... "Immediately vacate the area that is considered dangerous," the government said during a televised announcement. "Terrorists are trying to cause deaths in the area."Thankfully the Red Cross heard the government's earlier order that women and children should leave the camp for their own safety; the organization has been helping them evacuate, although there's no figure for how many have left. The order extended to the elderly, although again it's unknown how many left.
The government offered free transport for citizens to return home.
Red Shirt reaction
But the deadline came and went with few Red Shirts complying with the government's demand that they vacate a three-square-kilometer area where they have been holed up for weeks.
There was also some confusion about how much the Red Shirt protesters knew about the ultimatum, as government leaflets were dropped far from the protest zone and electronic TV and cellular signals were blocked. ...
Monday, May 17
Bangkok crisis: Um, there's no TV in the Red Shirt camp
Communication: it's a wonderful thing when it's done right:
The New Normal
The New Tax Collectors
Audits? We don't do no stinkin audits!
Crime syndicates and terrorists in Mexico, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world are doing a better job of collecting taxes than the governments. Of course the penalties for back taxes are a little stiffer but at least they don't involve paperwork.
Nils Gilman explains it all quite wonderfully in his latest talk on black ('deviant') globalization. See his 2008 post for a primer on the topic. And no, I'm not joking about criminal gangs and terrorists collecting taxes. Anywhere the state is weak nowadays, the bad guys set up a sort of parallel government, which of course requires a steady revenue stream.
The New Criminals
Zenpundit explains the brave new world of data aggregation. The new Big Brother: sort of George Orwell and Edgar Allen Poe's imaginations rolled into one.
Ayad Allawi's Victory. That's A-l-l-a-w-i. ALLAWI.
I could use a laugh after spending hours following the grim events in Thailand (see the previous post) and this News York Times report just provided it. Gad, it sticks in the Times' craw to even mention Allawi's name but they finally choke it out in the fourth paragraph. LOL
Recount in Iraq Preserves Victory for Maliki Rival
By ANTHONY SHADID
Published: May 16, 2010
BAGHDAD — A dispute over the counting of ballots in Iraq’s parliamentary elections in March came to a tentative end on Sunday, with the country’s election commission saying that a partial recount had preserved the narrow victory of the leading rival to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
The announcement removed a stumbling block in the long-delayed process of forming a new government that will preside over Iraq as the American military withdraws. With the recount over, the country’s highest court can begin ratifying the results, a crucial step in opening the way for negotiations over the next prime minister.
“We hope that no one else appeals so that we can be done with this,” Qassim al-Abboudi, a spokesman for the commission, said at a news conference.
Mr. Maliki’s electoral bloc had demanded the recount after finishing narrowly behind a largely Sunni and secular coalition led by Ayad Allawi, a former interim prime minister. Mr. Maliki’s supporters claimed that numerous cases of fraud had tarnished the vote and that a recount might reverse the results for as many as 20 seats, making his coalition the winner.
But in the news conference on Sunday, Mr. Abboudi said the recount in the populous province around the capital, Baghdad, did not change the initial results. Two candidates lost their seats to candidates from the same party, leaving the breakdown the same as it was in March: 91 seats for Mr. Allawi, 89 for Mr. Maliki.
Mr. Maliki’s supporters suggested that the prime minister would abide by the recount, which found no widespread fraud. Mr. Maliki “wants to speed up the political process,” said a spokesman, Ali al-Mousawi. “As far as I know, he will respect the results.”
His newly conciliatory stance may be due to shifting political ground in the last few weeks, when he formed a post-election alliance with another Shiite bloc, making it the largest coalition in Parliament. It also made Mr. Allawi’s wafer-thin lead in seats over Mr. Maliki more symbolic than practical, because most politicians believe that the new, broader Shiite alliance will take the lead in naming a prime minister. The new Shiite bloc is just four seats short of a majority in the 325-member Parliament.
Mr. Allawi has continued to insist that the right to form a government belongs to his group.
“I really don’t know how it will end,” he said in an interview. “But what I know is that we are not going to accept that the will of the Iraqi people is going to be confiscated.”
Despite Mr. Allawi’s sagging fortunes, Mr. Maliki still faces an uphill battle to return as prime minister. He remains unpopular with the followers of Moktada al-Sadr, a populist cleric whose candidates finished second only to Mr. Maliki’s among Shiite voters.
Even if Mr. Maliki does hold on to power, many Shiite politicians believe there will be an attempt to circumscribe his authority and give greater power to his cabinet, whose positions will be divided among the winners. Negotiations over the new government could last for months, adding to the atmosphere of uncertainty here.
“If the government forms before September, that will put us in great shape,” said Qassem Daoud, a former minister and candidate who lost his race in March. [...]
Sunday, May 16
Bangkok: Red Shirt leaders need to stand down. Now. (UPDATED 6X)
UPDATE Monday May 17 6:30 PM EDT
Frankly I am shocked that Fox News Cable and CNN have not mentioned the Bangkok crisis during the first half hour of their 6:00 AM news report.
The 3:00 PM deadline for the protestors to leave the camp has come and gone but it seems few of the Red Shirts have left, despite the government's offer of safe passage with no penalties attached. It's not clear what's going to happen next. According to the latest BBC report:
Why doesn't the Sangha take a leadership role in this situation? Rival Buddhist sects should put aside their differences long enough to speak in one voice -- urge the protestors to work with the government to end the standoff. The show of solidarity among Buddhist leaders could overcome the protestors' paranoia and help calm them.
Speaking of exhaustion -- the crisis has kept me up all night. I'm going to sign off now and catch a few hours of sleep.
**********************************
Right now it's 1:34 AM EDT here in Washington, DC. The time is 12:34 PM in Bangkok --less than three hours to the government's deadline to the protestors. See the report after the updates. All we can do now is wait and hope the coolest heads prevail.
*****************************
Excerpts from AP Report May 17 12:45 AM EDT: "The political conflict is Thailand's deadliest and most prolonged in decades, and each passing day of violence deepens divides in this nation of 65 million — a key U.S. ally and Southeast Asia's second-largest economy. Thailand has long been considered a democratic oasis in Southeast Asia, and the unrest has shaken faith in its ability to restore and maintain stability."
Report also mentions that the slain Seh Daeng, a renegade army officer, was accused of creating a paramilitary force for the Red Shirt protesters:
Breaking: Pattaya Daily News May 17 12:40 AM EDT: Seh Daeng's death may spark revenge killings and have widespread political ramifications in Thailand. Warning: article has graphic photographs.
(UK) Telegraph May 17: "....A state of emergency has already spread to more than a quarter of the country after emergency decrees were declared in five more provinces, as violence erupted in the north and northeast. ..."
BANGKOK, May 16, 2010 11:23 PM EDT
According to a Guardian report (Sunday 16 May 19:56 BST) the Thai government has ordered all women and children to leave the Red Shirt camp in central Bangkok by 3:00 PM Monday ahead of an offensive to remove anyone remaining in the camp. The government is also offering safe passage from the camp for males who want to leave:
But the leaders who rejected the offer for elections (there was a split in the 22-member 'leadership council' over whether to accept the offer) don't seem to want a peaceful resolution to the violence. They had countered the government's offer with the demand that the deputy prime minister be arrested for ordering troops to move on Red Shirts on April 10, when 25 of the protestors were killed. The demand predictably caused the government to withdraw the offer.
Then today the leaders demanded the United Nations step in, but there was a catch:
The government rejected the demand: "If they really want to talk, they should not set conditions like asking us to withdraw troops," said Korbsak Sabhavasu, the prime minister's secretary-general. "They cannot make demands if they want to negotiate."
As for bringing in the U.N.:
Is there a bottom line to all this, aside from a bloodbath? The urban warfare has virtually shut down one of the most important cities in Southeast Asia, delivered a blow to Thailand's economy, and scared foreign investors. On the other side of the picture, the Red Shirts claim to represent the country's electoral majority -- the poorest Thais in the rural portions of the country.
And Thaksin, a former telecom tycoon who is variously described as a multi-millionaire or billionaire, is now facing a close review of his financial records:
Today he issued a statement through his attorney calling for the "international community to respond to the Thai government's violent crackdown on protestors in Bangkok." It seems to me if he can get that message out to the world he can also call for the Red Shirt leaders to tell their people to stand down.
From what I've learned up to this point, I'd say the bottom line is war between Thaksin and Thailand's government. Reportedly not all Red Shirts are his supporters. But if his hard-line Red Shirt loyalists can't bring down the government it seems they want to drag it through as much mud as possible.
Thaksin became head of Thailand's government by circumventing the elite power structure; he did this by spreading a great of money among Thailand's majority, the country's rural poor. Then, once he was in power, he solidified his hold on the majority with lavish government handouts. As I noted in yesterday's post Thaksin's strategy opened Pandora's Box; to use a more Asian metaphor he caught a tiger by the tail.
It is the elite, which includes Thaksin, that built Thailand into an economic powerhouse. I doubt all the rural poor are the idiots it seems many urban Thais view them to be. But I don't think enough are qualified at this time to run a globalized and highly urbanized central government.
The fault in this goes to the elite, to be sure, so Thaksin is on the right side of history. However, he's not helping the poor if he continues to use them as pawns in his war against the government even in the face of a bloodbath that will only further divide the country.
What follows is a background report. The one I presented yesterday, by a Westerner named Charles E Morrison (the President of the East-West Center) is the best introduction I've seen to the roots of the current political melee in Thailand. The second report drills deeper and presents Thaksin's view of things.
The author, Suranand Vejjajiva, served in the Thaksin Shinawatra cabinet when Thaksin was prime minister. He's now a political analyst. He wrote the report for the Bangkok Post, and he clearly directed it to Western readers who have no familiarity with Thailand's history and politics. That leaves him with considerable leeway to shade the picture; however, the outside world does need to know more about the views of Thaksin and his supporters.
I won't resist adding that the author's criticism of government-owned media outlets in Thailand is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. While Thaksin was in power The Bangkok Post, which is not government owned, bent over backward to accommodate his government.
A final note before I cede the floor: the "different colored" shirt groups he refers to are the Red Shirts and the Yellow Shirts; the latter was originally created as a protest against Thaksin and his government's alleged corruption while he was in power. The Yellow Shirts are mainly drawn from "middle and upper-class Bangkokians and Southerners of all classes and supported by the conservative factions of the Thai Army, some leaders of Democrat Party, and members of state-enterprise labor unions," according to Wikipedia. It's a long story, and you can read about it in the Wikipedia article on the Yellow Shirts -- the neutrality of which is disputed, of course.
Frankly I am shocked that Fox News Cable and CNN have not mentioned the Bangkok crisis during the first half hour of their 6:00 AM news report.
The 3:00 PM deadline for the protestors to leave the camp has come and gone but it seems few of the Red Shirts have left, despite the government's offer of safe passage with no penalties attached. It's not clear what's going to happen next. According to the latest BBC report:
[...] The government said on Monday it would talk to the protesters as long as they showed "sincerity" by leaving their camp.The report suggests hysteria has set in among many of the protestors, which is fueling their paranoia. They're exhausted from days of unremitting stress and little sleep. Their leadership is in disarray. I doubt many are thinking straight at this point.
[...]
The protesters - particularly women, children and the elderly - have been told by the government they must leave the area immediately as it is too dangerous to remain.
[...]
The broadcasts warned that those who remained faced two years in prison, but gave no details about what would happen after the deadline passed.
Satit Wonghnongtaey, a minister attached to the prime minister's office, told reporters an "operation [to disperse the protesters] will be executed as soon as possible".
But the protesters appear to be defiant. As the deadline passed, there was little sign of a rush to leave the camp.
A group of around 300 people who sought refuge in a nearby temple have told volunteers there that they do not trust the government's offer of safe passage and do not dare to leave, the BBC was told.
Meanwhile, protesters are reported to be sending up fireworks at circling helicopters.
[...]
Why doesn't the Sangha take a leadership role in this situation? Rival Buddhist sects should put aside their differences long enough to speak in one voice -- urge the protestors to work with the government to end the standoff. The show of solidarity among Buddhist leaders could overcome the protestors' paranoia and help calm them.
Speaking of exhaustion -- the crisis has kept me up all night. I'm going to sign off now and catch a few hours of sleep.
**********************************
Right now it's 1:34 AM EDT here in Washington, DC. The time is 12:34 PM in Bangkok --less than three hours to the government's deadline to the protestors. See the report after the updates. All we can do now is wait and hope the coolest heads prevail.
*****************************
Excerpts from AP Report May 17 12:45 AM EDT: "The political conflict is Thailand's deadliest and most prolonged in decades, and each passing day of violence deepens divides in this nation of 65 million — a key U.S. ally and Southeast Asia's second-largest economy. Thailand has long been considered a democratic oasis in Southeast Asia, and the unrest has shaken faith in its ability to restore and maintain stability."
Report also mentions that the slain Seh Daeng, a renegade army officer, was accused of creating a paramilitary force for the Red Shirt protesters:
"Seh Daeng has accomplished his duty. All of us here have the duty to carry on the quest for justice," a Red Shirt leader, Jatuporn Prompan, said. He said that the only hope now to end the violence was intervention by Thailand's revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej.Breaking News: Reuters Sun May 16, 2010 11:38 PM EDT: "A rogue soldier and de facto military chief of Thailand's red shirt protest movement has died, said the director of the hospital where he was being treated after an assassination attempt. [Suspended major general] Khattiya Sawasdipol, better known as Seh Daeng, was shot in the head on Thursday in an incident that sparked the latest flare-up in violence in Bangkok."
The 82-year-old monarch, hospitalized since September, has remained publicly silent on the crisis unlike decades past when he stepped in to stop bloodshed.
Breaking: Pattaya Daily News May 17 12:40 AM EDT: Seh Daeng's death may spark revenge killings and have widespread political ramifications in Thailand. Warning: article has graphic photographs.
(UK) Telegraph May 17: "....A state of emergency has already spread to more than a quarter of the country after emergency decrees were declared in five more provinces, as violence erupted in the north and northeast. ..."
BANGKOK, May 16, 2010 11:23 PM EDT
(Kyodo News International) The death toll from four days of clashes between troops and antigovernment protesters in Bangkok rose to 36 on Monday following overnight violence in which an air force officer was shot dead and a luxury hotel was hit by grenades. In addition to the 36 fatalities -- nine of which occurred Sunday and two early Monday -- more than 250 people have been injured in the latest round of violence since Thursday, according to Bangkok's emergency medical center.*****************************
Local dailies reported the grenades damaged the fifth and 17th floors of the Dusit Thani Hotel, located in the Thai capital's Silom financial district opposite Lumpini Park, shortly after midnight. It was not immediately known if there were any casualties at the hotel. The hotel management was not available for any comment. Nation TV reported that only journalists were staying in the hotel.
Post Today, a Thai language daily, reported that three grenades also landed near a high-rise office building located on Rama IV Road, less than 100 meters away from the Dusit Thani.
About an hour after the grenade attacks, an air force officer was shot dead and another was slightly injured as they drove a pickup truck into the off-limits zone on Silom Road, a stretch lined with commercial banks and tall buildings that also runs alongside one of Bangkok's main nightlife areas popular with foreigners.
The daily quoted a preliminary report as saying there was a gunfight between troops stationed on Silom Road and the two air force officers in the truck.
The government has declared Monday and Tuesday this week to be public holidays in Bangkok to facilitate restoration of peace and order in the capital, though banks and the financial market opened as usual. It has also decided to postpone until May 24 the start of the new school semester in the capital. ....
According to a Guardian report (Sunday 16 May 19:56 BST) the Thai government has ordered all women and children to leave the Red Shirt camp in central Bangkok by 3:00 PM Monday ahead of an offensive to remove anyone remaining in the camp. The government is also offering safe passage from the camp for males who want to leave:
The army said it planned to allow neutral organisations such as the Red Cross into the protest area to encourage protesters to leave. "Whoever wants to leave, the government will organise transportation, [people] can go in any direction they want. Even men and tough guys and guards, the government will transport them out – the only condition is without weapons."That means the government has removed the threat of terrorism charges, which carry a maximum penalty of death, for the Red Shirt leaders if they leave the camp peacefully by tomorrow afternoon.
But the leaders who rejected the offer for elections (there was a split in the 22-member 'leadership council' over whether to accept the offer) don't seem to want a peaceful resolution to the violence. They had countered the government's offer with the demand that the deputy prime minister be arrested for ordering troops to move on Red Shirts on April 10, when 25 of the protestors were killed. The demand predictably caused the government to withdraw the offer.
Then today the leaders demanded the United Nations step in, but there was a catch:
"We want the UN to moderate it because we do not trust anyone else. There is no group in Thailand that is neutral enough," the redshirt co-leader Nattawut Saikua said. "We have no other condition. We do not want any more losses."If you don't trust any group in Thailand then you're not asking for negotiation, and no offer the government can make will be acceptable.
The government rejected the demand: "If they really want to talk, they should not set conditions like asking us to withdraw troops," said Korbsak Sabhavasu, the prime minister's secretary-general. "They cannot make demands if they want to negotiate."
As for bringing in the U.N.:
" ... no governments allow any organisations to intervene in their internal affairs,” Panitan Wattanayagorn, the government spokesman, said ..."At least some of the Red Shirts have also made the unreasonable demand that the king step in and fix things. That's setting up the king to be a pasty; so far he hasn't fallen for the ploy.
Is there a bottom line to all this, aside from a bloodbath? The urban warfare has virtually shut down one of the most important cities in Southeast Asia, delivered a blow to Thailand's economy, and scared foreign investors. On the other side of the picture, the Red Shirts claim to represent the country's electoral majority -- the poorest Thais in the rural portions of the country.
And Thaksin, a former telecom tycoon who is variously described as a multi-millionaire or billionaire, is now facing a close review of his financial records:
(Reuters - May 16, 8:19 AM EDT ) - Financial transactions involving 106 bank or stock accounts associated with former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra will be halted if found to be linked to anti-government protesters, the National Security Council (NSC) said on Sunday.It seems members of his family had seen the writing on the wall. The Bangkok Post reported today:
The accounts and assets -- held by associates, family members and businesses linked to the exiled multi-millionaire -- will be monitored and frozen if found linked to the protest movement.
The Stock Exchange of Thailand, asset management, insurance firms and commercial banks are prohibited from facilitating any such transactions, Tawil Pliensri, secretary-general of the NSC said in a televised address.
The government says Thaksin, who is currently believed to be in Montenegro, evading a two-year jail term for graft, is the de facto leader and main financier of the red-shirted protesters occupying parts of Bangkok.
Khunying Potjaman na Pombejra, ex-wife of fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and her son and daughter, Panthongtae and Pinthongtha Shinawatra, left for Singapore on May 14, reports said.A news report yesterday mentioned that Montenegro's government isn't allowing him to send "political messages" to his followers in Thailand. However, I think they'd have to place him in solitary confinement to prevent him from communicating with Red Shirt leaders. Thaksin's ouster from Thailand's government is a major grievance of the Red Shirts.
Reports said another daughter, Paethongtan, was in a European country. She also left Bangkok on Friday.
Today he issued a statement through his attorney calling for the "international community to respond to the Thai government's violent crackdown on protestors in Bangkok." It seems to me if he can get that message out to the world he can also call for the Red Shirt leaders to tell their people to stand down.
From what I've learned up to this point, I'd say the bottom line is war between Thaksin and Thailand's government. Reportedly not all Red Shirts are his supporters. But if his hard-line Red Shirt loyalists can't bring down the government it seems they want to drag it through as much mud as possible.
Thaksin became head of Thailand's government by circumventing the elite power structure; he did this by spreading a great of money among Thailand's majority, the country's rural poor. Then, once he was in power, he solidified his hold on the majority with lavish government handouts. As I noted in yesterday's post Thaksin's strategy opened Pandora's Box; to use a more Asian metaphor he caught a tiger by the tail.
It is the elite, which includes Thaksin, that built Thailand into an economic powerhouse. I doubt all the rural poor are the idiots it seems many urban Thais view them to be. But I don't think enough are qualified at this time to run a globalized and highly urbanized central government.
The fault in this goes to the elite, to be sure, so Thaksin is on the right side of history. However, he's not helping the poor if he continues to use them as pawns in his war against the government even in the face of a bloodbath that will only further divide the country.
What follows is a background report. The one I presented yesterday, by a Westerner named Charles E Morrison (the President of the East-West Center) is the best introduction I've seen to the roots of the current political melee in Thailand. The second report drills deeper and presents Thaksin's view of things.
The author, Suranand Vejjajiva, served in the Thaksin Shinawatra cabinet when Thaksin was prime minister. He's now a political analyst. He wrote the report for the Bangkok Post, and he clearly directed it to Western readers who have no familiarity with Thailand's history and politics. That leaves him with considerable leeway to shade the picture; however, the outside world does need to know more about the views of Thaksin and his supporters.
I won't resist adding that the author's criticism of government-owned media outlets in Thailand is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. While Thaksin was in power The Bangkok Post, which is not government owned, bent over backward to accommodate his government.
A final note before I cede the floor: the "different colored" shirt groups he refers to are the Red Shirts and the Yellow Shirts; the latter was originally created as a protest against Thaksin and his government's alleged corruption while he was in power. The Yellow Shirts are mainly drawn from "middle and upper-class Bangkokians and Southerners of all classes and supported by the conservative factions of the Thai Army, some leaders of Democrat Party, and members of state-enterprise labor unions," according to Wikipedia. It's a long story, and you can read about it in the Wikipedia article on the Yellow Shirts -- the neutrality of which is disputed, of course.
The challenge of building unity in a world of diversity
by Suranand Vejjajiva
Published: 14/05/2010 at 12:00 AM
The Bangkok Post; Newspaper section: News
Have you listened to the government- and army-owned television and radio stations, which in Thailand mean all with the exception of community radios and cable/satellite TV stations? Blaring out are talk shows and advertising spots calling for kwam samakkee and pen nueng deo literally calling for "unity and harmony" and "becoming one".
Then you can look at the present political conflict with different coloured shirt groups of protesters on the streets. You cannot help but wonder whether these types of nationalistic propaganda are still relevant, or are they just nostalgic sentiments among the current holders of power?
The Kingdom of Siam, or Thailand as it has been called since the change of name in 1939, is a nation state which comprises different ethnic groups living together under the monarchy, with the power structure centralised in Bangkok, the capital of the nation for the last 228 years. With the Revolution of 1932 changing absolute monarchy to a constitutional one, the three pillars of Chard, Sassana, Phra-maha-kasat or "Nation, Religion, King" have become the core principle unifying the peoples under a one-nation state.
The centralisation model used during King Rama IV (1851-1868) and King Rama V (1851-1910) to fight off the threat of European colonialism was adapted into a nationalistic regime in the guise of democracy with a constitutional monarchy, to fend off neo-colonialism and communism especially after WWII. Ethnic cultures are suppressed to favour a modern, unified "Thai-ness". The Thai "central" dialect became the "official" Thai language. Bangkok is virtually the centre of the universe to which resources from upcountry flow and in which wealth is concentrated but is barely trickled down or disbursed back.
As economic globalisation took hold in the past two decades and the threat of communism subsided politically, the "end of history" scenario as Francis Fukuyama described is just an end to one chapter while the rise of the global village and the "clash of civilisations" which Samuel Huntington theorised emerged. The advent of the internet and modern communications technology coupled with developed transportation infrastructure have brought the world closer together. On the positive side is, of course, the apparent economic advancement, but on the negative side is the raised awareness in the differences between ethnic groups - the wellbeing of peoples and communities in different areas are accentuated.
Thailand is no different. It is an illusion to believe that the "melting pot" works here, blending Thai, Lao, Chinese, Mon, Khmer, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Lanna and Isan through to various hill-tribes, into a perfect soup, a united monoculture. We are, in reality, more like a jub-chai kind of culture, a hotchpotch or medley of different vegetables and meat, each with its own characteristic, simmering in one pot.
The Deep South exploded first. The injustice and discrimination felt among the southern Malay Muslims are the sharpest compared to groups in other regions. Historical wounds coupled with rhetoric from the present confrontation between Muslim fundamentalists and the Western world brought about a terror campaign in the three southernmost provinces, now in its sixth year since the raid on the armoury in Narathiwat on Jan 4, 2004.
Then the red shirts rose. The Lanna North, although more gentle and peaceful, has a long history dating back even before the Ayutthaya Period. The local pride could be felt everywhere and legends of the old kingdom prevailed. The Isan Northeast, more tough and rough, not only has the largest share of the population in the country but also a rich mixed culture of local folklore and great empires of the past.
In the past, Bangkok, with its centralised but extensive bureaucratic network, was able to co-opt those people in the outer regions, suppressing dissent while handing out development projects and assistance. A governor is appointed to "rule" each province in the manner of the feudal lord who acts as a benevolent representative from the central government. But under the veil, abuses of power and extraction of local resources to feed the economic growth of Bangkok caused discontent, with strong reactionary protests, even fighting.
This is especially true for the Isan people whose poverty made the region the hotbed for communist insurgencies before - even to the point of possible secession from the Kingdom of 16 provinces at the height of the Cold War.
One may believe that Thaksin Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai Party was the stimulant that aroused such regionalism but in reality Thaksin was riding the historical wave at the right time and place. People saw Thaksin as the leader who opened up opportunities for economic and social advancement and political rights and liberties. The red shirt movement took hold because it is crystallised from the long and bitter struggles of the past. The injustice and double-standard issues are not a recent phenomenon.
To say that these red shirt people are politically inept and can be fooled into participating in political protests is totally absurd and ignorant. The sad part is a lot of people in the Bangkok establishment circle still think that way.
The key question is: Can Thailand remain unified as a nation? Speculation of a coming civil war is just the worst-case scenario. Even with a bloody conflict very likely, the Kingdom will remain united, to a certain degree and under terms of arrangement.
The key to unity is the institution of the monarchy. The vast majority of Thais remain loyal to the monarch and are in accord that the institution be the main pillar of the nation. And the monarchy must be revered and upheld above politics and conflicts.
But being united as a kingdom does not translate into unity under any particular government or the bureaucracy or the Bangkok establishment as the current propaganda is trying to make it seem. Beneath the constitutional monarchy is democracy. And in democracy lies the answer to the challenge of building unity in a world of diversity.
A democratic process will empower people by opening up economic opportunities and guaranteeing equality in accessing resources for development and progress. Rights and liberties will be ensured. The diversity can co-exist under one united umbrella but it has to be one of true democracy, not one manipulated by the privileged for their own benefit.
That is what the red shirts are asking for, really. And if they are crushed by the weight of the Bangkok establishment this weekend, be sure that they will rise back again, and again.
###
Saturday, May 15
The Bangkok melee: what are its roots?
See May 16 post for updates May 16 and 17 on the Thailand crisis and additional background report.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Voice of America reports today that "Bangkok is looking and sounding increasingly like a war zone."
Street fighting continues in the Thai capital, Bangkok, as anti-government protesters try to push back soldiers who have surrounded their camp. At least 22 people were killed in the last two days and at least 170 wounded.Over at the (London) Times Online, the headline today clearly indicates which side they're on:
Gunfire and explosions continued Saturday as protesters for a third day clashed with security forces surrounding their camp. Saturday afternoon, just north of the protest area, the Thai army spread razor wire and set up checkpoints. They put up signs that read "live fire zone" and urged people not to enter.
The anti-government red shirts set up their own barricades of rubber tires and slowly drove a yellow tanker truck toward the soldiers, until shots were fired. Demonstrators hit the ground and scattered into alleyways.
A few protesters could be seen limping away bleeding, apparently shot, but still defiant. They received medical care from nurses standing by to aid casualties.
Army spokesman Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd spoke on national television and said the government regrets the deaths and injuries. He says the army has been trying very hard to use measures to end the protest while avoiding any losses.
Authorities blame the clashes on violent elements among the protesters that they say have fired grenades and guns at soldiers who were forced to return fire. Protesters, however, say soldiers and snipers are aiming to kill them.
The latest violence broke out Thursday after a Thai general supporting the protesters was shot, apparently by a sniper. [Pundita note: When last I heard he's still alive but not expected to survive the head wound. The general helped organize and direct the protests and is adamantly against the protestors compromising with the government.] The protesters have occupied a central commercial district for more than two months, demanding the government step down and allow new elections.
A deal for November elections broke down after protest leaders demanded government leaders face charges for the violent clashes. The government says it expects to restore order within a matter of days.[...]
Army brings death and carnage to the streetsAh, but it's more complicated than a fight for social justice, and rivalries among powerful Buddhist sects and power struggles in the military, as uncertainties grow about the heir to Bangkok's throne, have added to the tangle. And yet at the bottom of it all is a simple story that's played out countless times in history and is unfolding today even in the United States.
What began in early March as a defiant and proud rally intended to oust the Thai Government peacefully and fight for social justice had, by last night, largely unravelled as the army strengthened its stranglehold around thousands of diehard protesters.
Several months ago David Brooks, in a talk with PBS NewsHour about the roots of the Tea Party protests, noted that American voters had long been demanding more transparency in their government but when they finally got it, they were outraged when they learned how Congress actually gets business done.
The more you know, the more critical you become and from there, the more demands you make. The Shah of Iran learned the hard way how the story often plays out. On paper his plan to bring more of Iran's youth into the education system was a great idea, and a necessary step in progress for his country. But when the Shah couldn't provide enough jobs for the graduates, the educated unemployed formed a large pool of the protestors who helped depose him.
The same basic situation is evident in Thailand. When Thaksin Shinawatra, a very shrewd populist, deployed the Bread & Circus routine among the rural poor in order to circumnavigate the ruling class, he unwittingly played Pandora as his term as prime minister wore on. Although Thailand is no stranger to coups getting the lid back on this time is not going to be easy.
For years Thailand had managed to strike a modern pose for the rest of the world but the country still had one foot in the past. Now the past is out in the open and Thailand's democracy must deal with it before the country can move forward.
As to whether Thailand's aging king can help, the situation is so dicey at this point that anything's possible. But he gave his answer four years ago when the events of today were already on the horizon:
On March 24, 2006, in front of a rally of 50,000 at Sanam Luang, Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva demanded that King Bhumibol Adulyadej appoint a new Prime Minister and Cabinet to resolve the political crisis. The People's Alliance for Democracy's (PAD), The Law Society of Thailand, and the Press Council of Thailand also called for royal intervention. Pongsak Payakavichien, of the Press Council, also called on the civil service to detach itself from the government and demand royal intervention.Wikipedia has been striving mightily to chronicle the mess, but the following analysis from 2009, which happily the Asia Times scooped up from the East-West Center, is the clearest (and briefest) orientation I've found to today's protests in Thailand:
However, demands for royal intervention have met with much criticism. The king himself in a speech on 26 April to newly appointed judges dismissed the notion, saying Article 7 of the Constitution invoked by the anti-Thaksin protestors did not give him that power:
"Asking for a royally appointed prime minister is undemocratic. It is, pardon me, a mess. It is irrational."
The roots of Thailand's tension
By Charles E Morrison
April 23, 2009
Street politics appear to have become the norm in Thailand, a country once noted for its relative social stability, where even coups - Thailand has had 18 since 1932 - have often been genteel affairs.
Earlier this month, red-shirted demonstrators supporting former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra caused the cancelation of an Asian summit in Pattaya and disrupted daily life in parts of Bangkok in hopes of forcing the resignation of current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. This comes after the events of last November, when yellow-shirted demonstrators opposing the then-government of Thaksin's brother-in-law occupied government buildings and closed Bangkok's two international airports.
Thaksin lost the latest round of violence. Military forces contained the protests, forced the leaders to surrender or flee, and supplied buses to take rural demonstrators back home. But "victory" is surely only a respite, since the larger issues that are dividing Thai society and fueling the unrest remain unresolved. Power has already shifted back and forth three times since the September 2006 military coup, with enormous disruptions to Thailand's society, economy, and international standing.
Thaksin and Abhisit represent opposing forces, both claiming to promote democracy. Now living abroad to escape jail time for a conflict of interest conviction, Thaksin is the central, polarizing figure on the Thai political stage. A former policeman and telecom tycoon, he is the first Thai politician to fashion a power base independent of the traditional elite, Bangkok-centered institutions. He accomplished this by becoming a hero to many underprivileged Thais during the time he was prime minister through the lavish disbursal of money for rural health, education, and grants or loans to villages.
Thaksin was so popular in the countryside that he or his supporters have decisively won the past three national elections, and they are likely to win any new one. In Thaksin's view, his last two victories have been stolen by agents of the urban middle- and upper-classes, allied with high echelons in the military, the courts, and some royal advisors. During the recent demonstrations, his almost daily video messages to his red-shirted United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) supporters called for restoration of government elected by the majority.
British-born, Oxford-educated Abhisit represents Thailand's traditional elite. He heads the country's most venerable civilian political party, the Democrats, but is also the beneficiary of military support and street protests by the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). Founded four years ago, the yellow-shirted PAD led urban protests against the Thaksin government, helping to trigger and justify a military coup in September 2006.
Following the coup, the military governed ineptly and had to step aside. When pro-Thaksin forces won new elections in December 2007, the PAD went back into action, culminating in last November's airport occupations. Although ultimately a Constitutional Court decision banning the pro-Thaksin People's Power Party, followed by political defections allegedly engineered by the military, brought Abhisit to power in December, the disruptive demonstrations and occupations by PAD provided the enabling environment.
Many in the urban and traditional elite regard Thaksin as a dangerous populist who gained personal fortune and won elections through bribery, vote-buying, and corruption. They assert that his governing methods were undemocratic, and his extra-judicial, draconian methods toward drug peddlers and insurgents in Thailand's turbulent south lacked accountability.
But Thaksin's opponents also have a democracy deficit, not having won a national election and even proposing a new, non-democratic constitution to perpetuate elite control. Political conflict is hardly new in Thailand, but in years past, the crisis might have been resolved by Thailand's respected monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Now the 81-year-old king is in fragile health, and some close to the palace are regarded as partisans.
With legitimacy problems plaguing both camps, along with the pressure of mobilized street mobs and determined adversarial leaders, an early resolution to the current crisis is unlikely. In fact, economic distress and longer-term uncertainty as the king ages may intensify the conflict.
The Thai political crisis reflects powerful forces that are reshaping the political landscape of parts of Southeast Asia. Increased levels of education and awareness, economic development, and new technologies are all helping to bring demanding new voices into politics, often threatening established elites and traditional power-sharing arrangements.
Although true reforms have eluded the Philippines, and Myanmar has remained mired under military rule, Indonesia has already undergone a major - and so far quite successful - democratic transformation, and Malaysia seems poised for change.
The introduction of new political and social forces often comes with serious disruptions, as are now occurring in Thailand.
But hopefully in the long run they will be accommodated in a new, more legitimate and democratic social contract that will endure long after the current political players have departed from the stage.
Charles E Morrison, president of the East-West Center, once taught Southeast Asian politics at the Johns Hopkins University.
(Used with the permission of the East-West Center.)
Thursday, May 13
Fears that Gulf Oil leak much larger than estimate
On May 12, 2010 at 6:31 PM a RBO reader with the screen name "The Destructionist" left the following comment at RBO blog's crosspost of my May 1 post titled Oil Spill: Cameron International and Deepwater Horizon companies in the crosshairs over failed oil rig blowout ‘fail safe’ mechanism:
Here I'm only quoting the opening paragraphs of the report with the recommendation that you go to the Times site for the rest, if you're at all interested in understanding the situation with the oil spill:
I have a sinking feeling that this oil disaster is being downplayed and may be much larger than we think. I wanted to know just how much oil was flowing into the ocean from that broken pipeline (in both barrels and in gallons) so I did some research on my own.Around 8:45 PM tonight, May 13, The New York Times published a report by Justin Gillis titled Doubts on Estimate of Volume of Oil Spilling in Gulf. So. It seems the RBO reader's concerns are justified. The Times report becomes more troubling as it goes along and suggests there's been stonewalling or at least evasions not only from BP but also from the government regarding the estimate figure.
Barrels vs. Gallons
Most news articles claim that since April 21, 2010 roughly 4 million gallons of sweet crude have been leaked into the Gulf at a rate of 210,000 gallons per day. But according to an Associated Press article just posted today ("What went wrong at oil rig? A lot ..."), approximately 4,000,000 barrels have already spilled into the Gulf. When you convertthose barrels into gallons, you end up with a whopping 168,000,000 gallons of oil: that’s a difference of 164,000,000 gallons from the previous estimate! [...]
Here I'm only quoting the opening paragraphs of the report with the recommendation that you go to the Times site for the rest, if you're at all interested in understanding the situation with the oil spill:
Two weeks ago, the government put out a round estimate of the size of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico: 5,000 barrels a day. Repeated endlessly in news reports, it has become conventional wisdom.The Deconstructionist also provided links to two additional reports, one from the Examiner titled Toxic chemicals used in BP oil spill cleanup, oil to remain flowing through Gulf and one from AP titled Missing data causing rig reconstruction mystery by Associated Press Writers Allen G. Breed and Curt Anderson. The date on the AP report is May 13, (7:31 pm EDT). I have no idea how that report got into the Deconstructionist's May 12 comment; AP can work in mysterious ways -- not the least of which is that they tend to remove reports from the internet after so many days. That means you're out of luck if you've only saved the link and want to reference the report weeks or months later. However, the report is excellent (and extensive), as is the first AP one Deconstructionist linked to; worth copying and saving if you're planning on keeping a file on the oil spill story.
But scientists and environmental groups are raising sharp questions about that estimate, declaring that the leak must be far larger. They also criticize BP for refusing to use well-known scientific techniques that would give a more precise figure.
The criticism escalated on Thursday, a day after the release of a video that showed a huge black plume of oil gushing from the broken well at a seemingly high rate. BP has repeatedly claimed that measuring the plume would be impossible.
The figure of 5,000 barrels a day was hastily produced by government scientists in Seattle. It appears to have been calculated using a method that is specifically not recommended for major oil spills.[...]
"Pakistan arrests suspect who says he was accomplice to Times Square bomber"
UPDATE 12:55 AM EDT
Colleague just informed me that the situation with the suspicious vehicle near Union Square subway is "all clear." Details will probably be forthcoming over the next few hours. It might have been a hoax but everyone is on edge since May 1 bombing attempt.
UPDATE 12:29 AM EDT May 14
UK Press Association filed approx. 12:10 AM EDT:
Colleague just informed me that the situation with the suspicious vehicle near Union Square subway is "all clear." Details will probably be forthcoming over the next few hours. It might have been a hoax but everyone is on edge since May 1 bombing attempt.
UPDATE 12:29 AM EDT May 14
UK Press Association filed approx. 12:10 AM EDT:
Police bomb disposal experts are investigating a suspicious car apparently containing gas cans near New York City's Union Square. The car was spotted not far from the Union Square [subway] tube station, where several lines connect. Police said two gas cans were seen in the back of the car. The area was sealed off and the bomb squad and Emergency Service Unit are on the scene.Thursday, May 13, 2010; 7:31 PM EDT
By Greg Miller
Washington Post Staff Writer
The Washington Post
The Pakistani government has arrested a suspect with connections to a Pakistani militant group who said he acted as an accomplice to the accused Times Square bomber, U.S. officials said.
The suspect, whose arrest has not been previously disclosed, provided an "independent stream" of evidence that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack, and has admitted helping Faisal Shahzad, the main suspect, travel into Pakistan's tribal areas for bomb training.
Officials familiar with the probe cautioned that there have been inconsistencies in the two suspects' accounts. Federal authorities expanded their search for physical evidence Thursday, carrying out raids in four northeastern states, and arresting three people suspected of funneling money to Shahzad.
Indeed, the U.S. determination that the Pakistani Taliban directed the attempted attack is based largely on accounts of the two men, several U.S. officials said. Authorities have been examining phone records, e-mails and other communications for firmer evidence of the links between Shahzad and the Pakistani Taliban.
"What they said has been corroborated by other evidence,'' said a senior law enforcement source, who would not specify that evidence, saying it is classified.
The suspect in Pakistani custody "is believed to have a connection to the TTP," said a U.S. intelligence official, using an acronym for the Pakistani Taliban. Certain clues have added to authorities' understanding of the plot, the official said, but "what is definitely true is that a lot of this comes from the statements of people directly involved."
Assessing the role of the Pakistani Taliban carries significant stakes. A clear link would move the militant group onto an expanding list of al-Qaeda affiliates that pose a direct threat to the United States. It would also put new pressure on the U.S. relationship with Pakistan at a time when President Obama is pushing the country to expand its military campaign against insurgent groups.
Americans get smelling salts, beer, or paper bag before reading
Paper bag is for types who prefer to hyperventilate instead of faint or get plastered at really bad news.
Uppity Woman asks, "So what do you do right after your 9/11 city is the target of yet another Islamofascist bastard? Why, you cut Homeland Security funding to them."
If you haven't seen the front page of the New York Daily News yet -- their editorial comment on the funding cut -- go to Uppity's site. Now.
MSNBC reports that Obama's administration is firing back at criticism that they've cut funds for New York City transit and port security, saying the reports are wrong:
Uppity Woman asks, "So what do you do right after your 9/11 city is the target of yet another Islamofascist bastard? Why, you cut Homeland Security funding to them."
If you haven't seen the front page of the New York Daily News yet -- their editorial comment on the funding cut -- go to Uppity's site. Now.
MSNBC reports that Obama's administration is firing back at criticism that they've cut funds for New York City transit and port security, saying the reports are wrong:
"[...] When all federal funding is totaled, NYC has received a net increase of $47 million for port and transit security over the previous year's budget, the last signed into law by the Bush Administration. Those who suggest otherwise are not counting the more than $100 million in port and transit security grants for NYC from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. With that money, the total for NYC will be $245 million, more than $47 million than what was allotted by the Bush Administration in the previous year. In fact, one out of every three recovery dollars for transit and port security went to NYC, making them the largest recipient in the country."This doesn't explain the funding cut. Nor does it explain the timing of the cut.
"All roads do seem to be leading to Pakistan"
Dan Riehl at Riehl World View is tracking FBI arrests of Pakistanis that seem related to suspected terrorism plots. Details on the arrests are still sketchy but see his 9:58 AM EDT post and 11:01 AM one for the news. Dan has just published (11:18 AM) news of two more arrests in Long Island. You might want to keep checking his site throughout the day for more breaking news on the arrests.
YouCut: vote online or text to vote on cutting wasteful federal spending
YouCut was unveiled yesterday. Here's how YouCut works and where you can go to vote, from Greta Van Susteren's interview last night on Fox News Cable with Eric Cantor (R-VA), the House of Representatives Minority Whip:
[...] CANTOR: YouCut is a program that we unveiled today. It was produced by the Economic Recovery Working Group in the House, a group of Republicans who really intend on trying to change the culture in Washington. You know, not only have we've seen just rampant pork barrel spending, but the whole process itself is bent towards spending money. And so what this program is, is an ability for people across the country to make their voices heard, to vote on what they think should be cut from the federal budget.Click here for more of the interview.
VAN SUSTEREN: So let me understand. So you go online [or text] to YouCut, and you get to vote on what you think should be cut out of the federal budget?
CANTOR: Right. And then the winning item, we take that, and then we're going to put it to a vote, to an up-or-down vote on the House floor the following week.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. How often do you vote? How often are items put up on YouCut so that Americans can vote whether it should be cut or not cut?
CANTOR: Well, once a week, there will be five new items to be voted on by the American people. So today, with the launch, there are five items up there right now. As of four hours into the launch, we were getting thousands of people coming to the website to cast their vote. ...
And once we tally all that up, the following week, we will bring that to an up-or-down vote on the House floor.
[...]
Here is the website where you can vote or find out how to text your vote:
Republicanwhip.house.gov/youcut
I don't agree with Greta when she tells Eric that YouCut is a way the Republicans have found to "clobber" the Democrats. Surely there are some Republicans who think that way but they haven't thought things through. In my view, YouCut is not about clobbering an opposing political party; it's about upgrading the way a superpower democracy is run in the 21st Century.
During the past decade, more and more Americans have learned to their horror that "representative democracy" at the U.S. federal level has put the foxes in charge of the chicken coop.
Add to this is the sea change I noted in 2005 when I asked, How do you run a government when the voters are smarter than you?
...for the first time in recorded history the pyramid of society is turned upside down. Except for a very few pockets around the world, the government does not represent the smartest and best-informed people in the society....Sixty years ago in this country relatively few Americans had a college eduction, women in the workforce were few, and entire industries that saw little foreign competition could afford to be wasteful and inefficient.
So it was perfectly fine in those days to be satisfied with letting Congress run itself with little close oversight, and with pork barrel politics, rather than competence, as the decider in sending representatives to Congress.
Those days are long gone. Today, Americans who are flogged to ever greater productivity in their workplace, and who as bosses flog their employees to work better and think faster, are quickly able to discern who is sluffing off in government, who is incompetent, and who is corrupt as the day is long.
Americans who would get fired in their own place of work for such behaviors are no longer willing to put their tax money at the disposal of people in government they easily perceive to be incompetents and crooks.
Yet the only way to change the situation is if Americans roll up their sleeves and do more of the task of governing themselves. That's one more load of responsibility added to the burden of the already-overworked American labor force. But a big part of the American culture is a do-it-yourself mentality.
This doesn't mean the end of representative democracy in the USA but I see YouCut as the first step to the electorate taking a hands-on involvement with closely supervising how elected representatives work in Congress. That's the way things are going to have to be, at least until Washington is brought into the modern era.
So, go vote, if any or all of the five programs up for vote this week at the YouCut website strike you as being wasteful.
Wednesday, May 12
U.S. scramble to placate Pakistan about Times Square bombing case echoes 9/11 Commission's capitulation to Pak lobbyists
Yesterday saw a scramble in Washington to downplay the Time Square Bomber's alleged association with a Pakistan terror group. The scramble was mirrored on the Other Side of the Pond when the Guardian (a conduit for views from Britain's intelligence agencies) quoted unnamed Pakistani investigators and officials:
Pakistani investigators have found no evidence to support American claims that the failed Times Square bomber was working under the direction of the Pakistani Taliban, the Guardian has learned.And U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke emerged from his cone of silence to assure that the Obama administration was in no way considering a lessening or suspension of aid to Pakistan.
[...]
Officials in Islamabad are perplexed and angry at statements from Washington about Shahzad's links with the Pakistani Taliban, believing that the US is exploiting the issue to apply pressure for new military offensives in Pakistan's tribal border area with Afghanistan, in the north Waziristan region.[...]
Holbrooke also stressed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hadn't meant exactly what she said last week when she said Pakistan would face "very severe consequences” if a successful terrorist attack on the United States could be traced to Pakistan.
Also yesterday, New York City's Police Commissioner, Ray Kelly, indicated that leaked information about the Times Square Bomber almost helped him escape and that the leak had not come from the New York police. The response from U.S. Department of Justice and FBI officials to Kelly's very serious charge: chirping of crickets.
But before I wade further into Washington's present attempts to placate Pakistan, let's take a trip back in time to get a clearer fix on today:
March 12, 2006
Pakistan weekly spills 9/11 beansThat's outrageous, if the last remark was aimed at American lobbyists. Here in Washington the bidding at mother sales starts at 10,000 bucks, not a measly dollar.
(The Telegraph, India) The Pakistan foreign office had paid tens of thousands of dollars to lobbyists in the US to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 inquiry commission report, [Pakistan's] The Friday Times has claimed.
The Pakistani weekly said its story is based on disclosures made by foreign service officials to the Public Accounts Committee at a secret meeting in Islamabad on Tuesday.
It claimed that some of the commission members were also bribed to prevent them from including damaging information about Pakistan.
The magazine said the PAC grilled officials in the presence of foreign secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan and special secretary Sher Afghan on the money paid to lobbyists.
“The disclosure sheds doubt on the integrity and honesty of the members of the 9/11 inquiry commission and, above all, the authenticity of the information in their final report,” it said.
The report quoted an officer as saying that dramatic changes were made in the final draft of the inquiry commission after the lobbyists got to work. The panel was formed to probe the September 11 terror attack and make suggestions to fight terrorism.
After the commission tipped the lobbyists about the damaging revelations on Pakistan’s role in 9/11, they contacted the panel members and asked them to go soft on the country. The Friday Times claimed that a lot of money was used to silence these members.
According to the report, the lobbyists also helped Pakistan win the sympathy of 75 US Congressmen as part of its strategy to guard Islamabad’s interests in Washington. “US softened towards Pakistan only because of the efforts of the foreign office,” an official was quoted as saying in the report.
The Pakistan foreign office defended the decision to hire the lobbyists, saying it was an established practice in the US.
An observer at the Islamabad meeting said money could play an important role in buying powerful people. The remark came in response to comments made by some US officials after 9/11 that “Pakistanis will sell their mothers for a dollar”.
To return to 2010 there's no question that Pakistanis are upset about what they perceive as Pakistan-bashing in Washington. The Washington Post reported yesterday:
[..] Many Pakistanis have condemned the attempted bombing, saying Shahzad's alleged actions were un-Islamic and hurt both countries. But in editorials, sermons and protests, activists have blamed the West for spotlighting Pakistan as a source of terrorism because of one incident.Pakistan-bashing because of "one incident," eh? What was the Mumbai massacre? A cricket match? For that matter, what was 9/11?
The Nation newspaper, an outlet for nationalist views, declared, "It is crystal clear that the U.S. government is always behind such planted arrests."
On Sunday, thousands of supporters of the Jamaat-e-Islami religious party protested in Karachi. Several said they were sure Shahzad had been set up by the CIA.
"He's an innocent person. They want to interlink Faisal Shahzad and the Taliban and create a conspiracy against Pakistan," said Fahad Kashif Iqbal, 20, a student.
Some Pakistani officials have lent credence to such theories or have sought to explain the attempted attack as a reaction to U.S. policy.
Interior Minister Rehman Malik said initially that before cooperating with the United States, "one has to see, is it some conspiracy against Pakistan?" Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said the attempted bombing could have been a response to U.S. drone attacks in the Pakistani tribal areas.
Although most experts and politicians dismissed the conspiracy theories, they too complained that the incident has tarred Pakistan's reputation.
Mushahid Hussain, a leader of the political opposition, said the tendency to link Pakistan with "anything bad, anywhere in the world," was very damaging to his country's image. "It's Pakistan-bashing season," he said.
Moving along, yesterday Richard Holbrooke poured oil on troubled waters. Here is Dawn's version, datelined today, of his press briefing. (Dawn is Pakistan's oldest and most widely read English-language newspaper.)
WASHINGTON: The US State Department has joined the Pentagon and the White House in assuring Pakistan that it remains a key ally in the war against terror and that Secretary Hillary Clinton never spoke about disrupting economic or military assistance to Pakistan.Not to be outdone by Holbrooke's clown act Senator Christopher "Kit" Bond, the senior Republican on the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, emerged yesterday from what was supposed to be a classified briefing to the committee to announce that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was talking through his hat, when he said on Sunday that investigators had evidence the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) helped direct the failed bombing attack in Times Square and likely assisted in financing it.
The assurance came from Mrs Clinton’s close confidant, US Special Representative Richard Holbrooke. [Pundita note: Somehow I doubt Clinton and Holbrooke are BFF.] Her remarks in no way indicated any impact on the flow of US economic or military aid to Pakistan, he told a briefing in Washington.
“As for Secretary Clinton’s interview on (CBS channel’s) 60 Minutes (programme), I think that perhaps it was not fully understood for what she was saying by some people who didn’t see the full text or didn’t appreciate what she was saying,” he said.
On Sunday, Secretary Clinton warned Pakistan that it would face “very severe consequences” if extremists based there succeeded in attacking the United States.
She also said that she believed “somewhere in (the Pakistani) government are people who know where Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda is, where Mullah Omar and the leadership of the Afghan Taliban is, and we expect more cooperation to help us bring to justice, capture or kill those who attacked us on 9/11”.
She was backed by several lawmakers as well, who went a step ahead and warned Pakistan that the aid it was receiving could be stopped if it failed to take “appropriate actions” to stamp out terrorism.
But the initial outburst that followed the botched Times Square bombing last week appears to be losing its steam as US officials now try to water down their earlier tough stance. The Pentagon, which cherishes its close ties to the Pakistani military establishment, is playing a leading role in the effort to allay Islamabad’s fears, backed by the White House and the State Department.
“We’re very satisfied by the cooperation we’re getting on this particular investigation thus far,” said another State Department official, Assistant Secretary Philip Crowley.
Mr Holbrooke said the Obama administration was actually multiplying Pakistan’s civilian and military aid to help Pakistan fight terrorism.
The White House issued similar statements, recognising that thousands of Pakistani soldiers had died fighting terrorists who also killed thousands of innocent Pakistani civilians.
The Pentagon started distancing itself from the anti-Pakistan tirade days before the White House and the State Department realised the need to control the damage their earlier statements had done.
According to a report from Reuters today, time-stamped 6:39 AM EDT, Bond told the press:
"I am not convinced by the information that I've seen so far that there was adequate, confirmable intelligence to corroborate the statements that were made on Sunday television shows," Bond told reporters after the classified briefing.The Washington Post report today on the same briefing conveyed a slightly different version of Feinstein's remarks. (No time stamp on the Post report so I don't know whether it was filed before or after the Reuters wire report):
"We've heard lots of suspicions and tenuous connections, but as far as I'm concerned you can't make statements prior to getting the intelligence."
[...]
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, emerged from the same briefing disagreeing with Bond. She said there was a "high likelihood" of interactions between Shahzad and the Pakistani Taliban.[..]
[...] Intelligence committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who joined Bond in speaking to reporters after the briefing, said there is a "high likelihood" that Shahzad received some kind of terrorist training in Pakistan. But she said committee members had not been provided with specifics about how the Taliban might have aided the attempted bombing.[...]I would have to find the text of the presser to learn whether Reuters or the Post conveyed the most accurate version of Feinstein's remarks. But I note that the Post did not fully quote Feinstein's sentence, leading me to believe that the paper, which is a conduit for views from the State Department, preferred to downplay exactly what Feinstein said.
Either way, if the number of U.S. leaks since 9/11 from classified briefings and documents could be converted to actual water Washington would be the Venice of North America.
Have a nice day -- and don't allow your mother to visit Washington unless she's accompanied by a Doberman and a couple armed bodyguards.
Tuesday, May 11
Obama can save the day in Afghanistan if he faces realities in Pakistan
Two U.S. think tank denizens, the Middle East Institute's Marvin Weinbaum and Rand Corporation's James Dobbins, weigh in on the scenarios if the U.S. backs Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai's aims to negotiate a peace settlement with the Taliban.
Usually I am wary of opinions put out by American policy experts about Afghanistan and Pakistan but in this case the two are just summarizing prevailing winds in Washington. And both agree on the obvious point that the Taliban don't have to hurry to the bargaining table. They can simply wait out the Obama administration, then when ISAF troops leave they can dictate terms to Karzai if they don't assassinate him.
Mr Weinbaum summarizes the conditions for civil war that would be unleashed if the Taliban were brought into Afghani mainstream politics and points out:
Both men make clear that the U.S. backing a negotiated peace settlement with the Taliban is an awful idea. But with President Obama trying to make a speedy exit from Afghanistan, an awful idea is the only one on the table.
However, their analysis and recommendations don't mention that the idea is especially awful idea because it threatens to return to power in Afghanistan a military with a history of carrying out democide in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The military is Pakistan's.
Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai knows all about the history of the Pakistan military's mass slaughter of civilians in his country, which was technically democide and not genocide because it was simply a tactic for keeping the masses in line.
The Pak military's modus operandi in Afghanistan, and earlier in East Pakistan, was to murder or imprison every member of the educated class they could find -- teachers, students, intellectuals, civil servants, even novelists and artists.
That's why Afghanistan has only about 50 Afghanis raised in country who are literate and educated enough to serve in key government positions. After the Soviets pulled out, Pakistan's military controlled the Afghans by insuring there wasn't an educated class in Afghanistan to support an independent, modern government there.
Then Washington, which backed Pakistan's democides, had the gall to complain that Karzai was installing warlords in the government. What else was he supposed to install? Monkeys?
That's also why Karzai was outspoken in his criticism of Pakistan once he took office, until this so greatly annoyed the British government and Obama's advisors that he found himself described in the international press as Satan's henchman.
The final straw for Karzai was hearing Obama announce in December 2009 that July 2011 was the exit date for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. All attempts by Obama's flunkies to explain that he didn't actually mean what he said were understandably viewed with mistrust by Karzai. Karzai then wheeled on a dime and offered to be BFF with Pakistan's government, as if he had a choice.
In short the messy question of whether or not to negotiate with the Taliban would be obviated if Obama hadn't been intent on his reelection campaign as early as December 2009. Yet if he could rip his attention away from his poll numbers for a few moments he might notice that today is not yesterday.
The Bush administration's determination to treat Pakistan as an ally, which the Obama administration continued, has meant that the majority of the American public did not know how things are in Pakistan.
The blinders started to fall away during the past week, as more came out in the media about the Times Square bomber and his terrorist connections in Pakistan. Americans are still near the bottom of a learning curve about Pakistan. But since the May 1 bombing attempt many Americans are finally getting a glimpse of Pakistani society, and feeling their way toward an understanding that with allies such as Pakistan the USA doesn't need enemies.
So there's a silver lining to the cloud of the bombing attempt; it gives Obama a way to rescue the U.S. situation in Afghanistan without delivering a mortal blow to his reelection campaign. He can stand in front of the American people and announce, 'My administration now sees the scope of the threat to Afghanistan from the troubles in Pakistan. Therefore, I'm no longer putting a date to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan or reducing troop levels there.'
That's all he has to say. That will take the pressure off Karzai, so he doesn't believe he has to agree to allow the Taliban to overrun his government.
And I think even the anti-war factions in the USA have realized in the past week that it would suicidal for the U.S. to decamp Afghanistan before Pakistan has been dealt with in very decisive fashion. I also think everyone realizes by now that 15 minutes after the U.S. decamps, al Qaeda will return in force to Afghanistan. All that would put the winds at Obama's back.
As to how other NATO countries would respond to a genuine open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan -- I don't know how Canadians feel at this point. They've lost a disproportionate number of troops in Afghanistan.
Regarding NATO members in Western Europe that want out of the coalition: why should they continue to commit to a war that the United States has clearly had no interest in winning?
Since day one Washington has been more intent on keeping Pakistan as a client state than in achieving victory in Afghanistan; a lot of ISAF soldiers' blood has been shed unnecessarily because of this. Any questions on that score, reference Operation Airlift of Evil -- and ignore the excuse that nobody on the U.S. side could imagine at the time how many al Qaeda, Taliban, and Pakistani soldiers fighting U.S. and British troops in 2001 Vice President Cheney would agree to evacuate to safety.
Yet it's still possible to start a new chapter. If Obama gives evidence that the U.S. has committed to winning the war, that would be news to other members of NATO, which they'd have to digest before deciding whether to review their options.
Usually I am wary of opinions put out by American policy experts about Afghanistan and Pakistan but in this case the two are just summarizing prevailing winds in Washington. And both agree on the obvious point that the Taliban don't have to hurry to the bargaining table. They can simply wait out the Obama administration, then when ISAF troops leave they can dictate terms to Karzai if they don't assassinate him.
Mr Weinbaum summarizes the conditions for civil war that would be unleashed if the Taliban were brought into Afghani mainstream politics and points out:
Afghanistan's Pashtun south and east will not only be open to al-Qaeda but, more important, to those groups able to operate more freely like Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Taiba and Josh-e-Mohammad, and the Pakistan-based Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, all closely linked to the newly internationally-minded Pakistani Taliban.Mr Dobbins, who served as the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan between 2001 and 2002, provides a handy primer on the differences between reintegration and reconciliation, as those terms are applied to the U.S. view of negotiating with the Taliban. He also lists why U.S. attempts to copy the playbook in Iraq have ignored the very great differences the U.S. found in the two countries.
Both men make clear that the U.S. backing a negotiated peace settlement with the Taliban is an awful idea. But with President Obama trying to make a speedy exit from Afghanistan, an awful idea is the only one on the table.
However, their analysis and recommendations don't mention that the idea is especially awful idea because it threatens to return to power in Afghanistan a military with a history of carrying out democide in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The military is Pakistan's.
Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai knows all about the history of the Pakistan military's mass slaughter of civilians in his country, which was technically democide and not genocide because it was simply a tactic for keeping the masses in line.
The Pak military's modus operandi in Afghanistan, and earlier in East Pakistan, was to murder or imprison every member of the educated class they could find -- teachers, students, intellectuals, civil servants, even novelists and artists.
That's why Afghanistan has only about 50 Afghanis raised in country who are literate and educated enough to serve in key government positions. After the Soviets pulled out, Pakistan's military controlled the Afghans by insuring there wasn't an educated class in Afghanistan to support an independent, modern government there.
Then Washington, which backed Pakistan's democides, had the gall to complain that Karzai was installing warlords in the government. What else was he supposed to install? Monkeys?
That's also why Karzai was outspoken in his criticism of Pakistan once he took office, until this so greatly annoyed the British government and Obama's advisors that he found himself described in the international press as Satan's henchman.
The final straw for Karzai was hearing Obama announce in December 2009 that July 2011 was the exit date for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. All attempts by Obama's flunkies to explain that he didn't actually mean what he said were understandably viewed with mistrust by Karzai. Karzai then wheeled on a dime and offered to be BFF with Pakistan's government, as if he had a choice.
In short the messy question of whether or not to negotiate with the Taliban would be obviated if Obama hadn't been intent on his reelection campaign as early as December 2009. Yet if he could rip his attention away from his poll numbers for a few moments he might notice that today is not yesterday.
The Bush administration's determination to treat Pakistan as an ally, which the Obama administration continued, has meant that the majority of the American public did not know how things are in Pakistan.
The blinders started to fall away during the past week, as more came out in the media about the Times Square bomber and his terrorist connections in Pakistan. Americans are still near the bottom of a learning curve about Pakistan. But since the May 1 bombing attempt many Americans are finally getting a glimpse of Pakistani society, and feeling their way toward an understanding that with allies such as Pakistan the USA doesn't need enemies.
So there's a silver lining to the cloud of the bombing attempt; it gives Obama a way to rescue the U.S. situation in Afghanistan without delivering a mortal blow to his reelection campaign. He can stand in front of the American people and announce, 'My administration now sees the scope of the threat to Afghanistan from the troubles in Pakistan. Therefore, I'm no longer putting a date to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan or reducing troop levels there.'
That's all he has to say. That will take the pressure off Karzai, so he doesn't believe he has to agree to allow the Taliban to overrun his government.
And I think even the anti-war factions in the USA have realized in the past week that it would suicidal for the U.S. to decamp Afghanistan before Pakistan has been dealt with in very decisive fashion. I also think everyone realizes by now that 15 minutes after the U.S. decamps, al Qaeda will return in force to Afghanistan. All that would put the winds at Obama's back.
As to how other NATO countries would respond to a genuine open-ended commitment to keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan -- I don't know how Canadians feel at this point. They've lost a disproportionate number of troops in Afghanistan.
Regarding NATO members in Western Europe that want out of the coalition: why should they continue to commit to a war that the United States has clearly had no interest in winning?
Since day one Washington has been more intent on keeping Pakistan as a client state than in achieving victory in Afghanistan; a lot of ISAF soldiers' blood has been shed unnecessarily because of this. Any questions on that score, reference Operation Airlift of Evil -- and ignore the excuse that nobody on the U.S. side could imagine at the time how many al Qaeda, Taliban, and Pakistani soldiers fighting U.S. and British troops in 2001 Vice President Cheney would agree to evacuate to safety.
Yet it's still possible to start a new chapter. If Obama gives evidence that the U.S. has committed to winning the war, that would be news to other members of NATO, which they'd have to digest before deciding whether to review their options.
Kilcullen on COIN
I was just visiting Mark Safranski's ZenPundit blog and saw he's finally able to squeeze in time to read David Kilcullen's The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One and comment. I haven't read the book yet but I found Mark's comments about “Persistent-Presence” vs. “Repetitive Raiding” to be very interesting.
Al Qaeda undermines Mullah Omar's authority over hostage deal
More news about crazy people
Pakistan's military is trying to negotiate with 'good' Taliban to avoid a war in N. Waziristan. Meanwhile al Qaeda, ticked off by recent developments, pressures Asian Tigers terror group into flip-flopping on their agreement to release two hostages, which meant dissing Mullah Omar. Tsk tsk. Manners!
See a blurb from the (U.K.) Guardian, posted after the following report, for background on the Asian Tigers, which no one had heard of before last month. Here, the Pakistan bureau chief for the Asia Times Online lays out the AQ-Tigers-Omar kerfuffle, which suggests too many chefs elbowing each other in the kitchen:
Pakistan's military is trying to negotiate with 'good' Taliban to avoid a war in N. Waziristan. Meanwhile al Qaeda, ticked off by recent developments, pressures Asian Tigers terror group into flip-flopping on their agreement to release two hostages, which meant dissing Mullah Omar. Tsk tsk. Manners!
See a blurb from the (U.K.) Guardian, posted after the following report, for background on the Asian Tigers, which no one had heard of before last month. Here, the Pakistan bureau chief for the Asia Times Online lays out the AQ-Tigers-Omar kerfuffle, which suggests too many chefs elbowing each other in the kitchen:
Militants in no mood to talkFrom the May 6 issue of the Guardian:
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Asia Times Online
May 11, 2010
ISLAMABAD - Pakistan stands at a crossroad in its battle against militancy.
On the one hand, its Washington ally wants to turn their strategic partnership into a closer military alliance in which the United States would help the Pakistani military significantly ramp up the war against militancy - meaning opening a new battlefield, as the Americans did in Laos during the Vietnam war.
Alternatively, Pakistan is tempted to set aside American interests and apply its own mechanism to defeat militancy - which means striking deals with the "good" Taliban and defeating the "bad" Taliban without care for the consequences on the war in
Afghanistan or the future of al-Qaeda and its allied Punjabi groups operating in the Pakistani tribal areas.
Pakistan took a step towards the second option at the weekend when it air-dropped leaflets in the North Waziristan tribal area warning pro-Taliban tribes "to back out of their support of the militants [al-Qaeda and its associate Punjabi militants] or face the consequences, like the people of Swat and Bajaur -tribal agencies] faced and lost their properties and assets".
For hawkish decision-makers in Washington and "bad" militants in North Waziristan, there is another option: remove Pakistani links in the war and deal directly with one another on Pakistani soil.
Last week, the Barack Obama administration authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to step up drone attacks on militants in the tribal areas to include missile strikes against unknown targets. Previously, a suspect had to be identified. [Pundita note: Seems Bush authorized the 'no name' strikes in the closing months of his admininistration and they're being used for first time now.] The CIA wasted no time. In a series of attacks over the weekend, at least 10 militants were reported killed in North Waziristan.
The hardcore militants also flexed their muscles by blocking efforts led by the Afghan Taliban, who are not hostile towards Pakistan, for a truce and for the release of a former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) hostage.
Colonel Ameer Sultan Tarrar, nicknamed "Colonel Imam" by the mujahideen as he was instrumental in helping to raise the Taliban militia, was abducted by a Punjabi group, the Asian Tigers, on March 25, along with journalist Asad Qureshi. The bullet-riddled body of Khalid Khawaja, another former ISI official who was abducted at the same time, was recently found in North Waziristan.
The Tigers ignored instructions from Taliban leader Mullah Omar that the men should be freed, instead issuing a list of high-profile men in Pakistani jails to be released in 15 days. Otherwise, they said, Tarrar would meet the same fate as Khawaja. For the release of Qureshi, there is a separate demand of US$10 million in ransom. See Qureshi's video ... sent to ATol at the weekend.
The New York Times reported on Friday that evidence of ties between the man accused of trying to car bomb Times Square in New York - Faisal Shahzad - and Pakistani militants had intensified debate inside the Barack Obama administration about expanding America's military presence in Pakistan. Some officials are said to want to increase the number of special operations forces working with Pakistani troops in the western mountains.
In a dispatch from Washington, the newspaper said the American military presence in Pakistan had already grown substantially over the past year, and now totaled more than 200 troops, part of a largely secret program to share intelligence with the Pakistani army and paramilitary troops and train them to battle militant groups.
This would play into the hands of the militants, who aim to lure the Americans into what they see as a trap in the rugged mountainous terrain on Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.
Militants make demands
Among the 150 prisoners the militants want released are those involved in an attack on military headquarters in Rawalpindi, the killing of a retired general, abductions for ransom, and those allegedly connected to the attack on Mumbai in India in November 2008. Interior Minister Rahman Malik, who is traveling in Britain, was unable to respond to questions from Asia Times Online.
The militants had initially said they would release both captives.
A militant spokesman, Usman Punjabi, told ATol on April 29 on the telephone that Khawaja would be executed (which happened the next day) but that Colonel Imam would be released as he was not a part of Khawaja's plan to negotiate peace between the militants and the military,
Other sources told ATol that Colonel Imam was to be released because of pressure from the Afghan Taliban and that he would be handed into the custody of Afghan Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani's group led by Hafiz Gul Bahadur, the chief of the Taliban in North Waziristan. This was also widely reported in the Pakistani media.
However, everything changed with the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in New York and the ramping up of the drone program. Al-Qaeda forcibly put its foot down and managed to undermine the authority of Mullah Omar.
"It was completely wrong news that we agree to the release of Colonel Imam and Asad Qureshi," Usman Punjabi told ATol on the telephone on Sunday. "We did not receive any direct instruction from Mullah Omar. We did not see any direct emissary of Mullah Omar's. What we heard regarding the instructions [from Mullah Omar] was just talk by some ISI-backed Taliban groups in North Waziristan that they had been asked by Mullah Omar to release Colonel Imam.
"So we have asked them to provide evidence - any audio or video recording of Mullah Omar in which he ordered the release of Colonel Imam. We cannot believe the words of just any person in that regard," said Usman Punjabi.
"For us Colonel Imam was not a mujahid. If he was assumed in the past as the father of the Taliban, he did that as a government employee - being an army officer. He still receives a pension from the Pakistan army. To us he is their man," said Usman Punjabi. This is in direct contradiction to what he earlier told ATol, that Colonel Imam would be released.
It is becoming apparent that al-Qaeda is calling the shots in North Waziristan and creating a situation under which the good and bad Taliban will not have any choice but to operate under al-Qaeda's flagship while trying to entice the US into a fight.
Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
[...] Unheard of until last month, Asian Tigers is a new Taliban splinter group based in North Waziristan with a taste for brutal kidnappings. It is thought to be led by Punjabi sectarian extremists, probably with the Lashkar i Jhangvi group, who have taken shelter in the tribal belt.
The group shot to prominence with the kidnapping of two retired ISI officers and a journalist, Asad Qureshi. Last week the group executed one of the ISI men, Khalid Khawaja, and threatened to kill the others unless its demands for money and prisoners were met.
The size and influence of the group are unclear but there is some speculation that Asian Tigers have links with [Hakeemullah] Mehsud's TTP. Its emergence underscores how Pakistan's jihadi firmament is fragmenting and reshaping – a phenomenon that boosts the chances of infighting but also makes it more difficult to stamp out militancy. [..]
Monday, May 10
Pakistan: Rawalpindi's frankensteins dig into Karachi
Karachi, Pakistan, one of the world's megacities
Today's Washington Post features a report that Militant factions with global aims are spreading roots throughout Pakistan and that they're already represented in force in Karachi. The news makes a companion piece to Rashid Ahmed's grim warning today at the BBC that the Taliban are preparing to return in force to Swat Valley and FATA.
However, the hinterlands is one thing; Karachi is a megacity -- number 10 in the world in 2007, the last available ranking -- and one of the fastest growing cities in the world.
A bay city, Karachi is spread over more than a thousand square miles; it is Pakistan's center of banking, industry, and trade, and home to the country's largest corporations. And yet the city is also a magnet for terrorist and insurgent groups.
So while CIA chief Leon Panetta claimed last year that drone strikes in Waziristan were "the only game in town" in the fight against al Qaeda, the game has driven many foreign and local militants to take refuge in a megacity, where U.S. drone strikes would create so much anti-government feeling that martial law would have to be declared.
As to whether martial law could be enforced -- Pakistan's military might not want to find out, and neither might Bejing or the World Bank, which have been bankrolling extensions and improvements of Karachi's port facilities. The geographic position of Karachi places the port in close proximity to major shipping routes, such as the Strait of Hormuz.
Although the analogy is limited Karachi is beginning to remind me of Beirut, where Hezbollah garnered enough power and sympathy to face down the central government. The same situation looms in Karachi, where the Pakistani Taliban have provided social services to the poor and are considered heroes by many Pakistanis.
Granted, Lebanon's military is not in the same league as Pakistan's. But the question is whether the Pak military would want risk starting a civil war on behalf of a civilian government that's not trusted by the populace.
On the other hand, the international banks and foreign governments that keep Pakistan's head above water wouldn't like to deal with the sticky wicket of an overt military dictatorship returning to power in the country.
Would the tiebreaker be the fig leaf of U.N. peacekeepers in Karachi while the U.S. military does the heavy lifting in the background?
Here is the Post report, written by Karin Brulliard and Pamela Constable of the Washington Post Foreign Service:
KARACHI, PAKISTAN -- Terrorism suspect Faisal Shahzad's alleged path to Times Square reflects what experts say is a militant support network that spans Pakistan and is eager to shepherd aspiring terrorists from around the globe.
In this teeming southern metropolis, authorities are focusing on a domestic militant outfit that might have escorted Shahzad to distant northern peaks where U.S. investigators allege he received training with the al-Qaeda-affiliated Pakistani Taliban. In Pakistan's heartland, extremist organizations freely build compounds and campaign with politicians, while their foot soldiers fight alongside the Taliban in the borderlands, intelligence officials say.
The overall picture is one of a jumbled scaffolding of militancy that supports al-Qaeda and the Taliban with money and safe houses, and can provide entrance tickets to mountain training camps for aspiring terrorists, one U.S. counterterrorism official said.
Although the planners of most serious terror plots against the West in recent years have received direction or training from groups in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, the reach of extremist organizations across Pakistan underscores the limits of Pakistani military offensives and of U.S. airstrikes that target the Taliban and al-Qaeda only along the frontier.
"Our cells are working everywhere," one Pakistani Taliban fighter said in a telephone interview. New foreign recruits, among them Europeans and Americans, undergo days of isolation and "complete observation" by militants outside the tribal areas before gaining access to camps, he said.
Many such aspirants do not make it, the Taliban fighter said, because they are deemed to be spies. That happened to five Northern Virginia men, who were rebuffed by Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-i-Taiba last year despite the reference of an online recruiter, according to Pakistani authorities. However, those aspirants deemed sincere represent a "one in a million" opportunity for militants to strike in the West, said Masood Sharif Khattak, a former Pakistani Intelligence Bureau chief.
Their first stop is typically not the mountains of Waziristan, where Shahzad told U.S. investigators he had trained, but 1,000 miles south in Karachi, the Taliban fighter said.
An Arabian Sea gateway of 18 million people, the city is awash in weapons and dotted with mosques where, police say, jihadist literature is freely distributed and clerics deliver vitriolic anti-American sermons. Among them is the Bath'ha mosque and seminary, an unassuming building known locally as a bastion for Jaish-e-Mohammed, a banned Kashmir-focused group. Authorities said they have arrested a man at the mosque who escorted Shahzad to the northwestern city of Peshawar.
Operatives from Pakistan's array of jihadist groups find haven in Karachi's multiethnic sprawl; Afghan Taliban deputy leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar was arrested in the city earlier this year.
The groups form a nexus, according to recent local intelligence reports. One report, obtained by The Washington Post, warns of coordinated plans by the Pakistani Taliban -- a group based in the tribal areas that has focused its attacks inside Pakistan -- and the traditionally anti-India militant groups of Punjab province. The target: NATO supply convoys in Karachi.
Farther north in the expanse of Punjab, experts say the major anti-India militant groups and other radical Sunni organizations need little cover: They are tolerated and even supported by the state. Banned groups such as Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed have formed organizations with new names that operate freely. Some of their leaders have been arrested for alleged links to terrorist attacks, then released by the courts.
The groups have in recent years increasingly focused attacks within Punjab as provincial officials have tried to placate them, both to capitalize on their popularity and in hopes of moderating their views.
"These groups have not been touched," said Ahmed Rashid, a leading Pakistani expert on the Taliban and Islamist extremism. "They have been through a metamorphosis and turned their guns inward and linked up with other groups in the northwest, but no one is acknowledging it. The word is out that if you hang with them, you're safe."
The counterinsurgency tactics used in the tribal areas -- missiles and military operations -- are widely thought to be unfeasible in Pakistan's populous mainland. But critics say Pakistani police, security agencies and officials could at least start to clamp down on extremist organizations by vocally condemning them, monitoring mosques and madrassas and denying public space and private property to militant-linked groups.
Pakistan says it is still investigating the extent of Shahzad's militant links; some security officials have said that he definitely had ties to Jaish-e-Mohammed. Terrorism analyst Muhammad Amir Rana said that what appears to be a lack of political will to tackle militant organizations in Pakistan's heartland is actually rooted in a problem with far greater implications for the global battle against terror: The groups' reach and presence in cities has made them a beast that cannot easily be dismantled.
"It's very complex," Rana said. "They have infrastructure in all different areas."
Constable reported from Lahore. Staff writer Joby Warrick in Washington and special correspondent Haq Nawaz Khan contributed to this report
Mullen and McChrystal to Kayani: No pressure
Yesterday, on the same day Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder told national news shows that the Times Square bomber had deep ties to the Pakistani Taliban, top U.S. military commanders were doing shuttle diplomacy. (Where, one wonders, is Richard Holbrooke and his AfPak portfolio these days?):
U.S. military tries to reassure Pakistan amid Times Square probe
By Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent
May 10, 2010 3:05 p.m. EDT
Washington (CNN) -- The top U.S. military officer is reassuring his Pakistani counterpart that the U.S. military is not pressuring the Pakistani army to increase its operations against the Taliban there, a senior U.S. military official said.
The message comes as the United States has turned up independent evidence that ties the suspect in the attempted bombing in New York's Times Square to the insurgent group. It stands in sharp contrast to tough talk from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who warned of "consequences" if the Times Square plot is linked to elements in Pakistan.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, chief of the Pakistani army, to discuss the matter Sunday.
Mullen called to "reassure Kayani we are not trying to pressure him as a result of this case," a senior U.S. military official said. "Mullen didn't call to say, 'You gotta do more because this Pakistani-American was trained on your territory.' "
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, met with Kayani as well, and his spokesman denied McChrystal made any effort to pressure the Pakistani official.
Clinton publicly took a tougher line, saying on the CBS program "60 Minutes": "We've made it very clear that if -- heaven forbid -- an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences."
The senior U.S. military official was adamant in saying the U.S. military is not trying to make the Pakistanis accelerate their timetable to move against Taliban strongholds in North Waziristan, a border region long believed to be sheltering al Qaeda and Taliban militants.
Kayani has repeatedly said his troops would not expand their operations into North Waziristan until they have finished operations in other areas.
"We are very comfortable with the work they have been doing and where they are at the moment," the senior official said.
Other senior military officials offer the same assessment.
The military official said the current view has been reached even as intelligence increasingly indicates the Times Square bombing plot suspect, Faisal Shahzad, had "strong links" to the Pakistani Taliban.
"We believe right now the Pakistanis are doing everything they can," the U.S. military official said. He declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the situation.
The United States now has independent intelligence to indicate Shahzad had ties to the Pakistani Taliban, according to a U.S. official. The official could not be identified because he is not authorized to speak publicly. The independent confirmation is important because it gives the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence community a better understanding of Shahzad's activities without just following leads based on his interrogation.
The official said the United States is still trying to figure out "how deep" Shahzad's links are to the Pakistani Taliban and "how high up" his connections go into the organization. But he emphasized that public statements by top U.S. officials about Shahzad and the Pakistani Taliban are "not just based on what Shahzad is saying."
He would not discuss additional details about the other intelligence streams of information.
"People are looking into other streams of intelligence that point in a serious way to links to the [Pakistani Taliban]," the official said.
President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, said Sunday, "It looks like he was working on behalf of the Tariki Taliban Pakistan, the TTP, that's the Pakistan Taliban. This is a group that is closely allied with al Qaeda."
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, went further, saying that the plot was directed by the Pakistani Taliban.
"We know that they helped facilitate it; we know that they helped direct it," Holder said. "And I suspect that we are going to come up with evidence which shows that they helped to finance it. They were intimately involved in this plot."
The U.S. official also said the United States is trying to get a better understanding of the TTP's own source of financing. While acknowledging the risk posed by a single Taliban operative, he also said there are indications the TTP lacks extensive financial resources and it's not clear it could set up an extensive operation in the United States.
If U.S. intelligence can determine and isolate a target precisely tied to Shahzad, such as the training areas where he might have been sheltered, the most likely scenario is that the U.S. government would call in drone strikes to ensure any lethal action is as precise as possible and potential civilian casualties are minimized, several officials have told CNN.
In other news from the region, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan says the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan is as strong as it's ever been.
At a White House news conference Monday, Karl Eikenberry acknowledged that there have been "ups and downs" in the relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
But Eikenberry said he expected the two countries "to be able to work our way through difficulties and come back together and still find ourselves well-aligned" as a result of Karzai's visit to Washington this week to meet with Obama.
Also at the news conference, McChrystal said there will be increased violence in Afghanistan "as our combined security forces expand into Taliban-controlled areas" in the south.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)