Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Brother of Afghan President Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll --- NYT

Brother of Afghan President Said to Be on C.I.A. Payroll

NEW YORK TIMES, October 28, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.
The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.
The financial ties and close working relationship between the intelligence agency and Mr. Karzai raise significant questions about America’s war strategy, which is currently under review at the White House.
The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America’s increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The C.I.A.’s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban.
More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large area of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.
“If we are going to conduct a population-centric strategy in Afghanistan, and we are perceived as backing thugs, then we are just undermining ourselves,” said Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, the senior American military intelligence official in Afghanistan.
Ahmed Wali Karzai said in an interview that he cooperated with American civilian and military officials, but did not engage in the drug trade and did not receive payments from the C.I.A.
The relationship between Mr. Karzai and the C.I.A. is wide ranging, several American officials said. He helps the C.I.A. operate a paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, that is used for raids against suspected insurgents and terrorists. On at least one occasion, the strike force has been accused of mounting an unauthorized operation against an official of the Afghan government, the officials said.
Mr. Karzai is also paid for allowing the C.I.A. and American Special Operations troops to rent a large compound outside the city — the former home of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban’s founder. The same compound is also the base of the Kandahar Strike Force. “He’s our landlord,” a senior American official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Mr. Karzai also helps the C.I.A. communicate with and sometimes meet with Afghans loyal to the Taliban. Mr. Karzai’s role as a go-between between the Americans and the Taliban is now regarded as valuable by those who support working with Mr. Karzai, as the Obama administration is placing a greater focus on encouraging Taliban leaders to change sides.
A C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment for this article.
“No intelligence organization worth the name would ever entertain these kind of allegations,” said Paul Gimigliano, the spokesman.
Some American officials said that the allegations of Mr. Karzai’s role in the drug trade were not conclusive.
“There’s no proof of Ahmed Wali Karzai’s involvement in drug trafficking, certainly nothing that would stand up in court,” said one American official familiar with the intelligence. “And you can’t ignore what the Afghan government has done for American counterterrorism efforts.”
At the start of the Afghan war, just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States, American officials paid warlords with questionable backgrounds to help topple the Taliban and maintain order with relatively few American troops committed to fight in the country. But as the Taliban has become resurgent and the war has intensified, Americans have increasingly viewed a strong and credible central government as crucial to turning back the Taliban’s advances.
Now, with more American lives on the line, the relationship with Mr. Karzai is setting off anger and frustration among American military officers and other officials in the Obama administration. They say that Mr. Karzai’s suspected role in the drug trade, as well as what they describe as the mafialike way that he lords over southern Afghanistan, makes him a malevolent force.
These military and political officials say the evidence, though largely circumstantial, suggests strongly that Mr. Karzai has enriched himself by helping the illegal trade in poppy and opium to flourish. The assessment of these military and senior officials in the Obama administration dovetails with that of senior officials in the Bush administration.
“Hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money are flowing through the southern region, and nothing happens in southern Afghanistan without the regional leadership knowing about it,” a senior American military officer in Kabul said. Like most of the officials in this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the information.
“If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck,” the American officer said of Mr. Karzai. “Our assumption is that he’s benefiting from the drug trade.”
American officials say that Afghanistan’s opium trade, the largest in the world, directly threatens the stability of the Afghan state, by providing a large percentage of the money the Taliban needs for its operations, and also by corrupting Afghan public officials to help the trade flourish.
The Obama administration has repeatedly vowed to crack down on the drug lords who are believed to permeate the highest levels of President Karzai’s administration. They have pressed him to move his brother out of southern Afghanistan, but he has so far refused to do so.
Other Western officials pointed to evidence that Ahmed Wali Karzai orchestrated the manufacture of hundreds of thousands of phony ballots for his brother’s re-election effort in August. He is also believed to have been responsible for setting up dozens of so-called ghost polling stations — existing only on paper — that were used to manufacture tens of thousands of phony ballots.
“The only way to clean up Chicago is to get rid of Capone,” General Flynn said.
In the interview in which he denied a role in the drug trade or taking money from the C.I.A., Ahmed Wali Karzai said he received regular payments from his brother, the president, for “expenses,” but said he did not know where the money came from. He has, among other things, introduced Americans to insurgents considering changing sides. And he has given the Americans intelligence, he said. But he said he was not compensated for that assistance.
“I don’t know anyone under the name of the C.I.A.,” Mr. Karzai said. “I have never received any money from any organization. I help, definitely. I help other Americans wherever I can. This is my duty as an Afghan.”
Mr. Karzai acknowledged that the C.I.A. and Special Operations troops stayed at Mullah Omar’s old compound. And he acknowledged that the Kandahar Strike Force was based there. But he said he had no involvement with them.
A former C.I.A. officer with experience in Afghanistan said the agency relied heavily on Ahmed Wali Karzai, and often based covert operatives at compounds he owned. Any connections Mr. Karzai might have had to the drug trade mattered little to C.I.A. officers focused on counterterrorism missions, the officer said.
“Virtually every significant Afghan figure has had brushes with the drug trade,” he said. “If you are looking for Mother Teresa, she doesn’t live in Afghanistan.”
The debate over Ahmed Wali Karzai, which began when President Obama took office in January, intensified in June, when the C.I.A.’s local paramilitary group, the Kandahar Strike Force, shot and killed Kandahar’s provincial police chief, Matiullah Qati, in a still-unexplained shootout at the office of a local prosecutor.
The circumstances surrounding Mr. Qati’s death remain shrouded in mystery. It is unclear, for instance, if any agency operatives were present — but officials say the firefight broke out when Mr. Qati tried to block the strike force from freeing the brother of a task force member who was being held in custody.
“Matiullah was in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Mr. Karzai said in the interview.
Counternarcotics officials have repeatedly expressed frustration over the unwillingness of senior policy makers in Washington to take action against Mr. Karzai — or even begin a serious investigation of the allegations against him. In fact, they say that while other Afghans accused of drug involvement are investigated and singled out for raids or even rendition to the United States, Mr. Karzai has seemed immune from similar scrutiny.
For years, first the Bush administration and then the Obama administration have said that the Taliban benefits from the drug trade, and the United States military has recently expanded its target list to include drug traffickers with ties to the insurgency. The military has generated a list of 50 top drug traffickers tied to the Taliban who can now be killed or captured.
Senior Afghan investigators say they know plenty about Mr. Karzai’s involvement in the drug business. In an interview in Kabul this year, a top former Afghan Interior Ministry official familiar with Afghan counternarcotics operations said that a major source of Mr. Karzai’s influence over the drug trade was his control over key bridges crossing the Helmand River on the route between the opium growing regions of Helmand Province and Kandahar.
The former Interior Ministry official said that Mr. Karzai was able to charge huge fees to drug traffickers to allow their drug-laden trucks to cross the bridges.
But the former officials said it was impossible for Afghan counternarcotics officials to investigate Mr. Karzai. “This government has become a factory for the production of Talibs because of corruption and injustice,” the former official said.
Some American counternarcotics officials have said they believe that Mr. Karzai has expanded his influence over the drug trade, thanks in part to American efforts to single out other drug lords.
In debriefing notes from Drug Enforcement Administration interviews in 2006 of Afghan informants obtained by The New York Times, one key informant said that Ahmed Wali Karzai had benefited from the American operation that lured Hajji Bashir Noorzai, a major Afghan drug lord during the time that the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, to New York in 2005. Mr. Noorzai was convicted on drug and conspiracy charges in New York in 2008, and was sentenced to life in prison this year.
Habibullah Jan, a local military commander and later a member of Parliament from Kandahar, told the D.E.A. in 2006 that Mr. Karzai had teamed with Haji Juma Khan to take over a portion of the Noorzai drug business after Mr. Noorzai’s arrest.

Friday, October 02, 2009

Speaking of U-Turns...

Pakistan. The country whose political leaders and religious zealots have been milking the cause of disputes such as Kashmir and Palestine in fiery speeches and televised debates on global fora. And now, the news... (the bit in bold is the real kicker!)



UN rights body defers vote on Gaza war crime report-- REUTERS

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United Nations put off taking action Friday on a U.N. report that accuses both Israel and Palestinian militants of war crimes in Gaza, after U.S. pressure aimed at getting the peace process back on track.
The move is an early result of the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama's engagement in the Human Rights Council, which Washington joined in June.
The forum had been expected to adopt a resolution that would have condemned Israel's failure to cooperate with a U.N. war crimes investigation led by Richard Goldstone and forwarded his report to the Security Council.
Goldstone recommended that the Security Council refer the matter to the International Criminal Court if the two sides fail to conduct credible domestic investigations within six months.
But Pakistan, speaking for Arab, Islamic and African sponsors of a resolution, formally asked the forum to defer action on their text until the next regular session in March.
This would "give more time for a broad-based and comprehensive consideration" of the report, Pakistan's envoy, Zamir Akram, told the 47-member-state forum.
A diplomatic source said the move had followed intense lobbying by the United States, which is seeking to restart peace negotiations in the Middle East. "There is agreement to defer given immense pressure from the United States," he told Reuters.
Hamas official Fawzi Barhoum accused Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of trying to rescue Israel from seeing its leaders, who launched a military offensive on the Gaza Strip in December-January, brought before international courts.
"We insist that leaders of the occupation must be brought before international courts as war criminals and anyone who sought to prevent that from happening would be seen as partner in the crime," he said.
STILL ON THE AGENDA
Abbas's spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah noted the Goldstone report had not been retracted and was still on the Human Rights Council's agenda. "It was only postponed."
A Palestinian official said the United States, European Union and Russia asked the Palestinian Authority for the postponement until the forum's next session in March.
Formal negotiations on Palestinian statehood have been suspended since the Gaza conflict.
The investigation by Goldstone, a former U.N. war crimes prosecutor, found that both the Israeli armed forces and Hamas militants committed war crimes during the December-January war.
A Palestinian rights group says 1,417 Palestinians, including 926 civilians, were killed in the Gaza war. Israel has said 709 Palestinian combatants were killed along with 295 civilians and 162 people whose status it was unable to clarify.
Israel lost 10 soldiers and 3 civilians in the offensive.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday the United Nations would deal a "fatal blow" to prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace if it endorsed the report -- which was more critical of Israel's military than of the Palestinians.
In a briefing to reporters after the Israeli cabinet met, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said Netanyahu's government was discussing the possibility of setting up an independent commission to look into the military's conduct of the Gaza war.Khraishi, asked whether the Palestinians were prepared to investigate war allegations, replied: "Everybody should respect its obligations. We should take responsibility."

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Losing Sight of the Moon, One Rock at a Time!


My reworking of an Associated Press story that ran on Sept 15. A good read, if I do say so myself, and I will (conceited, isn't it) :D

How the world is losing its (moon) rocks

A few words about the founder... Jinnah Sb ko SALUT!

Yesterday, I found myself (unwittingly) in the middle of a mini-debate on Jinnah. It was the latest in the series of drawing-room discussions (albeit over Facebook and gmail, the drawing rooms of today and the coffee houses of tomorrow) in the post-Jaswant's-groundbreaking-new-book world. On one side, an Indian professor at Brown University, and in our (read Jinnah's) corner, YLH, my perennial friend and a most vocal (and oft militant) proponent of our great leader. I don't blame him, in fact I admire his courage and commitment. I won't even say I doubt his methods, because they've kept the idiot 'arbit' Indians off our collective backs on blogsites and chowk dot coms worldwide.

So, I have the privilege of posting here the original article, that appeared in the Indian Express, and YLH's scathing reply. Makes for good reading. Enjoy!



What if Jinnah had won
By Ashutosh Varshney
INDIAN EXPRESS
The current debate over partition is radically incomplete. The debate has been framed around Jinnah’s desire for a federal but undivided India, in which the states would have been more powerful than Delhi. In contrast, Nehru’s preference is said to be for a centralised polity, with Delhi given more powers than the states. It has been argued that the latter was responsible for India’s partition.
What is wrong about this way of framing the discussion? Contemporary political theory suggests another perspective on Jinnah. Historical research has not wrestled with a fundamental theoretical question: was Jinnah in favour of what political theorists call “consociational democracy”? It is a term I will explain in a moment. But its grave real-world implications can be stated right away: if Jinnah’s argument was indeed consociational, then partition was inevitable and Jinnah was as responsible for it as anybody else. For the Congress party to accept a consociational argument would have meant denying everything India’s freedom movement had stood for. Nehru could not have possibly agreed. Nor, incidentally, could Gandhi
A consociational democracy opposes liberal democracy on at least three counts. First, according to consociational theory, groups — religious, linguistic or racial — are the unit of politics and political organisation, not individuals. As we know, strategising about groups is a pervasive feature of politics, whether in the US or India. The consociational theory goes far beyond that. It says that the constitution should allocate political power and offices to different religious or ethnic groups — 50 per cent of offices would go to group A, 30 to group B, 20 to group C, etc.
Second, each community would be represented by a political organisation of that community only, not by an organisation that claims to be multi-religious or multi-ethnic. This is the “sole spokesman” idea: that only the Muslim League would represent India’s Muslims. LTTE made similar claims about the Tamils of Sri Lanka.
Third, minorities would have a veto in governmental decision-making, and consensus should be the basis for governmental functioning. If the Muslim League did not like something that others wanted Muslims to consider, the deliberation would not go any further.
The consociational theory is not simply an abstract exercise. In books after books, Arend Lijphart, a Dutch political scientist, has demonstrated that consociational democracy was used in several small European countries after World War I: Holland, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland. More controversially, he has also argued that a consociational democracy is much better for multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies, for it allows disaffected groups to develop a sense of security.
Outside Europe, too, there are examples. Consociational versus liberal democracy was a matter of serious debate during South Africa’s transition after apartheid. Lebanon after 1943 opted for consociational democracy. Malaysia today has a semi-consociational model.
A key question about Jinnah is this: was he a consociational or a liberal democrat? We don’t know the answer conclusively, for that is not the frame within which historical research has been conducted. But the hypothesis that Jinnah was consociational, not liberal, is profoundly plausible. Consider three different points in the evolution of his argument.
First, it is after the Lucknow Pact of 1916 that, in a pre-theoretical moment of political exuberance, Sarojini Naidu called Jinnah an “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”. One should, however, note that the Lucknow pact was fundamentally premised upon separate electorates for Muslims, and also on one-third of representation reserved for Muslims in government.
Second, the Lahore Resolution (1940) made the case that Hindus and Muslims were not simply two distinct religious groups, but two different nations that required separate political roofs over their cultural heads. In the words of Jinnah, “Hindus and Muslims belong to... two different civilisations that are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state”. In comparison, the argument of Maulana Azad, a deeply religious Muslim and a Congress leader, was dramatically different. “I am a Muslim and proud of that fact... In addition, I am proud of being an Indian. I am part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality... Eleven hundred years of common history have enriched India with our common achievement. Our languages, our poetry, our literature, our culture, our art, our dress, our manners and customs, the innumerable happenings of our daily life, everything bears the stamp of our joint endeavour. There is indeed no aspect of our life which has escaped this stamp... This joint wealth is the heritage of common nationality.”
Nehru’s view of the nation and politics also departed radically from Jinnah’s. This is what he wrote in The Discovery of India: “There was a fundamental difference between the outlook of the Congress and that of religious-communal organisations. Of the latter, the chief were the Muslim League and its Hindu counterpart, the Hindu Mahasabha. These communal organisations, while in theory standing for Indian independence, were more interested in claiming protection ad special privileges for their respective groups.”
1946 is the third key point in the evolution of Jinnah’s argument. Unless future research proves me wrong, Jinnah by that time was wholly consociational. He was not only talking about a federal India with greater powers for the provinces. He was also emphatic about the Muslim League being the “sole spokesman” for India’s Muslims.
Even if the Congress had accepted the idea of a loose federal state, how could it have agreed that Congress was only a Hindu party, not different from the Hindu Mahasabha, and it could not represent Muslims at all? There were undoubtedly some Hindu nationalists in Congress, but they never took control of the commanding heights of the party. At least since Gandhi burst on the scene in 1919, the Congress was always committed to the idea of a composite nation. Agreeing with Jinnah’s consociational argument would have meant fundamentally denying the ideological commitment to the possibility of a multi-religious politics and a secular Indian nation.
Finally, would consociationalism have really brought peace to an independent India? The available comparative research is quite clear. Consociational democracies have worked well in richer European settings. In lower income postcolonial scenarios, consociationalism has actually been a recipe for endless troubles. Lebanon’s case is the best known. The fundamental problem is that a polity so exclusively group-based only deepens group identities. It does not make groups secure. In the end, it undermines national feeling.
It is hard to imagine a post-1947 India, which had separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims, which allowed only one communal party representing each religious group, which apportioned political offices strictly on the basis of religion, and which nonetheless had peace. Partition was a horrific event, but it is not clear that a consociational India after 1947 would have fared better. Nehru’s critics must confront the consociational puzzles about Jinnah’s ideology and conduct





YLH'S REPLY:

I am afraid this is simply hogwash written by Ashutosh Varshney (whose well researched but badly argued “Hindus and Muslims Ethnic conflict” I have read and found to be rather limited in thought even if thorough in research)… even if it comes from a professor at Brown (which proves my earlier point about American universities sadly).

1. Jinnah was in principle against the separate electorates. He had opposed them when they first came around. He offered to give it up on several occasions… provided other safeguards were met. Even his 14 points speak of eventual discarding of the separate electorates. This point comes out clearly in terms of Jinnah-Gandhi talks where Jinnah says ofcourse joint electorates are the preferable.

2. Consociational Democracy: The concept has worked well in Netherlands, Switzerland and several other nations. But the prime modern example of Consociational Democracy is not in Europe … Ashutosh Varshney will never accept it but all political scientists looking at things impartially will… it is India… yes your so called Modern Secular Liberal India.

The irony is that India post 1947 adopted the consociational model but jettisoned the modernist Muslim leadership that could have given it meaning. Who are India’s Muslim consociationalists today? Darul Uloom Deoband.

I submit that the consociational solution presented by the League was not all that different … indeed it was more democratic. It certainly did not solve the communal conflict by presenting communal solutions… it presented federal solutions and confederal solutions for communal conflict.

Groupings would have created three sub-federations…. in these sub-federations, it was open to the provinces to leave after the legislative elections. The principle of separate electorate was most likely to be given up by Jinnah – who disliked the idea of communal electorates but had accepted the idea only as a necessarily evil given Congress’ refusal in 1929 to accept residuary powers clause which was a sine qua non for settlement according to Punjab and Bengal’s Muslims. The impulse behind Congress’ rejection was not any fear of consociationalism but simply hunger for power and land grabbing instincts.

The consociational argument if any can only apply to CMP and that to by stretching and drawing analogies. And it certainly does not gel with Post-1947’s Modern India which is for all purposes as consociational a state as CMP India would have been.

But what about 1929? What about 1937?

The truth is that Ashutosh Varshney probably knows deep down that he has laid an egg… and we shall expose him for this.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

The same old story... [An interlude]

Taking a break from being my usual self, it's time for a little self-extro and introspection. So here goes my little out-of-body-experience. And no... there will be no parallel astral plane bullshit here, all I need to do is read back through my blog... idiots!

I HAVE gotten meaner. Leaner I may not be, but meaner, HELL YEAH! I'm now officially the Dirty Harry of off-the-cuff retorts... something I used to be too scared to be. Even Sam says so, and she should know! She says it was Karachi, I say it was the life experience... same difference!

Spelling mistakes and typos (here and there) stand out. Chalo, at least it proves I'm human and not some copy editor freak (HAH! I crack me up!). Also tells me (and you) that rarely have I re-read a post written in the flurry of words and emotions, accompanied usually by the song that's running in my head at the time, mostly because it's playing on loop in Winamp while I write that particular piece of my life (for inspiration, of course).

The reason why these last two posts are anomalies (i.e. posted in quick succession, one right after the other in the same sitting - something I guess I've NEVER done before) is because just posting someone else's words, however good they may be, wasn't quite enough. I MUST have the last word... resistance is futile :p

I think I've scared the little one with the hateful comments I posted to her last post. If you're reading this Marina, I'm sorry, it just kinda came out, like most of my writing does. Didn't mean any ill will toward you, honest, cross my heart, (almost) scout's honour!!!! But I did MEAN it...

Re-read my first post too. Didn't really accomplish what I set out to do. Sure, it makes for impressive reading if I need to impress the odd-high brow chick, or score brownie sympathy points, but that's just fucking lame. The original, nobler purpose was to allow the jesters in my life to read my so-called 'journal' so they could understand me better. I didn't think that was gonna happen back then, but nothing like the apathy I've seen in the years that I've been running this blog.
So this goes out to all the anonymous voyeurs... feedback BITCHES!!!!! If just to let me know you've read it!!!!! Isn't that hard y'know... just point and click!

*DOUBLE CLICK*

If this post seems profaner than my normal work, don't hide your children and lock on your chastity belts around your ears just yet. Haven't slept in days and can't really get to sleep now. It's Sunday morning, I'm horny, my 'Sana Anonymous' [perverted SMS 'friend'] is fast-fucking-asleep and there's nothing on TV... life's a peach!

Re-reading this blog is really like taking a trip back in time. But here, I can sit and quietly smile at myself
and the bad choices I've made, slap my chrome-dome at the idiot I was and generally chuckle to myself about days long gone. Change I CAN fucking believe in!!!!!

Just don't pretend. Please. As a favour to me. Pretty please with a 14-year-old virgin's cherry on top (is this image disturbing enough yet?). DON'T PRETEND, OK? I FUCKING HATE PRETENDERS!!!!!!! Be real, be assholes for all I care... I know I am one... why can't you be? Assholes, that is. I'll believe you a whole lot more!!!

Oh, and if you're listening up there... I will never surrender. Remember that. There are now just two people in the world that I care about enough to sacrifice my life for... the same two that were standing around when I was born. And if you come near them, you'll never see another sunrise again, even if I have to give up my right to do so too...

Have I said enough yet???