 |
Thursday,
August 8, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
No review
of statute amendments: Pervez A VIEW FROM PAKISTAN No bar on
return of Benazir, Shahbaz Trouble
awaits Shahbaz |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Murree
school attackers dead: police Bush
admn divided over war on Iraq USA
disowns think-tank’s view on Riyadh |
|
|
No review of statute amendments: Pervez Islamabad, August 7 This was conveyed by Gen Musharraf at a joint meeting of his Cabinet and the National Security Council yesterday. According to officials, the meeting reviewed feedback from people from various walks of life on the proposed amendments and a final decision on them would be taken by Musharraf later this week. The President would announce his final views in an address to the nation over radio and television, the daily Dawn reported today. Quoting informed sources, the paper said Musharraf told the meeting that major proposals like giving the President powers to dismiss the Prime Minister and the creation of the NSC will not be withdrawn. Participants in the meeting were of the view that bare minimum amendments should be incorporated in to the constitution, the paper reported. On the constitution of the NSC, Musharraf did not reject the idea of including Ministers of Interior, Defence and Foreign Affairs on the committee. According to the proposed amendments, a 10-member NSC would consist of the President, top brass of the military, the Prime Minister and Governors of provinces, which political parties and media here have termed as an attempt by the army to take over the government permanently. The government has denied charges that the proposed amendments would make the NSC army-dominated, defending it as a consultative body which would prevent any future coups in the country. Musharraf also told the meeting that he would ensure that the political and economic reforms agenda that has been followed during the past two and a half years would not be undone by future governments. During the meeting, Musharraf and members of the Cabinet and NSC were given a detailed briefing by officials of the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB), the body specially created by the military regime to work out the amendments. He commended the NRB authorities for formulating the proposals, and said without amending the constitution, there was no hope of strengthening democratic institutions.
PTI |
|
A
VIEW FROM PAKISTAN IN a smart move, Benazir Bhutto has retained the command of her People’s Party while creating a shadow Parliamentarian group to chase the power. On August 5, Pakistan People’s Party Chairperson Benazir Bhutto allowed her party to register its replica with the name of PPP Parliamentarian with the Election Commission of Pakistan to be chaired by a senior party leader, Makhdomm Amin Fahim, considered a friend of General Pervez Musharraf. Makhdoom Amin Faheem, Chairperson of PPP Parliamentarian, is a spiritual leader (pir) in Sindh and has a large following in India from where his followers stay in touch with him. Thus, chances of Benazir’s return to home from her self-exile in Dubai and London have dimmed. “The problem is not Benazir’s return to the country, but Gen Musharraf’s exit from politics,” said PPP’s Information Secretary Taj Haider. For the past two years, the military regime’s interlocutors, though officially denied, have been negotiating with Benazir a political bargain. The regime wants her to stay away from the country’s politics for five years and in return her party might assume power if it emerged winner in the general election. At one moment, before the April presidential referendum, the regime had offered the party’s senior vice-chairperson Amin Fahim to become caretaker prime minister. A fair re-trial of Benazir Bhutto in corruption cases and Asif Zardari was also part of the suggested deal. At that time Benazir did not agree to this and Fahim refused to join the government by disobeying her. Benazir, who has been building tempo for her return to Pakistan for some time, made the decisions to create a shadow of her party following three significant developments: A. Her main rival Nawaz Sharif moved to mend his ways with the military by vacating the office of President of his faction of the Pakistan Muslim League in favour of his brother, Shahbaz Sharif. This threw up serious challenge to her party’s prospects in the October elections; B. General Musharraf categorically stated in an interview with the US Press that Benazir would go to jail if she came to Pakistan thus demonstrating that he was under no international pressure to be lenient with Benazir and C. The military regime tightened electoral laws by amending them on August 2 to end all speculation about Benazir’s ineligibility to stand in the October elections. Benazir has been convicted in more than one case under Section 31a of the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (NABO) and has been penalised with three years’ rigorous imprisonment for absconding. Article 15 (a) of the Ordinance disqualifies a convict from being elected, chosen or appointed or nominated as a representative of any public office, which also includes membership of parliament. A PPP spokesman said Benazir had nominated Makhdoom of Hala Amin Faheem, a spiritual leader in Sindh, to head the Parliamentarian group so that the PPP candidates got an election symbol to contest the elections. She thus found a way to skirt the law barring her from heading the PPP for her being convicted in absentia under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance. Under the Political Parties Order 2002, no person can form a political party if he is not qualified to become a member of the Parliament under Article 63 of the Constitution or any other law for the timebeing in force. Sources say last week Benazir held a meeting with her aides in London where they evaluated the option of Benazir’s resigning from the party office once the intra-party elections were completed so that outside forces were not given time and chance to create any conflict within the party ranks. While the PPP leaders continued to claim that the provisions of the Political Parties Order (PPO) 2002 do not debar Ms Benazir from contesting election or holding a position in the party and that she would return home to participate in the October elections, these statements were meant to keep the party’s morale high. For the party workers Benazir in jail is much better than her being in exile for the party’s political future. If Benazir gets thrown in jail, it would electrify the party workers and would give a huge boost to the party’s chances in the elections. If Benazir stayed away the party activists might not come out to support the party candidates at the hustings. For Benazir, however, the safety of her family seems to be higher on the priority list. At a time when her husband, Asif Zardari, is in jail, it seems she would not take the risk knowing her party had once failed to mobilise the supporters when she was convicted on the charges of corruption during Nawaz Sharif’s regime. Benazir’s hands are tied due to her young children and ailing mother, Nusrat Bhutto. If she goes into jail, the future of her family will be insecure. Her two brothers have already lost lives in what she suspects a plot to eliminate the Bhutto family from politics. How can she leave alone her children in such circumstances, asks a senior PPP leader. By creating a replica party, what the PPP hopes for is to win the maximum number of seats and bargain with the military regime on its proposed amendments in the constitution and the laws by Parliament. After the October elections General Musharraf will have to get indemnity from Parliament for his takeover, which is treason under the constitution, his election as President and ratification of all his acts in the past three years. At this stage, Musharraf will have to arrive at a deal with the parties in Parliament. Thus, with Amin Fahim in the saddle, the PPP still hopes, it may get an opportunity to get a way for Benazir to stage a comeback after the October elections by using its strength in Parliament. “I may be candidate for president,” said Benazir in a recent statement. By playing the card of Faheem, Benazir has again proved her pragmatism and political shrewdness. This move has made it hard for the establishment to manipulate the electoral process or the election results against the PPP because Faheem, being a friend of General Musharraf, could be a much better candidate for Prime Minister for several reasons. His family does not have any kind of clash or bitterness with the army leadership unlike that of Shahbaz Sharif, the President of the Pakistan Muslim League. Being a Sindhi, Amin Fahim fulfils establishments’ need to soothe the anger in the province due to the military takeover and a sense of deprivation. After Nawaz Sahrif’s relinquishing the position as President of the Pakistan Muslim League and Benazir Bhutto’s move to create a parallel wing of her party, General Musharraf’s plan to keep the two former prime ministers out of the political arena seems to have met with success. These moves also indicate the realisation on the part of the two leaders, Nawaz and Benazir, that an adjustment not confrontation with General Musharraf will suit their interests as at the moment the General is sitting pretty with a strong support to his rule from Washington and no signs of public unrest against him. |
|
No bar on return of Benazir, Shahbaz Islamabad, August 7 “The government of President Musharraf does not believe in any deals,” Pakistan Information Minister Nisar Memon said. He said Bhutto and Shahbaz, brother of
deposed premier Nawaz Sharif, could return any time they wanted as they were citizens of this country but will have to face the legal requirements. “The law will take its own course”, he added.
PTI |
|
Trouble awaits Shahbaz Islamabad, August 7 Charges are pending against members of the Sharif family and the law will take its own course when the whole family or any of its members come back, National Accountability Bureau Prosecutor General Raja Bashir said. Asked if the NAB would initiate the cases involving Shahbaz upon his return, Mr Bashir said the entire Sharif family was involved in the Rs 1.6 billion Ittefaq Group default case and the Rs 637 million money laundering case of Huddabiya Paper Mills. “Both cases are pending, as the Sharif family is not present in Pakistan. The proceedings will start when they return,” he was quoted as saying by the Daily Times. Shahbaz said he planned to return as he was elected leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz). Explaining the difference between the cases against Mrs Bhutto and the Sharif family, Bashir said the cases against Mrs Bhutto had been filed and proceedings began when she was in Pakistan. “Benazir’s conviction in absentia came as the co-accused was present and she had disrupted the proceedings by absconding,” he said. He said the NAB had filed the cases against the Sharif family when they were in Pakistan, but the proceedings could not start as they had left the country based on an exile deal between the government and them.
PTI |
|
Murree school attackers dead: police Islamabad, August 7 The trio were challenged by the police when they tried to enter the village of Khabadar in PoK, about 20 km from the scene of Monday’s attack, the police said. The police freed the suspects after they threatened to explode a grenade. Then the three men walked to a nearby river, where they blew themselves up. Meanwhile, a Christian rights activist said gunmen who tried to kill scores of foreign pupils in the school left behind a note warning of more attacks. Staff at the Murree Christian School found the letter at the front gate and handed it to the police, said Mr Shahbaz Bhatti, who heads the All Pakistan Minorities’ Alliance. The letter was signed by a group called Al-Intiqami Al-Pakistani (Revenge of the people of Pakistan), Mr Bhatti said after staff showed him a copy. “This is just a beginning of revenge of atrocities the USA (is) committing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir and Palestine and we will continue attacking,” it stated, according to Mr Bhatti. “The school administration showed it to me quietly,” he said after visiting the school.
Reuters, AFP |
|
Bush admn divided over war on Iraq IS a second gulf war coming soon? Going by the recent utterances of President George W. Bush, one can only conclude that he is itching to finish the job his father had left a little over a decade ago. He has repeatedly declared that his administration is determined to put an end to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s regime. But White House officials insist that the President has not taken a final decision on any plan to achieve his objective. For that matter, the Bush administration has not even chosen to come out with a convincing explanation on the need to take on Saddam Hussein militarily. At the recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Iraq, the administration was conspicuous by its absence, excusing itself from sending any officials to testify. According to US media reports, the Bush administration is deeply divided over how best to force President Saddam Hussein out of power. Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are said to be in favour of aggressive action, while Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet are not sure about the wisdom and practicability of a military campaign against Iraq. Most senior officials are also reported to be opposed to going to war any time soon. While President Bush insists that a regime change in Baghdad is essential, he is careful enough to add a rider that he would proceed “deliberately and patiently.” What he has achieved right now is to trigger a furious national debate over whether the USA should go to war against Iraq. If the debate has revealed anything so far, it is that while everyone is agreed that Saddam Hussein is a menace to the region and to the rest of the world, what with his potential access and capability and the delivery systems to nuclear weapons, and sanctions alone will not deter him, there are sharp differences over the feasibility of the military option and the risks involved in it. Mr Joseph Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, feels it is important to build a case that “what we are doing is based upon a genuine threat.” He does not expect a USA attack against Iraq this year and cautions that “in Iraq, we cannot afford to displace a despot with chaos.” According to Mr Richard Butler, former UN Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, in violation of UN resolutions demanding that he give up weapons of mass destruction, retains stockpiles of deadly nerve gas and warheads filled with biological toxins. Baghdad has just now offered to hold talks with UN weapons inspectors, but President Bush has dismissed the announcement, saying that “nothing’s changed” . Those who are urging caution over the military option are saying that Iraq is not Taliban. Mr Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies warned during the Senate committee hearing that Iraq still had 23 infantry divisions, 4,000 tanks and 300 combat aircraft. Others opposed to President Bush’s plan argue that the USA has no authority to determine the leadership of Iraq. There is also the view that it is the Congress and not the President who should decide whether or not to undertake a war against Iraq and that a pre-emptive military strike not authorised by the UN Security Council would violate the UN Charter. Analysts, however, point out that although Congress retains the exclusive right to declare war, no President has asked for a formal declaration of war since President Roosevelt went before a joint session of Congress on December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The crux of the advice that President Bush is receiving from experts and analysts is that a campaign against Saddam Hussein will never succeed unless the Bush administration can enlist support from the American people, Congress and key allies. This, for the present does not seem to be forthcoming in full measure. |
|
Blix has
caved in to pressure: Iraq Dubai, August 7 In remarks published on Wednesday, Sabri told the United Arab Emirates newspaper al-Bayan that Blix, a Swede, had caved in to “US pressure and blackmail”.
Reuters |
|
USA disowns think-tank’s view on Riyadh Washington, August 7 The controversy began with a report in yesterday’s Washington Post based on the leaked information of an internal briefing given last month by the Rand Corporation, an independent think tank that is often patronised by the Pentagon, alleging that Saudi Arabia is supporting terrorism. Hardly had the report appeared when the administration undertook a massive damage-limiting exercise, assuring Saudi Arabia that there was no change in the US policy towards one of its major Gulf allies. Secretary of State Colin Powell made a telephone call to his Saudi counterpart, Prince Saud al-Faisal, to personally assure of continued friendly relations between the two countries. He also told him that President George W. Bush did not consider Riyadh a potential enemy. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also made it clear that the Rand Corporation expert’s characterisation of Saudi Arabia did not represent the US policy.
IANS |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 122 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
In
video (
