicial Commission on panama papers inquiry.
PPP & Khurshid Shah: Nawaz Sharif’s Opposition or Strategic Ally?
For the past six weeks, PPP leaders have been playing the ‘Punjabi gallery’ and playing well with rhetoric, acrobatics of emotion and feigned anger to present themselves as an ‘opposition’ to the reign of Nawaz Sharif. Moment of truth is now only few hours away.
In the morning of Mon, 16th May, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will hopefully present himself to the parliament; this, if the moment is genuine, can probably be the most difficult performance of his political career. However, whether he swims or sinks, emerges out laughing or ends up crying will mostly depend upon the theatrics of one man; his name is: Khurshid Shah of PPP.
We have been told ad-nauseum that PPP Punjab sees ‘Panama Files Leaks’ as its opportunity to reenact itself in its birth place: Punjab. We have heard that Bilawal Bhutto, is the new young dynamic supreme leader of the party, who believes that Nawaz Sharif should resign and who has declared a ‘soft coup’ within PPP against his own father: Mr. Asif Ali Zardari.
However they say: Once bitten twice shy; we remain incredulous since we know how both these parties – PPP & PMLN – have struck a Faustian bargain in the APC of London in 2007, a Faustian bargain essentially against the people of Pakistan and state of Pakistan and how they fooled everyone till it became obvious that they have a ‘muk-mukka’ and they are only playing ‘Opposition-Opposition’ game like children play ‘doctor-doctor’ in a village.
So when Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan says, as he said again in my program, on Dunya News, on Saturday, 14th May, that ‘PPP is united behind Bilawal, we have no differences, Khurshid Shah sounds different only because he is soft spoken’ we want to believe because Barrister Aitzaz is an honorable man- a rare breed in our politics – but we still want to remain cautious; we need to see the proof, and fortunately the ‘Moment of Truth’ of what lay behind Bilawal’s rhetoric or what PPP really stands for is only a few hours away.
Why Khurshid Shah is important? Because despite never personifying genuine opposition to the Nawaz Govt, despite only making occasional cosmetic gestures, few purrs here and there, he is still nevertheless the ‘Leader of the Opposition’ in Pakistan’s inconsequential debating club, euphemistically referred to as ‘national assembly’. This was off course part of the scheme of things thrown up by the 2013 Elections. So whereas PTI represented the original hot molten opposition on the streets and on the media, within the national assembly even this title belongs to Zardari’s party, an entity that has been aligned with the ruling Nawaz regime since their pact of 2007. So what will Khurshid Shah do on Mon, 16th May?
The needs of opposition and Nawaz Sharif are at 180 degrees apart. The so called ‘Combined Opposition’ wants Nawaz to answer its seven questions; those seven questions are designed to obtain ‘facts’ and ‘statements’ from him, on the floor of the assembly. These ‘statement of facts’ – regarding his wealth, his assets, asset accumulation since 1985, and taxes paid etc – are needed if a Commission is required later to examine these. Without these ‘statements of facts’ any Commission will be meaningless, cannot reach any conclusion, will be a waste of public money and time.
Much acrobatics, of anger and bewilderment, have been done by the usual brigade of PMLN wannabees to divert attention, to dilute importance of these questions. It appears that PMLN ‘fight brigades’ are prepared to indict, burn or lynch half of Pakistan to create a situation where Nawaz can somehow avoid answering these questions. Perhaps Nawaz’s appearance in national assembly on Friday was delayed since Imran’s confession on his ‘offshore company’ had to be secured through the Ptv-2 and Pakistan Times. [work must have been going on this, for a while; all critics including useless people like me in media are being mercilessly scrutinized, through all means available to the state, to create a scandal; Imran offcourse is ‘democracy’s enemy No.1]
But it is not in the interest of Nawaz Sharif to answer these seven questions. Listening carefully to Mohd Zubair, State Minister for Privatization, in today’s program with me, in which he blurted while explaining the 1993 purchase of Offshore Accounts and Apartments that ‘Sharif Clan’ needs to be differentiated from ‘Nawaz Sharif and his children’. My ears started to buzz, alarm bells rang in my head; I had a sick feeling that the explanation ready for the ‘Supreme Court Commission’ will claim that ‘Sharif Clan’ – namely Mr. Mian Mohd Sharif late father of Nawaz Sharif and his sons like Abbass or cousins etc – had created the companies and purchased the properties and now since they are dead, most details are missing, not available, cannot be traced. Children of Nawaz Sharif have merely inherited the family wealth in 2005 – as Mohd Zubair hinted. You must watch this video.Tonight With Moeed Pirzada: Nawaz Sharif’s foreign Asset !!!
Some Saudi certified documents – or may be Pakistani- will be ready for the Supreme court commission; money trail will be missing since its very old; Can Imran Khan produce the money trail of his 1983 income? We will be asked: how do we know he earned through playing cricket? he could be selling porn. However these statements on the floor of the national assembly will be treated with the derision they deserve, so the controlled, managed, regulated, safe and secure, sanitized atmosphere of a Commission is needed – where lawyers will rule instead of common sense.
Nawaz will thus prefer to appear in the national assembly, make some gestures of regard to the parliamentarians, say some consolatory sentences, some kind words, and then tell them what he has already told us many times before that while his name is not in the Panama Files, and while Imran Khan had an Offshore Company (and no one knows if Imran made his money from country cricket or drugs or gun running or porn stuff) but ignoring these unsavory details, about his principal and the only opponent, he will generously offer himself and his family up for all kinds of accountability – through a Supreme Court Commission. And will offer them and request them negotiations for creating ‘Consensus on TOR’s’. He won’t answer the ‘Seven Questions’ the ‘Seven Golden Bullets’ of Truth. It is not in his interest to do so. He needs a Commission to hide behind it; a Commission where facts will be debated, obfuscated, defeated, and submerged through points of law, through principles of ‘past and closed transactions’ legal precedents, judgments of high courts, violations of human rights, issues of discriminatory treatment and conflict of laws with foreign jurisdictions. Panama Papers & Pakistan’s Kingdom of Lies!
This will be the moment, where we will find out what PPP really stands for and whether Bilawal has any real control on this old machine. Will Khurshid Shah, welcome Nawaz’s great benevolent gesture, thank ‘King Nawaz’ for coming to the parliament (as brown Indians had thanked white English King George V for coming to the Delhi Court in 1911) and do his wishy washy speech, swinging from left to right, going up and down, to stress the need for ‘Consensus on TORs’ or else will he politely but firmly demand, as leader of the opposition, that PM Nawaz should first answer the questions raised by the combined opposition, with facts and statements, with documents as Aitzaz has explained in so many media interactions in the last few days? What will Khurshid Shah do, with his speech, his comments, will determine what PPP actually stood for and what will follow.
As I pointed in my earlier piece “Soft Coup: Has PPP Punjab rebelled against Zardari” [15th May, 2016] Soft Coup: Has PPP Punjab rebelled against Zardari? Nawaz has two kinds of allies: Declared and Undeclared. Declared; those like Maulana Fazal ur Rehman, Mehmood Achakzai and Hasil Bizenjo’s National Party who are aligned openly and ‘Undeclared’ like Sherpao, MQM and ANP – and may even be Jammat e Islami. Once the signal for need for ‘Joint TOR’s” emanated from Khurshid Shah, these ‘declared’ and ‘undeclared’ allies of the PM Nawaz will thunder in applause appreciating the great gesture from Nawaz and will all align behind Khurshid Shah’s demand for ‘Consensus TOR’s”. No one will ask PM to answer the Oppositions Questions, no one will demand his statement of the facts. Imran and PTI will be left alone, gawking like idiots into blank space. A section of media – Unholy Trinity of a TV Channel, an English Paper and a Urdu Paper – will immediately bring the good news to the whole nation. There will be ‘special prayers’ in Akora Khattak to thank God for the saving of democracy.
If one listens to the pronouncements of Chairman Senate, Raza Rabbani and Senator Farhat Ullah Babar – both close to Mr. Zardari – over the last 48 hours, then the stage for the ‘saving of democracy’ has been set once again. Today railways minister, Kh Saad Rafique also reminded his audience that martial laws have always taken the country back. Trick is obvious: instill the idea, the fear in minds, that Panama Leaks represent Establishment’s conspiracy against civilian democracy. Initially it was American CIA conspiring against the China Pakistan Economic Corridor. But don’t miss the point, though this is all bogus, but yet this ‘implant of bogus idea’ this rubbish, this utter nonsense is coming from both sides: PPP and PMLN. Two entities joined at the hip since the APC of London in 2007.
I hope PPP and Khurhsid Shah prove me wrong; and I hope PTI and Imran Khan have imagined this eventuality and have something up their sleeve too. All analysts love their analysis, like their ‘dear and only child’ and so do I, but I will love to be proved wrong in this case. I want to trust Barrister Aitzaz.
There used to be an old advertisement on Ptv. It said: “Chai Chahye; Konsi Janab? Lipton Umda Hay” Today the political situation is: Commission Chahye; Konsa Janab? ‘Supreme Court ka Commission with Opposition’s Consensus’. From the day one, I am pointing out that one man desperately needs a Supreme Court Commission; his name is Mian Nawaz Sharif. His needs cannot be met without this kind of commission. But if he had asked for this ‘commission’ straightway then all his critics, his enemies and his real opposition – namely Imran Khan and PTI – would have denied him what he needed the most. All the chivalry, emotional outbursts of tv brigades, the angry tricks, the colorful gimmicks of PMLN firebrands and its allied parties were to develop a situation of acceptability for a ‘Supreme Court Commission’ with ‘Opposition’s Consensus’. Without opposition’s consensus such a Commission will be useless. It will serve no purpose.
So we have moved through a carefully crafted journey of ‘Offer of a Commission Under Retired Judge” then Prime Minister’s team sending unilateral TORs to Supreme Court with a clear realization that since opposition has not been consulted so the Opposition will reject that initiative. This is called ‘softening’; PMLN team has played well. On 16th May, you will find PM Nawaz quiet willing to accept the Opposition’s TOR’s; offering negotiations to create consensus. And you will find a Khurshid Shah willing to play along. But don’t expect Nawaz Sharif to answer you the questions set by Aitzaz and company.
What will Imran Khan do? Difficult to predict, since he has always been an unpredictable cookie; but all this stage has been set to capture him and lets see if they got him or he has a trick or two up his sleeve? Lets see! I wait for myself to be proved wrong!
[Moeed Pirzada, is TV Anchor and Editor Strategic Affairs with Dunya News; he studied International Relations at Columbia University, New York and Law at London School of Economics, UK]