India - Pakistan Crisis

The abduction of Daniel Pearl

Top 96. Feb 21, 2002 10:06 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: Pakistan's ISI & Daniel Pearl

In response to message posted by BPyles:

These two articles are about Daniel Pearl's abduction but also about Pakistan's ISI .... there is obviously much more behind the story than we've been told....perhaps we'll never learn the truth....

First from 2/25 Newsweek:

A Struggle in The Shadows

How Pakistan’s spy service may have tried to spring Daniel Pearl

By Zahid Hussain
NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL

Hauled into a Karachi courtroom last week, the suspected mastermind of the plot to kidnap Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl calmly admitted his guilt. “Right or wrong, I had my reasons,” Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh told the court. “I think the country shouldn’t be catering to America’s needs.”

THEN SAEED DELIVERED a brutal message to Pearl’s pregnant wife, Mariane, and to his anxious newspaper colleagues: “As far as I understand, he’s dead,” Saeed said matter-of-factly, adding that Pearl had been killed by his captors during an escape attempt at the end of January. Pakistani officials said Saeed was bluffing, and a Wall Street Journal spokesman said, “We remain confident that Danny is still alive.”

The known facts suggested that Pearl, alive or dead, had vanished in the twilight zone between terrorism and Pakistani politics. Police said Saeed and his accomplices belong to Jaish-e-Mohammed, a militant Islamic group with ties to Al Qaeda that has long been involved in the struggle for control of Kashmir.

Until they were banned by President Pervez Musharraf, such groups had the covert support of Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).

Saeed himself was probably an ISI “asset,” a senior Pakistani official told NEWSWEEK, and when he surrendered on Feb. 5, ISI agents held him incommunicado until Feb. 12 before turning him over to police.

NEWSWEEK’s source suggested that the ISI, aware that the kidnapping was deeply embarrassing to Musharraf, tried and failed to make a deal for Pearl’s release. But no one could be sure, and given the concern about militants within ISI, questions about Saeed’s interrogation were likely to persist.

In Washington, FBI officials were said to be furious that Pakistani officials had kept Saeed’s arrest secret for fully a week.

Saeed is now the target of an active grand jury investigation in the United States, NEWSWEEK has learned. Justice Department sources say the grand jury is looking at the Pearl abduction and other kidnapping plots involving U.S. citizens that date back to 1994.

Saeed could be indicted in a matter of weeks, these sources say, and the United States would then ask Pakistan to turn him over to American authorities. Because Saeed is a British citizen, Britain may seek to prosecute him first.

EC: India also wants to interrogate & prosecute Saeed.

In Karachi, meanwhile, Pakistani police were scouring the slums for another member of the kidnap team, Imtiaz Siddiqi, also known as Asim and Hyder. Siddiqi and Saeed are old friends: according to Pakistani investigators, Siddiqi was one of four gunmen who hijacked an Indian airliner in 1999, then bargained for Saeed’s release from prison. If Saeed is telling the truth now, Siddiqi is the guy who knows what really happened to Daniel Pearl.

With Daniel Klaidman

and this editorial from 1/29 Rediff.com an Indian online newspaper ..... note it was written long before we knew of the death of Pearl. Also keep in mind that India has long maintained that the Pak terrorist groups are arms of the ISI, and even with Musharaff's recent crackdown on terrorist groups - they say that nothing has really changed, because the ISI is really in control, not Musharaff (at least that's my impression from the Indian media):

by T V R Shenoy

Was it Jefferson or Lincoln who described the journalist as "a disturber of the peace, a roiler of nations"? Neither man is a hero in a dictatorship, but this is one description which has often been taken all too literally. Several members of the media fraternity have been jailed like common criminals for doing their job sincerely. And this brings up the case of the unfortunate Daniel Pearl.

Who is Mr Pearl? Some of you might have seen his name in print from time to time. He is the South Asia correspondent of The Wall Street Journal based in Mumbai. A few days ago, he was abducted while doing a story from Pakistan. And therein lies a tale...

In relating what follows, I would like to stress that I have never met Pearl. But I happen to know that Pearl, though based in Mumbai, knew certain people in Delhi (I shall not be more specific than that). Through this person (or persons) Pearl gained access to a report from Indian intelligence. This report gave the lie to claims made by the Pakistani authorities about clamping down on militant outfits.

Pearl did not immediately swallow this report. He insisted, as any responsible journalist should, that he would try to verify the tale. Specifically, he wanted to find out about the Bahawalpur connection for himself.

Bahawalpur, for the benefit of those who do not know, was the capital of a princely state in British India, noted chiefly for the eccentricity of some of its nawabs. It lies south of Multan, strategically located at a point close to the Indian states of Punjab and Rajasthan. More to the point, it is also, as Pearl found out, the operational headquarters of the Jaish-e-Mohammed.

On January 1, 2002, a story filed by Pearl from Bahawalpur featured prominently on the front page of the Asian edition of The Wall Street Journal. The headline summed it up: 'Militant Groups in Pakistan Thrive Despite Crackdown'. The sub-head read: 'Jaish-e-Mohammed Says It Is Still Operating After Police Detained Some Staff'.

The report proceeded to make several highly damaging accusations about the Pakistani government's efforts to rein in terrorism. Jaish-e-Mohammed representatives said the police "left behind enough people to keep the office running". When Pearl visited Bahawalpur, a "nearby Jaish-e-Mohammad regional center was still operating Thursday, its traditional recruiting day. The group's name has been painted over, but posters praising holy war are still hung inside. And a bank account that Jaish-e-Mohammad uses to solicit contributions remains open, despite a November order by Pakistan's central bank freezing the group's account."

Ordinarily, one might have dismissed this as nothing more than the standard Indian foreign office press release. But this is something more -- an independent report by a correspondent belonging to one of the most respected media groups in the United States. Having learned what was going on in Bahawalpur so openly, it was on the cards that Daniel Pearl would try to dig a little deeper. And this possibility posed a problem for several people...

Some days ago, Pearl was seized by person or persons unknown. The kidnapping has been attributed to terrorists. An anonymous message sent to the police and the media in Pakistan accuses the journalist of being a CIA agent and promises to mete out the same "inhumane" treatment to him as to the Al Qaeda prisoners being held by the United States. Is there more to the story of this supposed kidnapping than meets the eye?

I was in Washington shortly after Pearl's story came out and can personally testify to the embarrassment and rage it caused to the Pakistani representatives (as well as to those Americans in high places who continue to turn a blind eye to militant activities in Pakistan). But the Musharraf government certainly could not afford to detain or expel an American journalist, least of all one representing a journal as influential as The Wall Street Journal.

I am sure General Musharraf himself would never do something as silly as arrange for Pearl's convenient disappearance. But is he completely in charge of the situation? In his speech on January 12, the Pakistani leader regretfully admitted that the authority of the State had deteriorated. A section of Indian intelligence suspects that the hapless journalist has been spirited away by the Inter-Services Intelligence; others believe that it is actually terrorists who carried out the operation. Whichever it is, it underlines a couple of facts.

First, the fact that an American journalist of some repute can suddenly go missing in Pakistan is a reminder of the professional hazards of journalism in that country. Second, it questions the assumption that General Musharraf is in complete charge of his nation.

Some of my friends have wondered why the Western media has handled India so much more roughly than they do Pakistan. This has often been put down to the traditional leftist bias of the media reacting to the fact that a Bharatiya Janata Party-led government rules India today. Others say it is an implicit racism reacting to a new assertiveness in India's conduct of her affairs. I mean no disrespect to my foreign colleagues, but could there be a third reason, namely fear?

Journalists can write anything they choose about India without fear of retribution. (And many do just that!) But, as the case of the unhappy Daniel Pearl dramatically demonstrates, honest reporting on Pakistan can be a dangerous affair. Irrespective of whether the Inter-Services Intelligence or terrorists are at fault, Mr Pearl has been silenced quite effectively, has he not?

I also think that the Daniel Pearl kidnappers will never be turned over to the U.S., India, or Britain for interrogation....the ISI will execute them first to keep them from talking.....but that's JMHO.......Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Kidnapping Seen As Militant Move

Top 97. Feb 22, 2002 9:43 AM

» JenL_2 - Re: Pakistan's ISI & Daniel Pearl

More on possible involvement of Pak ISI in Pearl abduction from 2/18 Pakistan Today again before the death of Pearl was known:

By: Kathy Gannon

KARACHI: (AP) - The kidnapping of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl is widely seen as an attempt to strike a dramatic blow at Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for getting tough on Islamic militants and siding with the United States in the war against terrorism.

Many Pakistanis, including security officials and political analysts, fear the Jan. 23 kidnapping may be followed by other moves by extremists seeking to undermine Musharraf.

Appearing before a judge here Thursday, chief suspect Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh admitted his role in the kidnapping. "I think that our country shouldn't be catering to America's needs," he added.

Islamic radicals had been suspected of the kidnapping since Pearl disappeared on his way to meet a Muslim activist as part of a story on links between Pakistani militants and Richard C. Reid, arrested in December aboard a Paris to Miami flight with explosives in his shoes.

Police said Sunday they detained four people for questioning overnight but at this point do not consider them suspects.

Khalid Khawaja, a former Pakistani intelligence officer familiar with Islamic militant organizations, said he believes Pearl, with whom he had spoken by telephone several times, became an innocent victim in the struggle between Musharraf and the extremists driven by hatred of the United States.

Pakistan's Islamic parties maintained close ties with Afghanistan 's former Taliban rulers, whom they admired for promoting "true Islam." In an interview with The Associated Press, Khawaja said the Taliban's defeat and Musharraf's support for the United States angered religious extremists. He said that anger was fueled by pictures of Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in chains at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In an e-mail to news organizations, which included pictures of Pearl in captivity, the kidnappers said he would be kept in the same "inhuman" conditions as the Guantanamo prisoners.

Musharraf himself drew a link between the kidnapping and his efforts to crush Islamic extremism and support the U.S. war against terror. "I had expected a certain degree of fallout to these steps," he told reporters Wednesday in Washington.

Following the Taliban's downfall, Musharraf moved to confront extremists at home. In a speech Jan. 12, he banned five Islamic organizations, including two implicated in Pearl's kidnapping, announced plans to assert state control over religious schools and declared that most Pakistanis do not want to live "in a theocratic state." That represented a reversal of the policy of previous governments which promoted ties to religious extremists at home and abroad.

A big problem for Musharraf is that the very security forces whose help he needs have close ties to the organizations they are now expected to combat. Those ties go back to the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when the Reagan administration used the government of the late President Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq and Pakistan's secret service as a conduit for weapons to Afghan resistance fighters.

Those ties were strengthened in the early 1990s, when Pakistan's intelligence service helped the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan and in the struggle against Indian rule in disputed Kashmir.

To many in the intelligence service, cracking down on extremists means turning their backs on their longtime allies. "You talk, you meet, you develop a relationship and then the government orders you to turn against them," Khawaja said. "Can you? No. We have been working with these people. They are the same people now as they were then."

One of the biggest hurdles facing Musharraf may come if the government follows through on his pledge to rein in Islamic schools, widely seen as a breeding ground for extremists. Musharraf wants to impose a standard curriculum on these schools — some of which emphasize jihad or holy war and maintained strong ties to the Taliban.

Maulvi Salimullah, who runs one of the largest religious schools, Jamia Faruqia, espouses the same philosophy as the Taliban, considers its regime in Afghanistan the purest Islamic government and would like a similar one to rule Pakistan. At another school, Jamia Darul Khair, headmaster Mohammed Asad Thanvi claimed in an interview that the United States "wanted to destroy the Taliban because they were afraid that their pure Islamic rule would spread throughout the Muslim world, including Pakistan."

another corroborating article:

from 2/8-14 LAWeekly:

The Hunt for Daniel Pearl -
A letter from Pakistan
by Ali Ahmed Rind

Also I read another article that mentioned Pearl's contacts with former ISI agents prior to his abduction....that would seem to corroborate that maybe he was killed because he knew too much about the connections between the Pak ISI and the Islamic extremist militant groups that Musharraf has banned (but lost the link to that article) .....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...

Top 98. Feb 22, 2002 9:40 PM

» Steven_Russell - Pearl's throat was slit

Reports tonight said that the killer on the video pulled Daniel Pearl's head back and slit his throat, on camera.

Where have we heard this sort of thing before? On Flight 11, September 11, 2001. Who trained terrorists by the thousands in such brutal hand-butchery terror techniques? Al Qaeda.

Never forget. These enemies are sub-humans. Common thugs, bank thieves, pimps and rapers of children, sadistic butchers, criminals, liars, and ignorant zealous bastards. May Allah have mercy on their souls. But they hardly deserve it.

Author: Karin_
Date: September 18, 2001 9:51 AM
Subject: Hijackers Slit Flight Attendants' Throats

Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2001 10:23 a.m. EDT
Bush: Hijackers Slit Flight Attendants' Throats
In the most gruesome revelation yet about events on board the hijacked planes that targeted New York and Washington last week, President Bush hinted Monday that several flight attendants had been killed when terrorists sliced open their throats.

"It's barbaric behavior," Bush told a gathering of military leaders at the Pentagon. "They slit throats of women on airplanes in order to achieve an objective that is beyond comprehension."

The airborne executions may have taken place after the bloodthirsty hijackers brandished boxcutters and knives, then handcuffed an unknown number of crew members. On Friday a severed pair of female hands bound together by wire was discovered at the Twin Tower disaster site in New York.

As early as last Thursday, reports began to surface that passengers aboard the hijacked planes revealed in frantic cell phone calls to the ground that stewardesses were being stabbed.

Aboard American Flight 11, which slammed into the Twin Towers, one caller indicated that a flight attendant had her throat slit.

Aboard United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania before reaching its target, a passenger had reportedly been killed.

The White House declined to elaborate on Bush's remarks about the airborne executions.

"I'm aware of public reports involving things that were said on cell phones with passengers on the flight in southwest Pennsylvania," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters, without further detail.

-- posted by Steven_Russell

Top 99. Feb 23, 2002 9:03 AM

» JenL_2 - OBL in Kashmir

These posts copied from the America at War thread:

Author: BPyles
Date: February 23, 2002 6:35 AM
Subject: OBL in Kashmir

Steve:

OBL in Iraq would be too good to be true. Here is an article reporting him to be in Kashmir...wherever... he continues to be on run...and not a good time for extra tall men anywhere..

SAS joins Kashmir hunt for bin Laden
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 23/02/2002), London Telegraph

THE SAS is hunting for Osama bin Laden in the Indian state of Kashmir after intelligence reports stated that he had sought the protection of an extremist Islamic group.

The SAS soldiers involved are part of a joint 40-man operation with Delta Force, the US equivalent of the SAS.

The decision to send in British Special Forces followed the Prime Minister's visit to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan last month.

Mr Blair's trip, made amid fears of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, was followed almost immediately by a visit to both countries by Colin Powell, US secretary of state.

At about that time, Indian intelligence told the CIA that they believed bin Laden was hiding in the Himalayan mountains in Kashmir, protected by the Islamic guerrilla group Harkat-ul-Mujahideen.

The group, whose sphere of operations sprawls across Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, is believed to have smuggled him into one of many remote areas that are nearly impossible for the Indian army to police.

Harkat-ul-Mujahideen is the latest incarnation of a militant Islamist group which is extremely closely linked to al-Qa'eda and has kidnapped a number of westerners, including two Britons who are still missing.

The hunt is employing a range of high-tech devices. A spy satellite above the Indian Ocean operated jointly by American and British signals intelligence is being used to monitor any communications between bin Laden and other members of al-Qa'eda.

Other satellites capable of using infra-red imaging to detect the movement of humans in the snow of the remote Himalayan passes are also looking for the terrorist leader.

A senior defence source who recently returned from the region said the SAS troopers were "acting in an advisory role" for Indian Army special forces.

Amid fears that any military intervention might ignite the border conflict between India and Pakistan, the SAS has been given strict orders to stay clear of any firefights and merely collect intelligence.

But Pakistan's announcement this week that members of its Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) had been ordered to disband its section aiding Kashmiri separatist groups including Harkat-ul-Mujahideen appears to indicate that it has been informed of the SAS-Delta Force operation.

One source said the team was mounting "one of the most technical covert operations of the war" to pinpoint any activity by members of the separatist group.

"The whole area is ultra sensitive," he said. "But bin Laden has a history here with some of the terror groups and he may have regarded it as a safe haven.

"He knows we are not going to start bombing the area or sending in the marines, but there are lots of other things we can do and if he is alive he is definitely not safe."

Bin Laden has not been seen since shortly before US and British Special Forces entered the Tora Bora complex in Afghanistan in November.

The source refused to comment on what would happen if they managed to find bin Laden in Kashmir.

But he added that the Indian Army was "as keen as the rest of the world" to see the al-Qa'eda leader dead.

Many of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen's fighters trained in the Afghanistan terror camps. It recruits young Muslims from Pakistan and Britain and has received significant financial support from bin Laden and the ISI.

The group was originally called Harkat-ul-Ansar
(Movement of the Volunteers) and was sponsored by
America in the 1980s to fight against the Soviet
occupation of Afghanistan. It later turned its attention to the Kashmir issue.

It was declared an international terrorist organisation by the US in 1987 and subsequently merged with an existing group, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (Movement of the Religious Fighters).

As Harkat-ul-Ansar, it was responsible for the kidnapping of two Britons in 1995 - Paul Wells, 23, from Blackburn, and Keith Mangan, 33, from Middlesbrough - two Americans, a Norwegian and a German.

One of the Americans escaped. The Norwegian was found beheaded. Nothing is known of what happened to the others.

The kidnappers were demanding the release of three
Kashmiri separatist leaders, one of whom was the British-born Islamic militant Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who is currently held by the Pakistani authorities in connection with the murder of the US journalist Daniel Pearl.

Author: JenL_2
Date: February 23, 2002 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: OBL in Kashmir

In response to message posted by BPyles:

Thanks for the article Betty. Regardless of whether bin Laden is in Kashmir I really like the idea of our special forces monitoring the situation in Kashmir. IMHO - we have to help broker a solution to the Kashimir conflict between India and Pak before we can move on to the other fronts in our War on Terrorism.

Gonna copy your post to the "India-Pak" thread....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper415.html

Top 100. Feb 23, 2002 6:02 PM

» JenL_2 - Pearl Abduction - Analysis

This very detailed intelligence analysis of the Daniel Pearl abduction, written prior to the revelation of his death, from 2/18 South Asia Analysis Group:

This article has the most detailed account yet of the cosy relationship between Pak officials, Omar Saeed and the Pak extremist groups.....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Bush lauds new partnership with Pakistan

Top 101. Feb 23, 2002 9:34 PM

» JenL_2 - Bush - Musharraf Meeting

This from 2/14 USA Today with pic from Yahoo:

<img src="http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/r..." width=450 height=341>
U.S. President George W. Bush (R) and Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf answer questions after a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House, February 13, 2002. The two leaders met privately to discuss regional security issues. REUTERS/Larry Downing
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...

Judy Keen USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- President Bush extolled the United States' newly warm relationship with Pakistan on Wednesday, but he also nudged President Pervez Musharraf to restore democracy in his country.

After meeting with Musharraf for an hour, Bush said he's ''committed to work in partnership'' with his counterpart to create ''a progressive, modern and democratic Islamic society.''

''I'm particularly pleased to note that he is going to be holding elections later on this fall,'' Bush said. Musharraf seized power in a coup in 1999. He has promised to hold parliamentary elections in October.

Bush and Musharraf also had lunch at the White House. The Pakistani president, on his first official visit to Washington, later met with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

After the terrorist attacks Sept. 11 on New York City and Washington, Musharraf risked the stability of his regime by providing intelligence on the al-Qaeda terrorist network and allowing U.S. forces to operate in Pakistan. ''His nation is a key partner in the global coalition against terror,'' Bush said. Musharraf said the relationship is ''friendly, multifaceted and enduring.''

The Pakistani president told Bush he wants compensation for his help: forgiveness of part of his country's $3 billion debt. Bush replied, ''We want to help facilitate the president's concerns about a debt burden on Pakistan.''

Later, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush pledged $200 million to Pakistan on top of $600 million in aid already approved. The extra money will help Pakistan reduce its debt, Fleischer said.

Musharraf also wants more military equipment from the United States, including the release of 28 U.S. F-16 fighter jets it bought in the 1980s. When Pakistan developed nuclear weapons in 1998, Congress barred delivery of the jets.

At a news conference with Musharraf, Rumsfeld would not commit to resuming arms shipments. ''The discussions are ongoing,'' he said.....

and Betty found this one at on one of the Pakistan news sites - News Network International...

.....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 102. Feb 24, 2002 9:08 AM

» JenL_2 - U.S. - India - Pakistan Relations

from 2/22 Asia Times:

US treads on Indian-Pakistani sensibilities

By Ehsan Ahrari

The zero-sum nature of Indian-Pakistan relations with the United States - as a result of which, whenever Washington moves closer to one nation the other perceives it as highly deleterious to its own strategic interests - has never been so apparent as since September 11.

Before this, US-India strategic ties were developing ever so smoothly. The focus of US policy then was on the development of its national missile defense (NMD) system, and renegotiation or even abandonment of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty for the purpose of developing the NMD.

China was regularly, and fervently, described as a "strategic competitor". It was clear, then, that US President George W Bush was intent on confronting China, and the strategic partnership with India emerged as an important aspect of that policy. Another significant aspect of America's confrontational policy toward Beijing was his declaration that his administration would take whatever actions were necessary to protect Taiwan if China invaded it.

Ignoring, if not isolating, Pakistan was only an extension of the Bush administration's policy toward South Asia. Unilateralism in the realm of foreign policy promised to become a hallmark of the Bush presidency.

The events of September 11 changed all that. The focus of the most radical shift in America's policy toward Asia was in South Asia. Within a matter of weeks, if not days, after that day of infamy, Pakistan emerged as an important partner in America's war on transnational terrorism. Economic sanctions on both Pakistan and India were also lifted, and the policy of confronting China was put on hold.

Unilateralism was radically altered, if not completely abandoned, in favor of building an international coalition to combat transnational terrorism.

From the perspective of India, the elevation of Pakistan's status became a painful reminder of the Cold War US policy of treating both South Asian nations as equals. That policy was a source of irritation to India then. Now, as a rising power - and a nuclear one with a viable economy whose average annual growth is around 5 percent, to boot - India is no mood to be treated as a "co-equal" of Pakistan.

But it understands that the United States is not likely to be sidetracked by the age-old Indo-Pak regional rivalry, at least as long as it has a military presence in Afghanistan. India also knows that the United States will not ignore the fact that Pakistan has systematically used Islamist groups as a potent tool of its policy of keeping the Kashmir dispute on the forefront of international attention. After declaring war on transnational terrorism, Washington will not be able to make an exception in the case of Pakistan.

The Bush administration is undoubtedly sympathetic to India's position on terrorism in Kashmir, a point that became even more clear in the aftermath of the December 13 terrorist attack on India's parliament. However, since September 11, it has come to realize that Pakistan's insistence on the resolution of the Kashmir dispute must also be given serious consideration.

Just how far the US will go in translating that realization into an actual policy position is not clear, for now.

As the US military actions in Afghanistan are winding down, it is also becoming apparent that US-India ties will continue to jell, and military-to-military contacts will become more visible than they have been any time in the past. Even the Pacific Command (PACOM), which has often ignored India in the previous years, is reflecting the heightening interests of the US civilian leadership by escalating its own contacts and exercises with the Indian military.

India is hoping, however, that the altered US policies toward Pakistan will not result in Washington's insistence on playing the role of a go-between. New Delhi has consistently opposed the involvement of a third party in negotiations over the Kashmir dispute, fully recognizing that it would assign Islamabad a potentially advantageous position. Pakistan, to be sure, would only welcome such a US role, preferably even a proactive one. Even a public and repeated American insistence on keeping alive the negotiating process on the Kashmir dispute is likely to become an irritant in the fledgling US-India strategic partnership.

India was wary that Pakistan, largely because of its strong support of the US military, might be given a veto power over the modalities of a multi-ethnic governing coalition in Afghanistan. The Bonn Agreement, however, assuaged India's fears regarding a potential heightened Pakistan influence. Nevertheless, given the recent events in Afghanistan, including the killing of a cabinet minister and ever-fractious warlords, India remains concerned that Pakistan might still be able to enhance its own influence in the troubled country.

Overall, India's concerns over Pakistan are not totally unfounded. What both India and Pakistan are not considering, however, is that the United States is likely to remain focused largely on totally defeating and uprooting all remnants of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and in cracking Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network wherever it may be, including such other countries as Somalia and the Philippines. Once these objectives are achieved, there is always that possibility that the US will slip back into its pre-September 11 mode of viewing South Asia through the larger prism of the US-China rivalry. If this were to happen, India is concerned that its fledgling strategic partnership with the United States might be assigned a less significant role.

The immutable Indo-Pak rivalry is a major source of instability. However, in the very complex hierarchy of America's global interests, it has never rated very high. In view of the current high tension between India and Pakistan, with their armies eyeballing each other across the border, and the ever-present threat of their antagonism developing into a nuclear war, the US is likely to pay more attention to them.

But they are not likely to compete with China, Russia and Europe for America's prolonged and heightened interest or engagement. India has less to worry about being assigned a less significant role than Pakistan, however.

Ehsan Ahrari is a Norfolk, Virginia, US-based strategic analyst. Reposted with permission. This is an edited version of an article that first appeared on the website of The Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development http://www.nautilus.org

Ah - the delicate dance of world diplomacy ......Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.ter...

Top 103. Feb 24, 2002 10:22 AM

» JenL_2 - Re: Pearl's throat was slit

In response to message posted by Steven_Russell:

Steven you said ....

Where have we heard this sort of thing before? On Flight 11, September 11, 2001.

Yes - and remember the 1999 India Airlines hijacking where they slit the throat of one passenger to get the pilots to open the cockpit door and take control of the plane. Then the hijackers traded hostages for the release of 3 imprisoned Islamic militants, including Omar Saeed, who supposedly helped bankroll the 9/11 attacks, and masterminded Daniel Pearl's abduction. And also supposedly one of Pearl's kidnappers was one of the 1999 India Airlines hijackers.

Who trained terrorists by the thousands in such brutal hand-butchery terror techniques? Al Qaeda.

Never forget. These enemies are sub-humans. Common thugs, bank thieves, pimps and rapers of children, sadistic butchers, criminals, liars, and ignorant zealous bastards.

The Philippines gov is currently exposing Abu Sayyaf brutality by releasing one of their execution video tapes.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/usattac...

Yes Steven - our enenmy the al-Qaida - sub-human, common thugs, bank thieves, pimps and rapers of children, sadistic butchers, criminals, liars, and ignorant zealous bastards have to be stopped!....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2

Top 104. Feb 24, 2002 3:17 PM

» JenL_2 - Re: Pearl Abduction - Analysis

An editorial on the Murder of Daniel Pearl from 2/24 LATimes (Read below about the author - he knows about what he speaks):

More Than Pearl Was Lost

By MANSOOR IJAZ

The loss of Daniel Pearl at the hands of his inhuman captors represents much more than the loss of a husband, father, son and friend. His death represents the defamation of a country trying hard to pull back from the brink of failure at the hands of extremists who are prepared to go to any length to project their insanity. And it puts another black mark on a great religion, Islam.

The strategic consequences of this heinous crime are no less than the future of Pakistani society itself; for any Pakistani--military or civilian--to say otherwise is to dishonor the cause for which Pearl's life was taken from him.

Pearl was not just a journalist working for the Wall Street Journal. He was a symbol of American intellectual and financial power. His kidnapping was not a hostage drama; it was a message to Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, that much more than eloquent speeches threatening the fanatics with doom would be needed to stop them.

Pearl's brutal videotaped execution was a message to the families of Americans and Westerners everywhere who would dare enter the lair of Islam's fanatics of what awaited them if they continued to challenge Islamist mendacity and arrogance.

And for now, the message has put a screeching halt to the restructuring of Pakistan's foundations. Pakistan cannot rebuild without a lot of help in reconstructing its corroded economy. Most if not all of that help will come from the U.S. as reward for Islamabad's staunch support of the effort to eradicate Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

But it won't happen if American CEOs who seek to invest there or U.S. lawmakers who consider aid grants come to the conclusion that internal forces struggling for control over Pakistan's future are pulling in such divergent directions that private American citizens trying to help rebuild the country are not safe.

Musharraf has much to explain to the U.S. before we can commit our intellectual, financial and legislative resources to his restructuring proposal.

His first act must be to allow the U.S. to extradite without delay Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, the man believed to be the mastermind of the Pearl kidnapping. A trial of those responsible is essential for the American people and for the Pearl family's closure.

Musharraf also must seriously crack down on the fanatics in his midst. Cleaning up Pakistan's notoriously corrupt police and intelligence bureaus should be the highest priorities. Without their connivance, the Pearl kidnapping may have been resolved much earlier and without the damaging political consequences it has now sown.

Merely rounding up assorted hucksters and gangsters is little more than media manipulation and it has to stop. The American people are not naive.

Musharraf has to crack down on the illicit black market economy that funds militancy and extremism. If need be, use the army to take the guns and drugs off Pakistan's streets. The risk of civil war is minimal because Pakistan's militants are cowards. They can only hide in dark alleys at night for their prey.

Musharraf has to lead the way, walking the streets himself with baton in hand if necessary, to demonstrate to Pakistan's silent majority that he is dead serious about taking on those who would destroy their country. Musharraf wants to leave a legacy; here is his chance.

The extremists believed to have murdered Pearl are men who know not even the first verses of the Koran, whose word they so desperately seek to spread with their violence and hatred. They seek only political gain from the abhorrent acts in the name of a religion they know nothing about.

It is time for the Islamic world--particularly the large numbers of moderates in Pakistan--to rise up against them and stop their criminal hypocrisy.

Daniel Pearl will live on as a symbol of the hope that men and women of goodwill have in trying to understand each other's human deficiencies. May almighty Allah rest his soul in peace for the good work he did on this Earth.

Mansoor Ijaz, an American of Pakistani origin who worked with moujahedeen leaders to bring about the 2000 cease-fire in Kashmir, introduced Daniel Pearl to Muslim fundamentalists in Pakistan after Sept. 11.

....Jen

-- posted by JenL_2