Where is Osama?

By D.R. Ahuja

Peshawar Corps Commander Lt Gen Safdar Hussain has unwittingly revealed a few facts on the status of terrorist networks in Pakistan. General Hussain, in a briefing to the media on October 19, categorically stated that Osama bin Laden was in the tribal areas. There are two ways to interpret the denial.

First is that the denial was a betrayal of nervousness which the Pakistan establishment was feeling over bin Laden. President Pervez Musharraf has been under tremendous pressure from the Bush Administration to catch bin Laden dead or alive before the November 2 US elections. With coming elections, Musharraf is faced with a situation where he is found to face the ire of the US administration if bin Laden is not produced. The denial therefore could be a way of building up a case of helplessness and the failure to nab bin Laden.

Second possibility is that bin Laden might have been caught or killed by Pakistan security forces, not in the tribal areas but elsewhere. One possible location could be Northern Areas. General Hussain's statement about not finding Osama bin Laden in the tribal areas of south Waziristan could also be looked at from a different angle: He has not denied that bin Laden is not in Pakistan. This could be a significant statement.

No less significant is the recent, unannounced visit of US Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to Pakistan. There have been lot of speculation about this visit. Intriguingly, during her stay in Pakistan, one of the areas she visited was the Northern Areas. There have been reports in the Pakistan media about the possibility of bin Laden hiding in the Northern Areas. In fact, bin Laden and his men were used by the Pak Army, some say by General Musharraf when he was a Brigadier, to put down ruthlessly a revolt by Shias in the Northern Areas. Why would a senior US Administration official visit the far-flung Northern Areas, especially when the region is reeling under heavy rainfall and snow? Most probably, Ms Rocca's visit to Pakistan was to camouflage her travel to the Northern Areas. Her visit was kept closely guarded. Interestingly, the US Embassy in Islamabad came out with a public statement that not much should be read on Rocca's visit. But her visit to the Northern Areas is certainly a piece of a jigsaw puzzle which is rapidly falling in place in Pakistan.

These possibilities are certainly in the realm of speculation. But a clear inference that can be drawn from Lt. General Hussain's statement is the possibility of Osama bin Laden and members of his al Qaida hiding in Pakistan. The General says bin Laden is not in the tribal areas. He doesn't deny the existence of al Qaida or its leader in Pakistan. In fact, even President Musharraf of late has never actually denied that al Qaida has not taken shelter in Pakistan.

There are quite a few indications in General Hussain's statement that support this possibility. He admitted that Tahir Yuldashev, leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, was hiding in Waziristan. Briefing the media, the General showed satellite images and intelligence data to argue that terrorists in Waziristan were executing someone else's agenda. He said "246 confirmed terrorists" were killed during the last six months of security operations and most of them, he claimed, were foreigners.

By all accounts, Pakistan is today the single largest confluence of terrorists and terrorist groups in the world. Waziristan and surrounding tribal areas house terrorists from central Asian republics, Middle East, Xing Jiang and other regions in the world. There are terrorist training camps in the area where veteran jihadis train the younger ones coming from different corners of the world. These terrorist groups also have large cache of sophisticated arms and a continuous supply of ammunition. Even though General Hussain claims that the weapons were of the Afghan War vintage, it is difficult to believe that terrorists scattered on the mountains of Waziristan could successfully hold up against the might of Pakistan Army since March this year. So far, 171 soldiers, including officers, have been killed in the operation. This is perhaps the highest number of casualties the Pak Army has suffered on the western front.

This also is in conformity with several assumptions about the nature of Pakistan's connections with terrorist organisations since the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001 in Afghanistan. One of the things that went un-noticed in the heart of bombings was the quiet escape of al Qaida and Taliban elements into Pakistan. While the foot soldiers went into hiding in the mountains of Waziristan, the senior leadership of terrorist groups sought and found shelter in major cities like Karachi.

There was a reason why cities like Karachi were chosen. Karachi was, and continues to be, a safe haven for extremist religious groups like LeJ and terrorist groups like Harkat-ul Mujahideen and Hu Jl. In face, Hu Jl runs 48 seminaries in Karachi. The biggest is Madrasa Khalid bin Walid where more than 500 Myanmarese undergo training at any given point of time. It is the command headquarters of the Korangi Muslims fighting the junta in Myanmar. Their leader is Maulana Abdul Guddus, a Myanmarese Muslim who fled to India and made his way to Karachi where he took his religious training before leaving for Afghanistan to joint the ongoing jihad. A large number of his students fought the Northern Alliance during the Afghan war and after. Some of them went to Kashmir with other members of the Harkat to fight the Indian security forces. But none returned to Myanmar or Bangladesh and chose, instead, to make Karachi their home. Their collective objective is to turn Pakistan into another Taliban country.

In fact, it was Fazl Karim, a Lashkar activist from Rahim Yar Khan picked up for questioning three months after the killing of Pearl, who revealed that al Qaida had merged various sectarian and criminal groups in Karachi to carry out terrorist attacks within Pakistan. Karim held Pearl while two Yemenis slit his throat. The two Yemenis, it was later discovered, were associates of Ramzi Yousef, the main accused in the World Trade Center attack of 1993. Karim remained in police custody for several months and was never charged. His whereabouts are unknown today.

Farooqi presents another link in this coalition and only confirms, despite public stances to the contrary, that al Qaida and other terrorist groups have successfully merged with religious extremist groups in Pakistan and therefore difficult to identify and segregate. A point that needs to be kept in mind is that Farooqi was betrayed by a cleric. But a more intriguing fact which requires a closer examination is the glaring absence of any attempt to capture Farooqi alive. If such an attempt was even planned, the security forces should have launched a commando operation in the night or in the wee hours (ideal time) to capture Farooqi and his associate who were living in a rented house. But what happened was a pre-planned shoot-out. It is also possible that Farooqi could have been killed after his capture. A senior police official was quoted in a news report that the killing of Farooqi was similar to that of Said Akbar in Rawalpindi in the early' 50s. Akbar was wanted in the assassination of Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. The statement may not be too far fetched.

Two immediate inferences - both conspiracy theories - can be drawn from this incident. First is the possibility of a cover-up by certain persons or groups within the military-intelligence set up in Pakistan who were planning to eliminate President Musharraf. Second the possibility of a cover-up by the establishment to put an end to speculations about the veracity of the assassination attempts. There were quite a few news reports, early this year, about the possibility of the assassination attempts being stage-managed. This is a possibility which cannot be entirely ruled out. But it is the first conspiracy theory which President Musharraf and his spokesmen would like the world to believe. In the days to come, there would be stories in the Pakistan newspapers and magazines about Farooqi's involvement with al Qaida and various other sectarian and terrorist groups. This fits in well with the present effort of the Musharraf regime to portray the President as a lone crusader in the war on terror.

But the reality is quite different. President Pervez Musharraf inherited a military-intelligence structure which has been supporting and sheltering terrorists since the Afghan Jihad days. The question is whether he has been as sincere in tackling terrorist groups as he often claims. Although the widely held perception in the eastern capitals is that President Musharraf has been battling hard against sectarian and terrorist groups, there is evidence that at best, the General has been vacillating. Take for instance, his decision, after September 11, 2001, to ban various terrorist groups and arrest their leaders. Two most of the well-known terrorist leaders were Maulana Masood Azhar of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Prof. Hafiz Sayeed of Lashar-e-Toiba. Both were arrested- but were in fact kept under house arrest and charged under the Maintenance of Public Order, a prohibitory order which provides for a three-month preventive detention. Both could easily have been charged under the terrorist act and tried in special terrorist courts.

The Daniel Pearl murder case is another critical reference point to analyse the new coalition of terror that evolved in the aftermath of 9/11 in Pakistan. One of the first suspects was Sheikh Mubarak Ali Shah Gilani, a radical preacher whom Daniel Pearl wanted to interview. Though Gilani was detained and questioned at length, he was left off without any charges. The reason could be Musharraf's proximity to Gilani. Musharraf had patronized Gilani in 1966 and the later was encouraged to set up the 'Climbers Club of Pakistan', a front for training the Special Services Group (SSG) commandos in mountain climbing and members of the unit were used in 1985-1987 to launch an attack on the Indian position at Bilafond Pass, captured two intermediate posts before they were pushed back. While Gilani was let off, Sheikh was caught and sentenced to death (the sentence is yet to be confirmed two years after the verdict), a poly to keep him off the US intelligence agencies. Several others were caught and interrogated but none have been charged or tried. One common point is that all the accused either belonged to terrorist groups or Sunni sectarian organisations like LeJ and Sipah-e-Sahaba. They were active in helping the fleeing al Qaida and Taliban terrorists to regroup and recoup in Pakistan.

The ouster of the Taliban and al Qaida from Afghanistan gave a new lease of life to various criminal, sectarian and religious groups in Pakistan that were finding it increasingly difficult to survive due to international pressure. The September 11 attack goaded the Pakistan Government to ban several sectarian and religious groups, close down their offices and freeze their bank accounts.

Many of these groups would have faced a natural death but for the al Qaida and Taliban groups taking shelter in Pakistan following the US attack on their strongholds in Afghanistan. These groups provided al Qaida and other terrorist groups the logistics support to recoup and regroup in Pakistan, triggering in the process the beginning of a coalition or a partnership between various local religious extremist groups and international terrorist groups like al Qaida.

Cold war shadow over security council freeze

By Tushar Charan

As an institution the United Nations evokes a mixed feeling among most people in the world. There are those who think it is an absolutely necessary tool to keep the world united and sane. And then there are others who feel let down by it and accuse the world body of becoming subservient to the global interests of the US.

No other country has managed to influence decisions at the Security Council-the most vital arm of the UN with its five permanent members enjoying the veto power-to the extent that the US has. The Security Council, which first met in London 1946, is the world's most exclusive club, but still remains hitched to the cold war era. It is totally unrepresentative of the realities of the modern world despite the fact the world body represents nearly 200-member nations.

Many nations are seeking to make the Security Council a better mirror of today's world. One way of doing it, think countries like India, is to enlarge the 'exclusive' club at the Security Council and give the veto powers to new permanent members. India, Japan, Germany and Brazil have made a joint bid to become permanent members.

Since 1993, a UN panel has been going through the exercise of preparing a blue print for reforms without arriving at any definite conclusion. A suggestion that has been doing the rounds but frowned upon by many members is to appoint permanent members by rotation.

The Secretary General, Kofi Anan, is in favour of introducing 'reforms' in the Security Council as that would make the world body stronger and give it greater respect among developing countries. He had famously said last year before the US invasion of Iraq that some countries were taking 'unilateral' action bypassing the Security Council. Very recently he was more explicit when he told a BBC interviewer that the US should have waited for a second Security Council resolution on Iraq and its action in Iraq was 'illegal'.

India has been vigorously pursuing its case for almost a decade and it has become almost mandatory for all foreign heads of Governments who either visit India or receive an Indian VIP to declare outright support-falling which say something positive' -for giving India a permanent seat at the Security Council. When the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, stopped over in London on way to the annual General Assembly meeting, his British counterpart forcefully endorsed the India case.

Among the P-5 (five permanent members of the Security Council) India's case enjoys unambiguous support from, apart from the UK, Russia and France and also from many ordinary members.

A reality check would show that beyond soothing the ego, the endorsement of India's membership by some countries does not really mean much at this stage cause there is neither any official move to expand the list of permanent members nor do the chances of India being admitted into the exclusive Club really look very retain at the moment. There are clear hurdles and the goal of an expanded Security Council is still a long distance off.

Building hopes in India for a distant and uncertain future carries the danger of leading to much disappointment and even resentment. The 'nationalist' forces in country with their expertise in magnifying small or non-issues will gladly exploit that to register their protests at the presumed 'humiliation' that would be brought to the country if it misses the race for the Council memberships.

A major hurdle on way to India becoming a permanent member of the Security Council comes from two of its neighbours who flank India on the east and the west: China and Pakistan, the two countries that would do their atmost to block India's entry. The opposition from China looks strange considering that for years when Taiwan represented China at the UN, India was most vociferous in canvassing for Beijing and opposing the US myth that Taiwan represented mainland China.

While China at the best of times says that it has not 'committed' itself to supporting India's candidature, not surprisingly the Pakistanis do not hide their hostility to the very idea of India becoming a permanent member of the Security Council. The Pakistanis might temporarily bring down their vituperative anti-India rhetoric on Kashmir but they remain as reproachful of India as ever on the issue of New Delhi as a permanent member of the Security Council because of the fear that consequent increase in India's clout would adversely affect Pakistan's claims on Jammu and Kashmir. Besides, an average Pakistani has a congenital problem in entertaining any idea that gives India a higher status and an upper hand in a world forum.

Despite all the so-called upward movement in Indo-US relations, New Delhi cannot expect any clear support for its Security Council claim from the US. It is not because of any particular animus towards India, but the Pakistan factor that precludes US support to India's candidature. After all the US and Pakistan have rediscovered their mutual love and embraced each other very tightly in the wake of 9/11 and irrespective of who occupies the White House after the US Presidential poll in November, Washington would continue to show more deference to Pakistani sensitivities than India's concerns.

Leaving aside the shadows of intricate Indo-Pak ties on US decisions, there are other reasons that' rule out any early reforms or expansion of the Security Council. The UN panel has been unable to come to any conclusion on the issue because there is no clear consensus over potential candidates for the Security Council.

There is tussle in Africa as South Africa and Nigeria are among the strong bidders for the membership of the Council. The Arab nations want a strong representation but find little support outside their sphere of influence. In fact, in the present global context when the West has suddenly become aware of widespread feeling of hurt in the Muslim world, it is unthinkable that a forum like the Security Council would be expanded without the inclusion of any Arab Muslim nation.

The Arab (and the rest of the Muslim) world feels that thanks to the US veto power the Security Council in its present form has been indulgent towards Israel which has violated many Council resolutions while taking a tough line against an Arab nation -Iraq.

Money has also become an unlikely factor that goes against any immediate expansion of the Security Council. Japan's candidature is a challenge to China's hegemony in the region. More than that it is a feeling in China and many other UN members that Japan believes in 'cheque book' diplomacy.

Tokyo is one of the biggest contributors to the UN coffers and is ready with the chequebook if it helps in joining the Security Council. It is a strange illustration of the adage money can't buy everything because with the US often making the UN hostage to its diktats and holding up payment it is countries like Japan that bailout the world body. For the moment, however, there is no danger of Tokyo winning its way through with Yen power. (Syndicate Features)