New Delhi: Former Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf revealed on Friday that he was open to an alliance with Pakistan Tehreek-i Insaaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan, however, adding that he would not “work under him”. Musharraf was speaking to Karan Thapar on Devil’s Advocate when he made the comments. Speaking from Dubai, he said Pakistan needed a third political option when asked whether alliance with Imran Khan was a possibility.

“I believe in setting a vision and a strategy. My vision is that we have to, for the sake of Pakistan, we have to break the political status quo. We have to come with a third political option because otherwise, the two political options presently and in the past that have been tried, have failed.

“So where do we go? If we go to the same people, it will be the same thing again, you keep down. So in that context, I said we have to break the political status quo. If anyone can do it individually, well and good. Otherwise there is a need of coalition of forces which can bring about that third political option which can deliver to Pakistan.”

When probed further on the issue, he added, “You clap with two hands… What you said (about the alliance with Imran Khan being a possibility) is correct. There are people in his party who do not want an alliance with me. Those who say that, they don’t understand what they are talking.”

“If they don’t want alliance, certainly I would not like to have an alliance,” he said.

If Imran won and became the prime minister, was the retired General prepared to serve under him?

“No. These are later issues. If he wins, certainly he will be the prime minister. In a coalition, there are other things. Certainly I cannot serve under him. No. That is not a possibility.”

The General further said that he was aware of the danger to his life in Pakistan and was prepared to face arrest upon his return from exile.

“Well, the danger is there, of arrest, and I have considered that and one has to take that danger,” he said.

“The other thing is, (the possibility that) I will not return to power – that is a question mark. I am going back to contribute to the political situation and hopefully will do well in the election,” he said.

WOLF BLITZER, HOST, CNN’S THE SITUATION ROOM: And you’re in the SITUATION ROOM. Happening now –  Pervez Musharraf survived four assassination attempts. Now, he’s risking another. I’ll ask the ousted Pakistani president about his dangerous plans for a comeback.  BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It could cost him, Wolf. As you know, Pervez Musharraf survived at least four assassination attempts while he was in power. He’s taking a huge risk now, and it may not even pay off, because things are very different now in Pakistan from the time he left. READ TRANSCRIPT of Interview below …

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It could cost him, Wolf. As you know, Pervez Musharraf survived at least four assassination attempts while he was in power. He’s taking a huge risk now, and it may not even pay off, because things are very different now in Pakistan from the time he left.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (voice-over): He’s known as one of America’s most crucial and confounding allies in the war on terror, cracking down willingly and often on militants, but also leaving U.S. officials questioning where his loyalties were. As Pakistan’s president for nearly a decade, Pervez Musharraf survived several assassination attempts. He’s now willing to risk another.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, FORMER PAKISTANI PRESIDENT: I can do it if I’m there, lead from the front.

TODD: Musharraf is planning to return to Pakistan later this month from his exile in Dubai, and put together a possible run for parliament. It could lead to an assent back to the top of power in his country.

What’s his real motivation for wanting to go back? What’s his angle?

MICHAEL KUGELMAN, WOODROW WILSON CENTER: Well, I mean, Musharraf, like many politicians in Pakistan is very proud. He’s very confident. He’s very stubborn. And he believes in this narrative very common there that he can essentially be this man that just swoops in and rescues the country.

TODD: Rescues it analyst, Michael Kugelman, says from a civilian government scene by many Pakistanis as inept and corrupt.

(on-camera): But some Pakistani officials say if and when he returns, Musharraf will be promptly arrested for alleged involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. One prosecutor says an arrest warrant has already been issued for Musharraf.

(voice-over) Musharraf and his lawyers said the accusations are baseless. There’s no evidence showing links between Musharraf and Bhutto’s 2007 assassination. A U.N. investigation found Musharraf’s government failed to adequately protect Bhutto, an accusation Musharraf denies.

Analysts say there’s no guarantee Pakistan’s powerful military will support Musharraf this time around, and they say some of the voters who would support Musharraf are now gravitating toward Imran Khan, a glamorous wildly popular former cricket star who’s eyeing a run for top office. Analyst, Christine Fair (ph), doesn’t think Musharraf’s got any shot at a comeback. I asked her if he beats the odds, would he be a better partner for the U.S. than the current government?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He’d have to accept the same positions that Imran Khan is marking out. So, to be very clear, we want an equal relationship with the Americans. So, that’s not going to happen, right, because the two countries are not equal.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD (on-camera): Fair says tog et elected, Musharraf also might have to adopt Imran Khan’s position not to continue supporting the U.S. war on terror, a significant turnaround for Musharraf and, of course, one that won’t sit well with the Americans, Wolf.

BLITZER: It’s not guarantee that the Pakistani military will support Musharraf. What’s changed over these past few years, because he rose through the ranks of the military?

TODD: He’s a military guy. Analysts say, look, the military there is always concerned about its image. They know that a lot of his moves while he was in power are still very, very deeply unpopular in Pakistan. For instance, he seemed, as one analyst said, seemed to have rented out the Pakistani army to the Americans.

Still, the military is very cognizant of all that. They say they may provide him with some security when he comes back, but maybe not much support.

BLITZER: Brian Todd, thanks very, very much.

And I spoke exclusively with the former Pakistani president just a little while ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Joining us now from Dubai, the former president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf. Mr. President, thanks very much for joining us. Are you still planning on going back to Pakistan at the end of this month?

MUSHARRAF: Yes, indeed I am. Until now, I am planning to go back.

BLITZER: Is there a specific date when you plan on flying to Pakistan? MUSHARRAF: Well, I said I’ll go between 27th and 30th of January. I haven’t fixed the date as yet.

BLITZER: Why are you going back?

MUSHARRAF: Well, because I feel that the country needs me, and I feel that the country is going down so badly in all socioeconomic elements and from all governance point of view, that it is high time that we bring about another political alternative which can produce a government with the majority of the people, with a mandate of the people who can run Pakistan, instead of doing politics only. And I think I have a role to play there.

BLITZER: You know they say, the authorities there, they’re going to arrest you as soon as you walk off that plane? Are you ready to be arrested?

MUSHARRAF: Well, there is a danger of that, yes. Yes, indeed, there’s a possibility of that, absolutely. And when I’ve decided to go back, I have to take that risk.

BLITZER: You know, there’s another risk that’s even worse, if you can imagine, that someone might try to kill you. How worried are you about that?

MUSHARRAF: Well, more than myself, my family and my friends, my well- wishers, are worried about that much more than myself. But I have faced such threats all along since I was the president, and that threat will remain now also.

I need to make proper security arrangements of my own. And also, I expect the government to give me security as authorized to an ex- president of the country.

BLITZER: You know, this reminds me, Mr. President, of a conversation I had with Benazir Bhutto back in 2007, when she told me she was going back to Pakistan. And I told her I thought it was a bad idea.

Listen to this little exchange that I had with her here on CNN. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You’re a relatively young woman. How scared are you though? Because as you know, Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, they have attacked you in the past, and they clearly would like to go after you now.

BENAZIR BHUTTO, FMR. PAKISTANI PRIME MINISTER: Yes, of course they would like to go against me. There’s a lot of threats, because under military dictatorship, an anarchic situation has developed which the terrorists and Osama have exploited. They don’t want democracy. They don’t want me back.

BLITZER: Your family has a tragic history, unfortunately, a tragic history of assassination. BHUTTO: I know the past has been tragic, but I’m an optimist by nature. I put my faith in the people of Pakistan, I put my faith in God. I feel that what I am doing is for a good cause, for a right cause, to save Pakistan from extremists and militants and to build regional security.

I know the dangers of it, but I’m prepared to takes those risks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Are you prepared to take those risks, Mr. President? Because, you know, I’ve known you for many years, I’ve interviewed you on many occasions. And frankly, I’m pretty worried about your security, your safety if you go back to Pakistan.

MUSHARRAF: Well, yes, I am prepared for the risk. I have to be prepared for the risk.

You take security measures as much as you can, but then 100 percent security cannot be guaranteed by anyone. So, therefore, an element of risk is always there. And that’s where I believe in destiny, and that is I believe — where I believe that we have to leave everything to God Almighty, then, once you have taking steps for your security. Whatever then happens is left to destiny.

BLITZER: How worried should we about Husain Haqqani, the former Pakistani ambassador in Washington? I spoke with his wife, Farahnaz Ispahani, a member of parliament, here in Washington a couple of weeks ago. She’s worried about the safety of her husband now that he’s there and he’s not allowed to leave the country.

Is he in serious danger of his life?

MUSHARRAF: I don’t think so. I think, unnecessarily, they are creating a hype and overblowing this, as if everyone is out to kill him or something. That is the not the reality.

I don’t think it is real at all. However, his not leaving the country is a different issue. There’s a case against him in the supreme court regarding the memorandum he sent to Admiral Mullen, and that has to be tried. Therefore, he’s not being allowed to leave the country.

Otherwise, as far as danger to his life is concerned, I don’t think — I don’t think that is a real danger.

BLITZER: The other great U.S. concern right now, Mr. President, is the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan and some loose nukes, if you will, getting into the hands of al Qaeda or other terrorists.

I know that the most senior U.S. officials are worried about your nuclear arsenal. Is that a legitimate concern?

MUSHARRAF: Well, if the country goes down and it gets into the hands of religious extremists as a country from the government, then only it is possible that all the arsenal then belongs to them, because it is the country and they are in charge of the country. But I don’t see that as a possible.

I don’t think any religious party today is capable of winning the elections, so the other way is that they take them through force, use force. I don’t think that’s a possibility, again, with the military guarding it, with the strategic force command of (INAUDIBLE) of 20,000 people manning and guarding all these installations and them being in very secure places and very dispersed. I don’t think it is a possibility.

BLITZER: Is U.S./Pakistani relations right now back at another low? And you remember what it was like before 9/11. You were in power. Is it at that poor level right now?

MUSHARRAF: We’re at a very poor level. I don’t think they were at this level even before 9/11, when I took over.

I don’t think — I had a reasonable amount of respect around if the world even before 9/11. But not they certainly are at their lowest ebb. And it is extremely disturbing to anyone who understands geopolitics. It is very disturbing, and I only wish that Pakistan and the United States mend fences and we move forward on a course which is in the interest of the region, in the interest of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the United States.

BLITZER: General Musharraf, good luck over there. Be safe. We’ll stay in close touch with you. Thank you very much.

MUSHARRAF: Thank you, Wolf, as always.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

President Musharraf WordPress CONGRATULATES APML on its Successful Jalsa in Karachi !

A Jalsa for President Musharraf organized by APML in Karachi ! Congratulations! General Musharraf announced he would return to Karachi, somewhere in between 27 th to 30 th January 2012 !

See Full Pictures …..

Special Thanks to Ms. SENANA ALI for sharing these photos on Facebook! Kind Regards !

In his first interview with an Israeli newspaper, former president Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan tells Haaretz about Pakistan-U.S. relations, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and how he would solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

LONDON – We are seven minutes early. The woman accompanying me, who has helped set up the interview, suggests we remain seated in her chauffeured car outside the entrance, right off Hyde Park, and wait. Two minutes pass. Three. We both look at our watches. Four. We sit. “The General is very punctual,” she explains. “It would not be right to show up early.”

“Of course.”

Five. Six.

A kind-faced servant opens the door, takes our winter coats and leads us into the modest apartment. I seat myself on the puffy couch, accept a glass of icy water, decline a greasy bureka, and glance around: golden decorative swords on the mantle, a sugar bowl featuring Klimt’s “The Kiss” on the coffee table, and a big-screen TV tuned to a golf championship, on mute.

And then he walks in, wearing a tweed jacket and beige corduroys, and, since he has just come back from a wedding in the United States the night before, looking a little sleepy: four star general Pervez Musharraf, one of Pakistan’s longest serving rulers, who today lives in self imposed exile in London. He shakes my hand warmly, clicks off the golf, and we begin.

Born in 1943 to a prominent family, Musharraf joined the military, zoomed through the ranks and was made chief of the army in 1998. A year later, he took power in a bloodless coup, ousting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and promising to bring democracy, law and order to Pakistan.

Almost a decade later and under threat of impeachment, Musharraf resigned. But he had already secured his place in history by allying Pakistan with the United States against the Taliban after the September 11 attacks, and going on to play a pivotal role on the world stage in the war against terror. It was a role that required walking a fine line between U.S. demands to crack down on extremism in Pakistan – previously one of only three countries in the world to give diplomatic recognition to the Taliban – and demands at home from an increasingly vocal anti-American Islamist constituency.

This was not the only tightrope act Musharraf attempted to carry out during his time in office. Four years ago, in an interview with Al-Arabiya, the leader of the second largest Muslim country in the world took many by surprise by offering his services as a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and hinting he would be willing to travel to Israel, a sworn enemy country, as part of this effort.

Two years before, addressing a gathering of the American Jewish Congress in New York (where his presence was in itself highly unusual ) Musharraf all but said that Pakistan could be open to establishing ties with the Jewish State.

As it turned out, he never became a mediator in the conflict, nor were relations forged between Israel and Pakistan. But now Musharraf – who has vowed to return home in the coming months and run for the presidency again – sits down with a Haaretz reporter in his first-ever interview with an Israeli newspaper to revisit these suggestions and chat about the future for his country, ours, and a great deal more.

W W W

“I felt I needed to test the waters in Pakistan when it came to Israel. Yes. We have been anti-Israel in Pakistan because of Palestine, because the Pakistani people are on the side of the Palestinians and are concerned for their plight. Right from the beginning, from when we got our independence in ’47 and Israel came into reality a year later, we have been pro-Palestine,” begins Musharraf.

“But I believe in realism and in assessing ground realities. I think it’s necessary to understand the changing environment, analyze it – and respond. A lot has happened since ’48, and one has to adjust. Policies are made, yes, but when the environment changes, policies should change. Policies should not remain constant.”

Musharraf is talking about one particular new reality, he admits, or, perhaps, more accurately, one reality that is newly clear to some.

“Israel is a fait accompli,” he states. “A lot of the Muslim world have understood that and I know many Muslim countries have relations with Israel, whether above board or covertly. So this is the change in reality I am talking about. Pakistan has to keep demanding the resolution of the Palestinian dispute … [but] Pakistan also needs to keep readjusting its diplomatic stand toward Israel based on the mere fact that it exists and is not going away.”

Is that a position shared by many in your country?

“I think so. I started making such statements a long time ago, testing the waters. I spoke to the American Jewish Congress and then I spoke in the media about this … And to both of these tests, the responses were positive. The papers and the general public were all positive. Then I took the initiative of having our foreign minister meet your foreign minister – they met openly in Turkey [in September 2005, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmoud Kasuri met with then Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom in Istanbul in the countries' first publicly acknowledged high-level contact] and that was also received positively.”

In fact, Musharraf might not recall, or be misrepresenting the reactions to his testing of the waters, because not all of it was as positive as he suggests. Secular parties in Pakistan accused him of playing up to the Americans, and religious parties there threatened street protests to oust the government if it took even a small step toward the recognition of Israel. Others in the government then backpedaled on their leader’s behalf, with both Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali and Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed reiterating the country’s traditional policy toward Israel, and the Foreign Office jumping in and joining the chorus.

But Musharraf insists: “There was no negative fallout. I don’t remember anyone speaking out negatively against me or what I did.”

In any case, it was a risk, he allows. “There is always risk in any new initiative. You can never be sure [what the reaction will be]. But a leader who is not prepared to take risks is not a leader. I believe that leaders should generally flow with public opinion. But there are times and issues where the public opinion goes astray, or is anchored in wrong premises – and to change that is the leader’s job. That’s where real leadership emerges. Changing the public’s opinion is part of leadership. Leadership is not standing at the head of a herd and carrying out things you feel are wrong.

“Pakistan, like Israel, is an ideological state. That is the foundation of our creation. We are an Islamic republic,” he says. “Which goes toward explaining why Pakistani Muslims are much more sensitive about Islam than most other Muslim countries. We are extremely sensitive about desecration of the Koran. So we are wholly sensitive to the Palestinian plight and any new initiative regarding Israel has to be proposed very delicately.”

Would you say there is anti-Semitism in Pakistan?

“There is a dislike of Israel, but antiSemitism – I don’t think so,” he replies slowly. “There are not many Jews living in Pakistan, so that has never been a real question.” Asked about the recent furor caused by the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, who insinuated that Israel’s political positions may explain anti-Semitism in Muslim countries, Musharraf again considers his words carefully.

“I think that may be correct. Especially when the Jewish community anywhere in the world immediately orients itself with Israel – on the Palestinian issue, but also on any issue in the Arab world,” he replies. “For example, in the U.S., if a presidential candidate utters a word against Israel or the Jews, all Jews gravitate against him. So candidates have to be pro-Israel. This is all seen by the Muslim world and then there is a reaction against it. This is harmful, and dangerous, evoking and confirming the clash of civilizations.”

What Musharraf perceives as the oversized influence of the Jewish lobby in the U.S. comes in for especially harsh criticism.

“The lobby is exactly what is disliked in the Muslim world. Why is the U.S. like that? Now, for example, when there was a move in the United Nations to recognize Palestine, the whole world is on one side, and the U.S. is on the other. These are the things that are seen in the Muslim world as totally partisan and biased in favor of Israel and Jews – because of Jewish influence, the U.S. is totally pro-Israel. They don’t see realities and they are unfair to the point of violating justice. On one side they believe in democracy, say, but then Hamas wins and they change their position. What kind of a dual policy is this? I think the U.S. needs to look inward and I would say the Jewish community in the U.S. needs to look inward as well,” he argues.

“We feel on the defensive. And this has led to guerrilla warfare and terrorism, which we see as a force equalizer … You are alienating the Muslim community as a whole and that is why extremism and Islamic political parties are gaining strength,” he says, pointing at the changes in the Arab world today, and the ground being gained by religious political parties in countries like Egypt or Tunisia.

And yet, when asked what Pakistan has to gain by getting closer to Israel, the very thing that most irks Musharraf – i.e., the perceived Jewish influence in the U.S. and elsewhere – is what he points out as a potential prize.

“What do we stand to gain? First of all, there is an unnecessary opposition by Israel to Pakistan in all international forums,” he says, without specifying what forums. “And the world media is part of this, yes. Israel has clout in the media. I would say the Jewish community has clout in the media, in the U.S. and elsewhere. Which leads to unnecessary opposition to us. Israel is a country which has certain clout. Especially with the U.S. backing it. In any case, there is nothing to lose by trying to get on Israel’s good side,” he says, fumbling with the answer somewhat.

Musharraf is on more confident ground when describing another reason why it might be in Pakistan’s interest to get closer to Israel – the India factor.

“The issue of India is another sensitivity in Pakistan – Israel has always been pro-India against Pakistan,” he says.

Maybe that is in part because we have not had the opportunity to forge relations with Pakistan

“Well, yes. That’s right. But that does not mean you should be actively anti-Pakistan, supporting India on important issues such as the Kashmir dispute, advising them, and cooperating on intelligence, which is a very big deal. Pakistan adjusting its stance toward Israel has the advantage of possibly breaking those anti-Pakistan activities,” he says.

I ask him where his independent thinking in assessing the pros and cons of a situation, such as relations with Israel, comes from.

“I don’t know,” he says, laughs, and gives it some thought. “I suppose from my military training. I was always an analytical and independent thinker, but it really was magnified by that training. And then, I don’t read that much. Some people read and acquire things from the books and statements of others – but I generate my own ideas as opposed to borrowing them. I believe in my own theories.”

What do you read when you sit down with a book? Novels? I ask, leading to an inadvertent and interesting aside – Musharraf, it turns out, is an Ariel Sharon fan.

“I used to read novels. But now, mostly just military history. I enjoy that. I like reading about Napoleonic campaigns. And I have read about all the Israeli-Arab wars and that is how I know about Ariel Sharon,” he says. “I know how he contributed toward the victories of the Israelis. In every war it was his contribution that counted. Every time this man contributed. He is a great military leader … My admiration comes from a place of realistic assessment of his military exploits, which were very impressive. I think he was a great military commander and I appreciate that.”

And what about Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who Musharraf once shook hands with in a Parisian lobby when the two happened to be visiting France at the same time, I ask. How do you rate him?

Clearly the lobby get-together did not make that big an impression. “Frankly, I don’t know as much about him,” he responds.

Going back to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when you once said you would be willing to be a mediator, what did you have in mind? And with so many problems of your own in Pakistan, why do you care so much about our conflict?

“I personally think the Palestinian dispute is at the foundation of many of our bigger problems. Look at terrorism and extremism, 9/11, Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas – all these are products of the unsettled Palestinian dispute. Because of the misery these Palestinians are suffering, which is seen all over the world on TV, there is a reaction.

If you go back to the history of the Muslim world, you see that for centuries we were colonized – all of us except Turkey. When we gained independence after the Second World War, we were illiterate, backward and poor, almost all of us, and the Palestinian issue arose as a focal point. This aroused sympathetic feelings in the whole Muslim world and affected the collective mind of the Muslims.

“And, with the root of so many problems in the Palestinian problem, I was thinking, how is it that we have not solved the dispute and it is causing so much trouble to the whole world, especially to the Muslim world, and it has come to our region now, to Afghanistan, with Al-Qaida and all this.

“And I thought, who is involved? It’s the U.S., Israel and the Arabs. But these people have failed, so who else should take it on? And I thought of the non-Arab Muslims – namely Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. These are four very important Muslim countries, and I thought we should join with Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and all together, these seven, we would make an acceptable mediating team.”

Musharraf then goes on to relay how, in 2006, he went to the capital of each of these countries, told the leaders about his plan to create a fresh mediation effort and got them all on board. “I did not discuss it with the Israelis, although of course they knew because I was talking openly about it,” he adds. And indeed, Israel at the time did welcome Musharraf’s publicly-stated offer to help, but also said it was doubtful the Pakistani leader could make much progress.

Interestingly, during those travels to the various capitals, Musharraf also went to Iran to explain why they were not being asked to join the grouping he was putting together. “I went there personally to tell Ahmadinejad why he was not a part of this group. I told him that there was a basic difference of opinion between us. While we seven are willing to accept the reality of Israel in exchange for a peace process, you are against the very entity of Israel. So therefore you cannot be a part of the group.”

And what did Ahmadinejad reply? I want to know. “Well, no. he was not prepared to accept this changed attitude toward accepting the reality,” responds Musharraf.

It does not seem that will ever happen there, I say. He nods. “With the current government, no.”

Ultimately, nothing came of Musharraf’s mediation plan, in great part because, at around the same time, his own political fortunes were shifting.

Discontent in some circles over Musharraf’s standing up to the Taliban and Al-Qaida, as well as with his insistence on remaining both head of the military and head of the country at the same time began to boil over in March 2007, at which point he decided to suspend the country’s chief justice. The move backfired, leading to huge protests against Musharraf’s perceived flouting of the rule of law, and ultimately to a showdown between him and the supreme court, which had refused to validate his electoral victory in October. He declared a state of emergency, removed several supreme court judges and was pronounced president again. But the die had been cast.

According to cables sent from the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Washington and published by WikiLeaks this year, Israel was among those concerned by what was going on in Pakistan at this time – an indication, it seems, of some affinity for Musharraf, or at least a sense that he was better than anyone who might follow.

One cable describes then Mossad Chief Meir Dagan telling U.S. under secretary of state William Burns at an August 2007 meeting that he was worried about how long Musharraf could survive: “He is facing a serious problem with the militants. Pakistan’s nuclear capability could end up in the hands of an Islamic regime,” Dagan was quoted as saying.

In another cable at about the same time, Defense Minister Barak is quoted speaking to a visiting American delegation and describing Pakistan as his “private nightmare.” If there is an Islamic extremist takeover in Pakistan, Barak reportedly said, the world might wake up “with everything changed.”

Meanwhile, after months of political instability, Nawaz Sharif, one of Musharraf’s main political enemies, returned to Pakistan from exile to agitate against his nemesis. This, and even more significantly, the assassination of opposition figure Benazir Bhutto – and the accusations by some that Musharraf had not provided her with adequate security – fueled calls for the president to resign. Close to being impeached, Musharraf announced his resignation on August 18, 2008.

But if he had stayed in office, he says today, he would have had plenty of advice for Israelis and Palestinians, whose conflict, he believes, can be resolved.

“Because I was involved in the peace process in India on Kashmir I developed a sense of what is required to solve any settlement, and it certainly applies to the Israelis and Palestinians,” he says, glossing over the fact that the Kashmir conflict is far from settled. “There are three things needed. One – sincerity on both sides, of head and heart. No bluff game and no politics. Two – flexibility to accept the views of others. And three is the key – boldness and courage. I say this is key because in any deal you cannot take everything. The other side will not allow this. You have to give and take. Leaders are afraid of that ‘give’ because they are afraid of the backlash in their own backyard, but as long as you are convinced that the positives outweigh the negatives, you must be bold. And, as a leader, for the sake of the bigger good, you must make the right move, even if you lose on a personal note. Leadership demands sacrifice and courage.”

Musharraf is not just directing these suggestions at Israel’s leadership. “I mean both sides,” he clarifies. “Arafat did not take certain steps, as I understand it, because he was afraid of threats to him, personally, upon his return [from Camp David]. If you are more concerned with your own political clout or personal safety than you are with the gain accrued to your people and the whole Muslim world, then there is some weakness in yourself as a leader.”

Israel, Musharraf goes on to suggest, should not expect everything to be “hunky-dory, with no attacks and no bullet fire. You will never get that. This guerrilla warfare will continue, and then settle down gradually. But you can not expect there to be no Hamas and no Hezbollah and no rockets at all.”

He pauses, and makes a concluding point: “And the government should not be arrogant either. Humility works – never arrogance. Humility does not clash with strength. You can be strong and humble at the same time. Humility has to do with behavior, with interaction.”

Turning from talk about real or perceived arrogance, I ask about relations between the U.S. and Pakistan today. Why have they deteriorated so much?

“The problem has to do, in part, with the situation in Afghanistan, which is so unclear, especially as the U.S. is planning to leave in 2014. What are they going to leave behind? Will there be a semblance of political and military stability in Afghanistan? This is one serious issue. I personally think there can be some kind of a political arrangement, but I don’t know what the Americans are trying to do there. If Pakistan is kept out of a peace process – and more than that, if India is brought into it – well, that is absolutely a recipe for disaster.”

But beyond the frustrations and differences over the current situation in Afghanistan, there is a deep-seated and longstanding resentment of America in Pakistan, Musharraf explains.

“If you go back to before to 9/11 – if you go back 12 years previous – well, there was a real sense that we had been abandoned by the Americans during this time. A feeling that Pakistan had been used, and then abandoned. It was a real betrayal,” he begins, settling in for a history lesson. “Until 1989 we were their strategic partners, we won the Cold War for them and fought the Soviets for 10 years in the lead role. But then, in the ’90s, the U.S. shifted strategic policies toward India and away from Pakistan, and this was seen as a betrayal.

“They put sanctions on us and refused to help us, even as we bore the brunt of whatever was happening in Afghanistan, with four million refugees coming into Pakistan, and we bore the brunt of the freedom fighters in Kashmir, with mujahedeen groups, dozens of them, erupting within Pakistan. This is when militancy got introduced into Pakistan. There was a clear anti-U.S. feeling. And then in the midst of all this came 9/11.

“My decision to join the coalition had much opposition within Pakistan; I would not say everyone was behind this decision,” he admits. “But I knew it was the right choice. As I said, leadership demands you make the bold decision and lead, and I felt this was in our interest. I took the decision because it was the best thing for us, not because I was trying to help America,” he stresses. “But unfortunately we could not move the Afghanistan situation toward improvement. Blunders were made, many of my ideas were not accepted and now things are deteriorating more and more, leaving great distrust.”

Speaking of mistrust, I have to ask the uncomfortable question Musharraf is faced with these days everywhere he goes. Namely, how is it possible that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in Pakistan all those years, right under the government’s nose?

“I say the question is, was there complicity or negligence?” he responds. “And I strongly believe it was negligence. Of course, that’s not great either, it’s terrible negligence and shameful. But, while both are bad – complicity would be worse.

“I am very sure about my answer,” says Musharraf. “Especially so because when they say bin Laden was there for five years, that means two years under my watch. Well, one cannot be sure of others, but one can be sure of oneself. And I am 100 percent sure of myself that I did not know he was there. I don’t have any doubt of that. I know there was no complicity for those two years. And perhaps there was complicity during the latter three years, but I don’t believe that either. It’s not possible. It was negligence.”

Musharraf then tries to explain how such negligence could possibly occur. “When a man is not using telephone communications, it is human intelligence that comes to ISI [Pakistan's intelligence service] – but no one knew him around that area. None of the neighbors knew him.”

Musharraf is angry at what he sees as a tendency in the West to portray bin Laden’s hideout as easy to spot, thus insinuating that the Pakistanis were either completely incompetent or, more likely, cooperating with the terrorist. “They say in the West that he was living in a garrison town, and that the house was huge, with exceptionally high walls which stood out. But I disagree with all of this. This was no Fort Bragg [a massive U.S. army base in North Carolina]. He was staying in an open, tourist resort kind of place. Anyone going to the north could stop there. There are hotels, and schools and stores – so the story is exaggerated. And the house? It was bigger than average, but not much. And walls? They don’t necessarily have walls in the U.S. around houses – but in Pakistan the first thing a man does when he gets a house is build a wall around it. That may be abnormal in the West, but it’s perfectly normal in Pakistan and does not arouse any suspicion at all.”

Finally, I ask about Iran – in particular about a nuclear Iran, a subject on which Pakistan might be expected to have something to say.

“The question is about a nuclear weapon and a delivery system. Do they have it? I don’t know. My knowledge is that proliferation did take place from Pakistan. Yes, unfortunately there was proliferation,” he says, referring obliquely to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atom bomb, who admitted five years ago that he passed nuclear secrets to Tehran and Libya. The disclosures forced Musharraf to act against Khan, before issuing a pardon and confining the proliferator – who is still hailed as a national hero in Pakistan – to house arrest.

“But that involved enrichment of uranium. That does not mean possession of a bomb. Because turning uranium into a bomb is a totally different technology. Not only that, but exploding that bomb means you need a trigger mechanism – a totally different technology again. And then that mechanism needs to be of the right size to be fired in a delivery system, another issue because that means reducing its size. So, I really don’t know if Iran has all this.

“However, even if they are headed toward that, I cannot imagine a government or a leader who would be mad enough to use a nuclear device against anyone. We are talking after the experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were kiloton bombs. And now we are talking of megatons. What a disaster. What loss. What misery. How can anyone even imagine such a thing?”

Is he mad? After all, you know Ahmadinejad better than most of us in Israel do.

“I don’t know him that well,” responds Musharraf. “And – well, he is a person who is rigid and who is inflexible. But using a bomb is not an easy thing. And I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t call him mad.” Musharraf adds, as if an afterthought, “I am no scientist, but I am reasonably sure the fallout of using such a bomb would be big, so it would affect other Muslim countries. Anyway, I think it would be mad to even think of using these weapons.”

Iran is in a very different situation than Pakistan, says Musharraf, stressing that his own country’s weapons are “100 percent only for deterrence. We want to be left alone. We don’t want anyone to mess around with us or militarily try to dominate us or dominate us in other ways, politically or economically. This is our deterrence.

“Just like Israel has an existential threat, Pakistan has an existential threat,” Musharraf continues, criticizing those in the West who have dubbed Pakistan’s weapon an Islamic bomb. “Why not a Jewish bomb, or a Hindu bomb? Why is ours called an Islamic bomb? We have a right to defend ourselves.

“Every country has either its own threat perception – which leads to its defensive position – or its own image about projecting power – which is offensive in nature. Most countries of the world use forces for defense. But some countries, like the U.S., Russia, China or India are trying to project their powers. Otherwise what are they doing? Who threatens India?

“Iran does not need the deterrence. They do not have a threat. I don’t understand why they have the bomb, except for maybe their own views of grandeur. They are used to being a big empire and so maybe they think they might need the clout of being in the nuclear club. But I don’t imagine they would be developing it so as to use it, in these days, against anyone.”

We may have started exactly on time, but as we reach the end of the allotted one hour of interview time, Musharraf seems content to continue. I turn the recorder back on and we talk about his planned return to Pakistan in March. The man who survived numerous assassination attempts and plots over the years, with a warrant for his arrest in Pakistan and new threats to his life – is homesick.

“I am determined to return. I love my own country and I need Pakistan. Why they need me is another issue. But I do think they do need me. I think they are in dire straits now. The situation there has never been so bad. The government is dysfunctional, the economy is nose-diving, with people 50 percent poorer, there is political turmoil, with clashes between the legislative and judiciary, and relations with the U.S., where delicate cooperation in fighting terror remains needed, are at an all-time low. Basically, overall, we are in such a logjam I don’t even know how Pakistan can get out of it.”

One way forward, he suggests, is to abandon the two main parties, both of which, he charges, “have failed Pakistan time and again,” and create other political forces. “We need another political party which draws the people and has international standing,” says Musharraf, who, as it happens, did exactly that, launching his own political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League, in June last year.

So you want to be the president of Pakistan again?

“I will try to do that. And I personally feel there is a fair chance of that happening,” he says. He will miss his calmer life in exile with his wife, he admits, but feels the time has come. “A stage comes when you have seen so much in life and God has been kind and you know there are things more important than oneself. I am happy in London and I go to Dubai a lot, and then around the world giving lectures. I even have my children nearby. But Pakistan is where I belong.”

We bid each other farewell. Maybe some day he would like to visit Israel, I suggest.

“Why not, why not?” he responds, ever diplomatic.

Or maybe I will visit you back in Islamabad, I offer.

“That, with pleasure. Welcome.”

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/relations-with-israel-could-help-pakistan-says-former-president-musharraf-1.405846

Dubai: In what appears to be a surprising move, former president General (retd) Pervez Musharraf has decided to return to Pakistan earlier than he had announced due to the fast-changing political scene in the country. According to one of his aides, Musharraf will fly back to Pakistan on January 31, 2012, instead of March 23 as was announced by him in a press conference in Dubai earlier this year. A deepening political crisis and the sharp increase in popularity of Imran Khan in Pakistan have ostensibly prompted Musharraf to take this decision. Meanwhile, a senior Pakistan government official has revealed to Gulf News that the Pakistani authorities have clearly conveyed to Musharraf the threats to his life in case of his return.

“We advised him to stay out of the country because there are threats to his life not only from extremist groups but also others who don’t want to see him in Pakistan,” the official said. Former prime minister Benazir Bhuatto, who was assassinated on her return from Dubai in 2007, also faced similar threats and warnings before her return but it was Musharraf, in power at the time, who had warned her. Musharraf, however, has rubbished these threats and is determined to go back. He will be on a tour of the UK, US and Saudi Arabia for the next month to ensure guarantees for his safe return and the launch of his political campaign to contest the next elections.

The decision has been taken following marathon meetings Musharraf held with his party leaders and supporters who came to Dubai from Pakistan, UK, US and Canada.

The three-day-long parleys concluded yesterday with a decision that it is time for Musharraf to go back as soon as possible. Musharraf, who has been living in self-exile, had launched his political party, the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML), in October 2011 in a bid to give a third option to the Pakistani electorate.

Almost finalised

“We have almost finalised our party’s organisational structure in Pakistan and are paving the way for our leader’s return,” Fawad Chaudhry, a spokesperson of the APML told Gulf News in Dubai.

When asked about Musharraf’s early return, he did not confirm the date but did acknowledge that the decision had been taken for Musharraf to go back earlier. He said formal plans of his return would be announced by the end of December.

Some five plane-loads of people will accompany Musharraf to Pakistan. He will start his journey from London and reach Pakistan via Dubai. However, a decision is yet to be taken on whether he will land in Karachi or Islamabad.

Meanwhile, Chaudhry said efforts are on for a possible alliance with Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf and Altaf Hussain’s MQM, while a number of politicians from different factions of Pakistan Muslim League are also in touch to join the APML.

“APML will emerge as a third political force and alternative to the current political parties because the people of Pakistan want change,” Musharraf had said in an earlier meeting and added he would take his chances in a bid to make a comeback to power to save Pakistan.

He said the current government had become completely dysfunctional while the administration structure had broken down and the country was facing political turmoil, in addition to a worsening law and order situation.

The meetings lead by Musharraf also discussed his security plans on his return and also the issue of arrest warrants. Musharraf is facing two arrests warrants including one over the killing of a Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Bugti and the another on the murder of Benazir Bhutto.

Reuters – A senior Pakistani army official has said a NATO cross-border air attack that killed 24 soldiers was a deliberate, blatant act of aggression, hardening Pakistan’s stance on an incident that could hurt efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. Continuing that angry tone, Major General Ishfaq Nadeem, director general of military operations, said NATO forces were alerted they were attacking Pakistani posts but helicopters kept firing, “Detailed information of the posts was already with ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), including map references, and it was impossible that they did not know these to be our posts.  The helicopters appeared near the post around 15 to 20 minutes past midnight, opened fire, then left about 45 minutes later, Nadeem was quoted as saying. They reappeared at 0115 local time and attacked again for another hour, he said. Nadeem said that, minutes before the first attack, a U.S. sergeant on duty at a communications centre in Afghanistan told a Pakistani major that NATO special forces were receiving indirect fire from a location 15 km (9 miles) from the posts.

Musharraf the Candidate

By Steve Clemons

Pervez Musharraf, the former Army general turned (former) President of Pakistan, is a different man than the Musharraf who has now declared that he will again contest for his nation’s presidency.  The earlier version of Musharraf would bristle at questions about his respect for democracy, about the relationship of the Taliban to the security organs of the government, and, well, just about anything.  Musharraf, before, was self-confident, a talker more than a listener, and personally intimidating.

The man who spoke to the students of Washington College on the eastern shore of Maryland yesterday evening struck a significant contrast to the man that so many believed had become a de facto dictator during his tenure as Pakistan’s president.  Musharraf listened.  He met students and engaged them seriously.  He spoke to them like mature adults who were informed — and didn’t dumb down his commentary.

The former four-star general said that while he grew up “as a man of war”, he now knew how to “construct the peace” in his neighborhood, even with India — though he had a number of testy comments about India and what he considered to be its meddling in Afghanistan and its efforts to create an “anti-Pakistan Afghanistan.”

Musharraf offered a sweeping historical narrative of why Afghanistan had become the hotbed of regional proxy conflicts and had since American disengagement after the “defeat of the Soviet Union in 1989″ become a “total disaster.”  His perspective on Pakistan’s allies and strategic choices is forged in realpolitik — in which Pakistan’s interests actually ally well with many interests of the United States.  He said it was extremely frustrating and disheartening for Pakistan to watch the US tilt toward India after the demise of the Soviet Union — even though Pakistan had helped the US and its proxies defeat the Soviets inside Afghanistan, thus in many ways triggering the end of the Cold War.

He suggested that weak political leadership inside Pakistan and the failure to align institutions, their objectives, and conduct could be resulting in rogue military and intelligence elements freelancing in ways that were detrimental to both Pakistan’s and America’s security.  He believes that bin Laden living in Pakistan represented a real intelligence failure for Pakistan — and severe negligence, not complicity, is the explanation.  Interestingly, President Musharraf said that bin Laden is now dead — and off the minds of people; what is not off their minds though is the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Most of the questions I posed while chairing this meeting with President Musharraf were drawn from Washington College students — and I’ll be posting the video when it appears on the college website — but I did ask Musharraf about his views on Pakistan’s blasphemy law and the assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, on religious militancy, and whether if he was President of the United States, whether he would fire drone missiles at al Qaeda leaders.

Musharraf said that more than forty nations had blasphemy laws and that Pakistan was among many.  Religious extremism and militancy, he said, is often a manifestation of other social turmoil — and that it would take time to urbanize, to educate, and liberalize a populations undergoing huge demographic shifts.  On the drone issue, Musharraf said that as a military man with a military objective — if serving as the US President — he might in fact decide to use drones.  He would, however, operate cautiously and carefully because of the obvious violations of sovereignty, which is deeply toxic to a nation’s identity.

Musharraf’s most compelling commentary focused on the importance of economic and political modernization — the importance of exposing people to what was going on in the world and building the economy.  He kept referring to the strong economic growth rates that Pakistan had achieved during his term — and that Pakistan was considered to be in “the next set” of eleven fast growing nations after the larger lead developing countries today.  He lamented the loss of pride and self-confidence of the Pakistan people in the current period and said that the political leadership was insolvent, corrupt, nepotistic, and failing.

There’s much more that I’d like to share about Musharraf, who intends to make his first campaign trip back to Pakistan in March 2012 and until then is operating through Skype, Facebook, and other new social network media to build out his campaign and new political party.  He had just the day before spoken to a crowd of more than 3,000 Pakistanis via Skype — and was proud that he now had more than 400,000 “fans” on Facebook.

I did push Musharraf privately on the democracy question, which he said a young Pakistani lady had posed to him that very day on a BBC event and program.  He was pushed on a number of fronts — including the question of whether Pakistan could really be considered an ally of the United States anymore.  I’ll write more about this democracy question when I post the Musharraf video. 

The former President didn’t get irritated, or ruffled, or dismissive — he got more deeply engaged and answered questions succinctly, posed questions to some of his student handlers, and spent the evening charming and chatting with several tables of college VIPs after his speech.  He was compelling and deeply informed on the details of global security and economic issues as well as many dimensions of state and global governance.

Last night with Musharraf reminded me of a time I secured Bill Clinton as a dinner speaker for a major Nixon Center event — and the President (then) came to the cocktail party, sat down for dinner, gave a long and thorough speech, and hung out a bit after.  While I remember the content of that April 1995 speech, few others do; but almost everyone remembers how much time that night a sitting President of the United States spent at one dinner party.

In a more modest way perhaps, former President Musharraf did the same as Clinton for the Washington College community.  He gave those in the community and the students and professors a lot of time — not because he actually had a lot of time — but because he is out testing the new Musharraf, the listening Musharraf, the Musharraf concerned and interested in the tough and complex questions a public can pose.

And I have to say that much to my surprise, I was impressed with this version of the controversial former president of Pakistan.

Excellent analysis by Former President Musharraf and Political Analyst Hasan Nisar. Pakistan’s position with respect to recent US aggression. China and Saudi Arabia’s role in balancing and defusing the tension. Musharraf’s endorsement of PTI and Imran Khan, as untested politician.

They said a meeting of APML big wigs held under the chairmanship of party chief Musharraf in Dubai on September 17 and 18 reviewed the party’s performance regarding its membership and organisational structure and Musharraf’s return to Pakistan on March 23 next year.

Musharraf expressed his complete dissatisfaction over the performance of the party stalwarts in Pakistan. The bogus statements of APML leaders about the completion of party organisation further angered Musharraf, who blasted General Secretary Barrister Saif and spokesman Fawad Ch for poor performance. Musharraf also expressed his annoyance with the Chief Coordinator of APML Ch Shahbaz who had showed little interest in party affairs.

Insiders said the party chief also expressed displeasure over sidelining sincere party workers by establishing monopoly by the top office-bearers.

They said the resignation of Dr Sher Afghan Niazi and Punjab Information Secretary Javaid Badr were especially discussed and Musharraf directed Saif and Fawad to take steps for their return.

Musharraf said with the poor performance of party’s main leadership, the party’s future was in shambles. APML spokesman Fawad Ch said a meeting of party leaders was held in Dubai and important decisions were made regarding Musharraf’s return to Pakistan. He rejected information regarding Musharraf’s displeasure with party leaders, instead the former president appreciated the party leaders for the accomplishment of party organisational structure.

Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars

The State of the U.S.-Pakistan Relationship: A Discussion with Pervez Musharraf 

Pervez Musharraf talking to the media in New York

Pervez Musharraf Addresses APML New York

Pakistan’s decision to join the US and the Coalition in Afghanistan in their attack on the Taliban remains a subject of intense debate. This is the decision we took after a thorough, deliberate and realistic appraisal of the obtaining geo-strategic realities, but it has drawn criticism and praise alike. With the latest upsurge in terrorist activity in Pakistan, the debate on the post-9/11 response of Pakistan has intensified. I, therefore, thought it my duty to lay bare facts in front of the people of Pakistan, so that with all the necessary information they could judge the situation more accurately. The decision of my government was indeed based on, and in conformity with, my slogan of ‘Pakistan First’.

 Some people suggested that we should oppose the United States and favour the Taliban. Was this, in any way, beneficial for Pakistan? Certainly not! Even if the Taliban and Al-Qaeda emerged victorious, it would not be in Pakistan’s interest to embrace obscurantist Talibanisation. That would have meant a society where women had no rights, minorities lived in fear and semi-literate clerics set themselves up as custodians of justice. I could have never accepted this kind of society for Pakistan. In any case, judging by military realities one was sure that the Taliban would be defeated. It would have been even more detrimental for Pakistan to be standing on the defeated side.

The United States, the sole superpower, was wounded and humiliated by the 9/11 Al-Qaeda terrorist attack. A strong retaliatory response against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was imminent.

I was angrily told, by the US, that Pakistan had to be ‘either with us or against us’. The message was also conveyed to me that ‘if Pakistan was against the United States then it should be prepared to be bombed back to the Stone Age.’

This was the environment within which we had to take a critical decision for Pakistan. My sole focus was to make a decision that would benefit Pakistan in the long run, and also guard it against negative effects.

What options did the US have to attack Afghanistan? Not possible from the north, through Russia and the Central Asian Republics. Not from the west, through Iran. The only viable direction was from the east, through Pakistan. If we did not agree, India was ever ready to afford all support. A US-India collusion would obviously have to trample Pakistan to reach Afghanistan. Our airspace and land would have been violated. Should we then have pitched our forces, especially Pakistan Air Force, against the combined might of the US and Indian forces? India would have been delighted with such a response from us. This would surely have been a foolhardy, rash and most unwise decision. Our strategic interests – our nuclear capability and the Kashmir cause – would both have been irreparably compromised. We might even have put our very territorial integrity at stake.

The economic dimension of confronting the United States and the West also needed serious analysis. Pakistan’s major export and investment is to and from the United States and the European Union. Our textiles, which form 60 percent of our export and earnings, go to the West. Any sanctions on these would have crippled our industry and choked our economy. Workers would lose their jobs. The poor masses of Pakistan would have been the greatest sufferers.

China, our great friend, also has serious apprehensions about Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The upsurge of religious extremism emboldening the East Turkistan Islamic Movement in China is due to events in Afghanistan and the tribal agencies of Pakistan. China would certainly not be too happy with Pakistan on the side of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Even the Islamic Ummah had no sympathy for the Taliban regime; countries like Turkey and Iran were certainly against the Taliban. The UAE and Saudi Arabia – the only two countries other than Pakistan that had recognised the Taliban regime – had become so disenchanted with the Taliban that they had closed their missions in Kabul.

Here, I would also like to clear the notion that we accepted all the demands put forward by USA.

On September 13th 2001, the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, brought me a set of seven demands. These demands had also been communicated to our Foreign Office by the US State Department.

1. Stop Al-Qaeda operatives at your borders, intercept arms shipments through Pakistan, and end all logistical support for bin Laden

2. Provide the United States with blanket overflight and landing rights to conduct all necessary military and intelligence operations.

3. Provide territorial access to the United States and allied military intelligence as needed, and other personnel to conduct all necessary operations against the perpetrators of terrorism and those that harbour them, including the use of Pakistan’s naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders.

4. Provide the United States immediately with intelligence, immigration information and databases, and internal security information, to help prevent and respond to terrorist acts perpetrated against the United States, its friends, or its allies.

5. Continue to publicly condemn the terrorist acts of September 11 and any other terrorist acts against the United States or its friends and allies, and curb all domestic expressions of support [for terrorism] against the United States, its friends, or its allies.

6. Cut off all shipments of fuel to the Taliban and any other items and recruits, including volunteers, en route to Afghanistan, who can be used in a military offensive capacity or to abet a terrorist threat.

7. Should the evidence strongly implicate Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan and should Afghanistan and the Taliban continue to harbour him and his network, Pakistan will break diplomatic relations with the Taliban government, end support for the Taliban, and assist the United States in the afore-mentioned ways to destroy Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network.

Some of these demands were ludicrous, such as “curb all domestic expressions of support [for terrorism] against the United States, its friends, and its allies.” How could my government suppress public debate, when I had been trying to encourage freedom of expression?

I also thought that asking us to break off diplomatic relations with Afghanistan if it continued to harbour Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda was not realistic, because not only would the United States need us to have access to Afghanistan, at least until the Taliban fell, but such decisions are the internal affair of a country and cannot be dictated by anyone. But we had no problem with curbing terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. We had been itching to do so before the United States became its victim.

We just could not accept demands two and three. How could we allow the United States “blanket overflight and landing rights” without jeopardising our strategic assets? I offered only a narrow flight corridor that was far from any sensitive areas. Neither could we give the United States “use of Pakistan’s naval ports, air bases, and strategic locations on borders.” We refused to give any naval ports or fighter aircraft bases. We allowed the United States only two bases – Shamsi in Balochistan and Jacobabad in Sindh – and only for logistics and aircraft recovery. No attack could be launched from there. We gave no “blanket permission” for anything.

The rest of the demands we could live with. I am happy that the US government accepted our counterproposal without any fuss. I am shocked at the aspersion being cast on me: that I readily accepted all preconditions of the United States during the telephone call from Colin Powell. He did not give any conditions to me. These were brought by the US ambassador on the third day.

Having made my decision, I took it to the Cabinet. Then I began meeting with a cross section of society. Between September 18 and October 3, I met with intellectuals, top editors, leading columnists, academics, tribal chiefs, students, and the leaders of labour unions. On October 18, I also met a delegation from China and discussed the decision with them. Then I went to army garrisons all over the country and talked to the soldiers. I thus developed a broad consensus on my decision.

This was an analysis of all the losses/harms we would have suffered. if we had taken an anti-US stand. At the same time, I obviously analysed the socio-economic and military gains that would accrue from an alliance with the West. I have laid down the rationale for my decision in all its details. Even with hindsight, now, I do not repent it. It was correct in the larger interest of Pakistan. I am confident that the majority of Pakistanis agree with it.

 The writer is a former President of Pakistan and Founding President of the All Pakistan Muslim League.

نائن الیون۔ کیا ہم کوئی دوسرا فیصلہ کرسکتے تھے؟ ـ

Nawai-Waqt 

5 جون ، 2011

جنرل(ر) پرویز مشرف پاکستان کا امریکہ اور اسکے اتحادیوں کا افغانستان میں طالبان کیخلاف حملے میں ساتھ دینا ایک بحث طلب معاملہ ہے۔یہ فیصلہ ہم نے جیو سٹرٹیجک حقائق کومکمل طورپر مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے کیا لیکن اس فیصلے پر تعریف اور تنقید دونوں کی جارہی ہیں۔ پاکستان میں دہشت گردی کے حالیہ واقعات کے بعد پاکستان کا نائن الیون کے حملوں کے بعد کا ردعمل زیادہ اہمیت اختیار کرگیا ہے۔اس لئے میں اپنا فرض سمجھتا ہوں کہ پاکستانی عوام کو تمام ضروری معلومات سے آگاہ کروں تاکہ وہ صورتحال کا بہتر طورپر ادراک کرسکیں۔ میری حکومت کا امریکہ کا ساتھ دینے کا فیصلہ درحقیقت میرے ماٹو ”سب سے پہلے پاکستان“ پر مبنی تھا۔

 کچھ لوگوں نے مشورہ دیا کہ ہمیں امریکہ کی مخالفت کرتے ہوئے طالبان کاساتھ دیناچاہئے کیا یہ کسی بھی طرح پاکستان کے حق میں تھا؟ یقینی طورپر نہیں۔ اگر القاعدہ اور طالبان کو اس جنگ میں فتح ہوبھی جاتی تو بھی یہ پاکستان کے مفاد میں نہیں تھا کہ وہ طالبانائزیشن کو اختیارکرتا۔ طالبانائزیشن اختیار کرنے کا مطلب ہوتا کہ ہم ایک ایسے معاشرے میں رہ رہے ہیں جہاں خواتین کو کوئی حقوق حاصل نہیں، ا قلیتیں خوف کی حالت میں رہیں نیم پڑھے لکھے عالم انصاف کے رکھوالے بن جائیں ۔ میں اس قسم کی صورتحال کو پاکستان کیلئے کبھی بھی پسند نہ کرتا۔ فوجی نقطہ نظر سے یہ با ت واضح تھی کہ طالبان کو اس جنگ میں یقینی طورپر شکست ہوناہے اور پاکستان کیلئے یہ بہت نقصان دہ ہوتا کہ وہ ایک شکست خوردہ فریق کا ساتھ دیتا۔دنیا کی تنہا عالمی طاقت امریکہ نائن الیون کے حملے کے بعد زخمی اور شرمندہ ہوچکا تھا۔ افغانستان میں القاعدہ اور طالبان کیخلاف شدید ردعمل ناگزیر ہوچکا تھا۔ مجھے امریکہ کی طرف سے سخت لہجے میں پیغام دیا گیا کہ پاکستان کو یا تو ہمارا ساتھ دینا پڑے گا یا ہماری مخالفت کرنا پڑے گی۔ مجھے یہ پیغام بھی دیا گیا کہ اگر پاکستان نے امریکہ کی مخالفت کی تو اسے بمباری کے ذریعے پتھر کے دور میں پہنچا دیا جائے گا۔ یہ وہ صورتحال تھی جس میں ہمیں پاکستان کے حوالے سے انتہائی اہم فیصلہ کرنا تھا۔میری پوری توجہ اس بات پر مرکوز تھی کہ ایک ایسا فیصلہ کیاجائے جس سے پاکستان کو طویل المدتی فائدہ ہو اور وہ ہر قسم کے منفی اثرات سے بچارہے۔ امریکہ کے پاس افغانستان پر حملہ کرنے کیلئے کیا آپشن تھے؟ وہ شمال کی طرف سے ایسا نہیں کرسکتا تھا کیونکہ وہاں روس اور وسطی ایشیا کی ریاستیں موجود تھیں۔ وہ مغرب کی طرف سے ایران کے راستے سے بھی ایسا نہیں کرسکتا تھا۔ وہ صرف پاکستان کے ذریعے افغانستان پر حملہ کر سکتا تھا۔ اگر ہم راضی نہ ہوتے تو بھارت ایسا کرنے کیلئے تیار تھا۔ امریکہ اور بھارت کا اتحاد پاکستان کو روند کر افغانستان تک پہنچتا۔ ہماری فضائی اور زمینی حدود کی خلاف ورزی کی جاتی۔ کیاہم اپنی فوج کے ذریعے امریکہ اور بھارت کی مشترکہ قوت کا مقابلہ کرتے؟ بھارت ہماری طرف سے ایسے ردعمل پر بہت خوش ہوتا۔ یہ ایک مکمل طورپر بے وقوفانہ اور غیر عقلمندانہ ردعمل ہوتا۔ ہمیں اپنے سٹرٹیجک مفادات…. اپنی ایٹمی قوت اور کشمیر کے حوالے سے نقصان اٹھانا پڑتا۔ ہماری علاقائی خود مختاری بھی داﺅ پر لگ سکتی تھی۔ امریکہ اور مغرب سے ٹکراﺅ کے نتیجے میں اقتصادی صورتحال پر بھی سنجیدگی سے غور کرنے کی ضرورت ہے۔ پاکستان کی اہم برآمدات کا ذریعہ امریکہ اور یورپی یونین ہیں اور ہمارے ملک میں زیادہ سرمایہ کاری بھی وہیں سے ہوتی ہے۔ ہماری ٹیکسٹائل جو کہ ہماری برآمدات کا 60فیصد ہے وہ بھی یورپ کو برآمد کی جاتی ہیں۔ اس پرکسی بھی قسم کی پابندی سے ہماری صنعت کا گلا گھونٹا جاسکتا تھا۔ مزدوروں کی ملازمتیں کھو جاتیں۔ پاکستان کے غریب عوام کو اسی کا سب سے زیادہ نقصان ہوتا۔ ہمارے اہم ترین دوست چین کو بھی القاعدہ اور طالبان کیخلاف شدید تحفظات ہیں۔ چین میں مشرقی ترکستان اسلامک موومنٹ کی وجہ بھی افغانستان اور ہمارے قبائلی علاقوں کے واقعات ہیں۔ اگر ہم القاعدہ اور طالبان کا ساتھ دیتے تو چین بھی ہم سے خوش نہ ہوتا۔مسلم اُمہ بھی طالبان حکومت سے کوئی ہمدردی نہیں رکھتی تھی ترکی اور ایران طالبان کے سخت خلاف تھے۔ پاکستان کے علاوہ صرف متحدہ عرب امارات اور سعودی عرب نے طالبان حکومت کو تسلیم کیا تھا۔ لیکن وہ بھی طالبان سے اس قدر مایوس ہوئے تھے کہ انہوں نے کابل میں اپنے سفارتی مشن بند کردئیے تھے۔ یہاں میں یہ بات بھی واضح کرناچاہوں گا کہ ہم نے امریکہ کی جانب سے پیش کردہ تمام مطالبات تسلیم کرلئے

تھے۔ 13ستمبر2001 کو پاکستان میں امریکی سفیر وینڈی چیمبر لین میرے پاس سات مطالبات لیکر آئیں یہ مطالبات امریکی وزارت خارجہ کی جانب سے ہمارے فارن آفس کو بھی بھجوائے گئے تھے۔ جو مندرجہ ذیل تھے

۔ 1۔ اپنی سرحدوں پر القاعدہ کے کارکنوں کی سرگرمیاں روکی جائیں پاکستان کے راستے ہتھیاروںکی سپلائی کو روکاجائے اور بن لادن کیلئے ہرقسم کی لاجسٹک سپورٹ کا خاتمہ کیاجائے

۔ 2۔ امریکہ کو تمام ضروری فوجی اور انٹیلی جنس آپریشنز کیلئے پروازوں اور لینڈنگ کے حقوق فراہم کئے جائیں

۔ 3۔ امریکہ اور اتحادی فوجی انٹیلی جنس کو ضرورت کے مطابق اور دیگر فوجیوں کو دہشت گردوں اور ان کے سرپرستوں کیخلاف تمام ضروری آپریشنز کرنے کیلئے زمینی رسائی فراہم کی جائے جس میں پاکستان کی نیول پورٹس، ائیر بیسز اور سرحدوں پر سٹرٹیجک لوکیشنز بھی شامل ہوں

۔ 4۔ امریکہ کو فوری طورپر ایسی تمام انٹیلی جنس امیگریشن انفارمیشن اور ڈیٹا بیسز اور داخلی سلامتی کے بارے میں اطلاعات فراہم کی جائیں جن سے امریکہ اس کے دوستوں اور اتحادیوں کیخلاف دہشت گردانہ سرگرمیوں کو روکنے اور ان کا جواب دینے میں مدد مل سکے

۔ 5۔11ستمبر کے دہشت گرد اقدامات اور امریکہ ،اسکے دوستوں اور اتحادیوں کیخلاف کسی بھی قسم کی دہشت گردی کی کھلے طور پر مذمت کا سلسلہ جاری رکھا جائے اور امریکہ ،اس کے دوستوں یا اسکے اتحادیوں کیخلاف دہشت گردی کی حمائت میں ہر قسم کے اظہار رائے کو روکاجائے

۔ 6۔ طالبان کو ایندھن اور دیگر اشیاءو ریکروٹس بشمول براستہ افغانستان ایسے رضا کاروں کی ترسیل کا سلسلہ منقطع کیاجائے جو فوجی حملے یا دہشت گردی میں مددگار کے طورپر استعمال کئے جاسکتے ہوں

۔ 7۔ اگر افغانستان میں اسامہ بن لادن اور القاعدہ نیٹ ورک کے سرگرم ہونے اور افغانستان کے طالبان کی جانب سے ان کی مدد کرنے کی ٹھوس شہادت ملے تو پاکستان طالبان حکومت سے سفارتی تعلقات توڑے گا اور طالبان کی حمائت ختم کردے گا اور اسامہ بن لادن اور القاعدہ نیٹ ورک کو بیان کردہ طریقوں کے مطابق تباہ کرنے میں امریکہ کی مدد کرے گا۔ ان میں بعض مطالبات مضحکہ خیز تھے جیسا کہ ایسے تمام داخلی اظہار رائے کا سدباب کیاجائے جس سے امریکہ اسکے دوستوں اور اتحادیوں کیخلاف دہشت گردی کی حمائت کا تاثر ملتا ہو بھلا میری حکومت عوامی اظہار رائے کو کیسے دبا سکتی تھی جبکہ میں اظہار رائے کی حوصلہ افزائی کیلئے کوشش کررہا تھا؟

 میں نے یہ بھی سوچا کہ ہم سے یہ کہنا کہ افغانستان سے سفارتی تعلقات توڑ دئیے جائیں اگر وہ اسامہ بن لادن اور القاعدہ کی حمائت جاری رکھیں حقیقت پسندانہ نہیں کیونکہ افغانستان تک رسائی کیلئے نہ صرف امریکہ کو ہماری مدد کی ضرورت ہوگی کم سے کم طالبان حکومت کے خاتمہ تک۔ لیکن ایسے فیصلے کسی ملک کا داخلی معاملہ ہے اور کسی کی جانب سے اسے ڈکٹیٹ نہیں کیاجاسکتا تاہم دہشت گردی کو اس کی ہر شکل میں ختم کرنا ہمارے لئے کوئی مسئلہ نہیں تھا ہم امریکہ کے اس کا شکار ہونے سے پہلے ہی ایسا کرنے کی کوشش کررہے تھے۔ ہم دوسرا اور تیسرا مطالبہ تسلیم نہیں کرسکتے تھے ۔ہم امریکہ کو اپنی فضائی حدود میں کھلی پروازوں اور لینڈنگ کے حقوق اپنے سٹرٹیجک اثاثوں کو خطرے میں ڈا ل کر بھلا کیسے دے سکتے تھے؟ میں نے ایک کو ریڈور فراہم کرنے کی پیشکش کی جو ہمارے حساس علاقوں سے خاصے فاصلے پر تھا ہم امریکہ کو اپنی سرحدوں پر نیول پورٹس، ائیر بیسز اور سٹرٹیجک مقامات کے اعتدال کی اجازت بھی نہیں دے سکتے تھے ہم نے نیول پورٹس اور فائٹر طیارو ں کے اڈے دینے سے انکار کردیا ہم نے امریکہ کو بلوچستان میں شمسی اور سندھ میں جیک آباد کے دواڈوں کے صرف لاجسٹکس اور ائیر کرافٹ ریکوری کے استعمال کی اجازت دی ان اڈوں سے کوئی حملہ نہیں کیاجاسکتا تھا ہم نے کسی بھی مقصد کیلئے ” بلینکٹ پرمیشن“ نہیں دی۔ ہم باقی مطالبات پورے کرسکتے تھے اور مجھے خوشی ہے کہ امریکہ نے کسی اعتراض کے بغیر ہماری جوابی تجویز قبول کرلی

۔ میں اپنے اوپر لگائے جانے والے اس الزام پر حیران ہوں کہ میں نے کولن پاول کی ایک فون کال پر امریکہ کی تمام شرائط مان لیں جبکہ انہوں نے مجھے کوئی شرائط پیش ہی نہیں کیں۔ یہ شرائط تیسرے روز امریکی سفیر لائی تھیں۔ میں نے اپنا فیصلہ کرنے کے بعد اسے کابینہ کے سامنے پیش کیا پھر میں نے سوسائٹی کے مختلف طبقوں سے ملاقاتیں شروع کیں18ستمبر اور3 اکتوبر کے درمیان میں نے دانشوروں ، ممتاز ایڈیٹروں ،کالم نگاروں، ماہرین تعلیم، قبائلی سرداروں، طلباءاور لیبر یونین کے رہنماﺅں سے ملاقاتیں کیں

۔18اکتوبر کو میں نے چینی وفد سے بھی ملاقات کی اور فیصلے پر تبادلہ خیال کیا اس کے بعد میں ملک بھر کی فوجی چھاﺅنیوں میں گیا اور فوجیوں سے بات چیت کی اس طرح میں نے اپنے فیصلے پر وسیع اتفاق رائے پیدا کیا۔ یہ ان تمام ممکنہ نقصانات کا تجزیہ تھا جو ہمیں امریکہ کے خلاف فیصلہ کرنے کی صورت میں اٹھانے پڑتے اس طرح میں نے ان سماجی اقتصادی اور فوجی فوائد کا تجزیہ کیا جو مغرب سے اتحادی کے باعث ہمیں حاصل ہوسکتے تھے میں نے دانشمندی پر مبنی اپنے فیصلے کی تمام تفصیلات بیان کردی ہیں اور اب مجھے اپنے اس فیصلے پر کوئی پچھتاوا نہیں ہے پاکستان کے وسیع مفاد میں یہ درست فیصلہ تھا مجھے یقین ہے کہ پاکستانیوں کی اکثریت اس سے اتفاق کرے گی۔

FULL VIDEO  at CNN

PIERS MORGAN: Pakistan is one of the United States’ most crucial allies in the war on terror. But now there are tough questions on both sides about that relationship. Joining me now, the one time, perhaps future president of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf. Mr. President, thank you for joining me.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, FORMER PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN: Thank you.

MORGAN: Quite clearly, there is a problem in the relationship between America and Pakistan right now. A lot of it centers around the discovery that Osama bin Laden was living right in the middle of what appeared to be a intelligence compound for all this time. How would you describe the relationship as it stands?

MUSHARRAF: There certainly is a trust deficit, but it has been persisting since the last one year. Not because of OBL alone — Osama alone. There were incidents of mistrust in the past. Therefore, the final culmination was this, that there was total mistrust, and therefore Pakistan was not even told. And as people take it, there was a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. Therefore, it has led to a lot of more misunderstanding. I think — which is extremely detrimental to the cause of fighting against terror.

MORGAN: I mean, there’s no doubt that most world leaders now say that Pakistan has become the center for world terror. Do you accept that?

MUSHARRAF: To an extent, yes. But the real fight is in Afghanistan. If we can win in Afghanistan, we will win in Pakistan also. It is not vice versa. If we win in Pakistan, Afghanistan still stays.

So I don’t believe that. There is no doubt that the situation in Pakistan is more complicated, in that there is al Qaeda, there is Taliban. And Taliban spreading Talibanization into settled district. And then there’s extremists in our society.

And then there are Mujahadeen who are involved with Kashmir in India, all of them developing a nexus. So the situation is more complicated in Pakistan, all right.

MORGAN: Is it — but there is obvious frustration and concern in America, not least because, of course, Was Pakistan has a reputed — at least 100 nuclear weapons. If the country continues to deteriorate in terms of stability, this becomes a very dangerous situation for the world.

MUSHARRAF: If Pakistan disintegrates, then it can be dangerous. Otherwise, if Pakistan’s integrity is there, and which I’m sure it will be there as long as the armed forces of Pakistan are there, there is no danger of the nuclear assets or strategic assets falling in any terrorist hands.

MORGAN: We talked about disintegration, it is all relative, isn’t it? I mean, 35,000 Pakistani people have been killed in terror related incidents since 9/11. There are suicide bombings every week now in Pakistan. To a neutral observer, it does appear that you country, Pakistan, is going through a form of disintegration.

MUSHARRAF: I wouldn’t call it disintegration. As I said, the armed forces of Pakistan keep the unity and the — and the four provinces of Pakistan certainly are not looking for separation. But, therefore, there’s no doubt in my mind that disintegration will not be possible.

And therefore, any — outside world, I would like to say also — understands that disintegration of Pakistan already harmed the integrity of Pakistan, will really be extremely dangerous for — for the world — for the region and world.

MORGAN: You understand why President Obama and his administration feel pretty angry when they discover that the most wanted terrorist in American history is living right in the heart of Pakistan, right next to a military base? I mean, it defies credibility. I’m not saying that you knew anything, but certainly that nobody at any high level in Pakistan had any idea that Osama bin Laden was there.

MUSHARRAF: I don’t think anyone had an idea. I don’t think so.

MORGAN: You worked — you worked in that compound. You worked in the base, next to the compound in Abbottabad for two and a half years.

MUSHARRAF: Yes.

MORGAN: Is it credible that no one else in that base, in all this time, would have had any idea?

MUSHARRAF: Well, that’s a very — when you say I worked there — no, I was trained there. I was a cadet when I got in the army.

MORGAN: That means you know it very well.

MUSHARRAF: Yeah.

MORGAN: You know where that house is. You know the proximity.

MUSHARRAF: Yes.

MORGAN: I’m not suggesting that you knew for a moment. What I’m suggesting is does it seem likely to you, with all these military intelligence people around this compound, that nobody knew anything?

MUSHARRAF: There’s normal. All the military intelligence people, there must have been a detachment, headed by a major or a lieutenant colonel and a few people, about eight ten, people. That is the detachment anywhere, all over Pakistan.

It is not that there was swarming with intelligence people around. Not at all. And the — the issue — yes, indeed. It is a terrible mishap. It’s a terrible failure. But to think that there was complicity at the strategic level, at the government level, is — is certainly not there.

The people around, thousands of them living around this house, they also didn’t know that Osama bin Laden is inside. So I really — I have certain reservations on this issue, whether he was there for five years. I can’t imagine that.

But if we were there, well, again, it was a great failure, failure of the intelligence detachments over there who should have known.

MORGAN: Hold that thought, Mr. President. Coming up, more on the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MORGAN: Back now with General Pervez Musharraf, the former president of Pakistan. If you had been the president of Pakistan when this raid took place, would you have been entirely comfortable with what the Americans did, in terms of dropping Navy SEALS into the compound, killing Osama bin Laden on the sovereign soil, not telling anybody in the Pakistani government? Would you have been happy about that?

MUSHARRAF: No, not at all. Not at all. Not the least. In fact, in my time, it was very, very clear that we don’t want anybody to intrude across cross borders, no force. We decided on intelligence cooperation. All the dozens of al Qaeda people that we got, all the important ones, were intelligence cooperation. Locate them, identify them.

But the action was invariably by Pakistan forces. Never did any outside –

MORGAN: How would you have reacted if you had been Pakistan’s president?

MUSHARRAF: Well, I would have certainly reacted, very angrily. This is a violation of our sovereignty.

MORGAN: Is it, therefore, illegal what the Americans did?

MUSHARRAF: It is absolutely illegal, yes.

MORGAN: So it was an unlawful assassination?

MUSHARRAF: Now you are getting into the legality of — he was a world class risk. He has caused –

MORGAN: I’m referring to the mission itself. If, as you say, it was an illegal raid on sovereign territory, therefore it becomes an illegal, unlawful assassination. It can’t be anything else.

MUSHARRAF: Well, I think that — I — I don’t want to get involved in these legalities of the issue.

MORGAN: You did say — that’s why I asked you if you thought it was illegal. If it is illegal, then the killing of bin Laden becomes an unlawful assassination.

MUSHARRAF: — killing. I will agree.

So what would you have done if you had been president? You have this unlawful assassination, as you see it, on your sovereign soil. What could Pakistan — what should Pakistan have done?

MUSHARRAF: Well, I don’t think I would have looked at it from international law point of view or legalities or jurisprudence points of view. Here is a terrorist who needed to be death with. There’s no doubt he should have been dealt with.

The modality used was wrong. It should have been Pakistan forces to deal with it. U.S. forces violated our sovereignty. And certainly it would have — it would certainly have brought a very bad name. My reputation within my own people would have gone down.

Therefore, any leader in Pakistan allowing this — his own reputation is at stake, and rightly so. Therefore, I would have — wouldn’t have liked it, objected. But I would not have objected to the killing of Osama bin Laden, whether it was violation of any law or –

MORGAN: What you would have liked is the American administration to have informed you.

MUSHARRAF: Yes.

MORGAN: And possibly included Pakistani forces in the raid. Is that what you are saying?

MUSHARRAF: No. I would have certainly insisted that it be Pakistan’s special forces going to deal with it.

MORGAN: Here is the problem. You are President Obama; you know there has been a breakdown in trust between Pakistan and America at a high level. The trust is not what it used to be. There are good reasons for that.

You get intelligence that Osama bin Laden is in this compound. And you have to make a choice: either we tell the authorities, the government of a country that currently we do not trust, and who we may think — we may suspect know that Osama bin Laden is there, that some of them knew this.

Why, if you are President Obama, could you possibly take the risk under those circumstances of not acting unilaterally?

MUSHARRAF: Well, no Pakistani and no leader in Pakistan will allow this as a justification for any intrusion into Pakistan. Nobody can do that. No country’s leader — would America allow such an action by Mexico or somebody? I mean, let’s treat all countries with sovereign equality.

MORGAN: President Obama said this week on British television for his state visit to Britain that if the same event arose again, he would do the same. If it happens in the future with other known terrorists in al Qaeda, he would take the same action. We have a clear flash point between Pakistan and America.

MUSHARRAF: Yes. I think this is putting the Pakistan leadership and government on the dock. I think it is — it is not a very responsible statement.

MORGAN: You think it is irresponsible for President Obama to say that.

MUSHARRAF: Yes, indeed.

MORGAN: Because it basically implies that America has rights in terms of taking action on this sovereign soil, as in Pakistan, we saw with bin Laden, that it has a right to deal do that, when you say it has no right to do that.

MUSHARRAF: Certainly no country has a right to intrude into any other country. Actually — I mean, if technically or legally you see it, it is an act of war. Therefore, I think it is an irresponsible statement. And I think such arrogance should not be shown publicly to the world.

MORGAN: You think he was arrogant?

MUSHARRAF: I think so. I think it is arrogance that we don’t care. We don’t care for your national opinion. We don’t care for your people. We will come in and do the same thing. This is — this is arrogance.

MORGAN: When you say an act of war, that’s pretty serious language. Would you see another raid by the Americans to get rid of another al Qaeda terrorist in exactly the same circumstances, without informing the Pakistani government — would that be an act of war?

MUSHARRAF: Theoretically, technically, yes, indeed. It is an act of war. Any violation by forces of a country’s sovereignty is an act of war, theoretically. Now how to deal with it is the question. I leave it to the government there how they want to deal with it, diplomatically, through dealing, through protests, or through physical military action and military response.

It could be a serious situation. We must all understand that. The world should understand it. President Obama should understand it.

MORGAN: We will take a short break now. When we come back, I want to talk about your political future and the rumors that you may well launch a new bid to become president again of Pakistan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MORGAN: Back now with General Perez Musharraf, the former president of Pakistan.

Mr. President, there is a growing clamor in Pakistan for you to possibly return in the next election in 2013. Will you consider doing that?

MUSHARRAF: Yes, I have already taken a decision. I did consider the situation in Pakistan. And I saw that there is a requirement of creating another political option. Otherwise, Pakistan is going in the wrong direction.

Therefore, I have made my — formed my own party. And I do intend absolutely to return to Pakistan. I have set the date of 23rd March, 2012, well before the election in 2013. I will.

MORGAN: Do you believe you can win?

MUSHARRAF: Well, I have entered into politics because I do believe I can win. As far as going back as president, that’s an issue. We’ve got a parliamentary form of government. The party has to win. And then if my party wins and has a majority, then one has to decide whether one becomes a prime minister or a president.

MORGAN: You’ve been in this interview quite outspoken about President Obama, called him arrogant, in terms of what happened in the raid on bin Laden. You say it would be an act of war if it happens again. In fact, it already has been.

If you become president, you will know that Pakistan is very reliant at the moment on American aid. Three billion dollars a year is a lot of money. Are you worried that if you ramp up the rhetoric over the search for the terrorists in Pakistan against the Americans, they might respond and say, we’re yanking our money?

MUSHARRAF: Well, first of all, I didn’t say act of war. Yes, technically and theoretically, it is. Any intrusion — I was talking theoretically — it is an act of war. Anybody intruding with force in any other country is an act of war, theoretically.

But I didn’t say that one would like to declare it as an act of war. I think it has very serious repercussions.

MORGAN: The point I was making is obviously, if you create to much of a rift with America, with President Obama, if you go back into power, they won’t forget that. And Pakistan is reliant on this aid money. It’s a lot of money every year.

MUSHARRAF: Money is coming. It is there. It assists Pakistan. There’s no doubt about that. But that doesn’t mean that Pakistan can give up its sovereignty, its national interests.

Now this has to be dealt with in a diplomatic manner. We have to reduce this trust deficit. We have to restore trust. It was there for six or seven years when I was there. We had good trust. And we were taking action. And we were very frank and straight and direct.

MORGAN: Have you always personally been 100 percent honest with America?

:MUSHARRAF: Five hundred percent honest. I don’t believe in dishonesty. I believe in telling a person right straight, because then that is how trust is developed. The moment you are hiding or telling — distorting facts, that is when the trust deficit starts.

MORGAN: Do you believe the current Pakistani administration has been 100% honest?

MUSHARRAF: I don’t know. I don’t know. I can’t comment on that. Certainly, the mistrust is that Pakistan army or the ISI assists the Taliban. And the bone of contention lies in North Waziristan not being attacked and Afghani, who is one of the leaders of this Taliban is not being dealt with.

Now, I don’t know what discussions take place. But if I was there, I would certainly — there has to be a reason why it is not being done, a strategic reason, or maybe it will be done a little later. But whatever it is, the concerns of the United States and the coalition must be given straight and clearly through the United States.

What is the reason that this is not happening? And they must devolve whatever concerns of Pakistan is, absolutely, directly. That is what diplomacy is, really. And we must do that. We will — Pakistan I know will want to address this issue against al Qaeda and Taliban.

All that is happening. Isn’t there a disconnect that while everyone accuses the ISI and the army that we are involved with the Taliban, and look at what they are doing. Look at what happened in this base, the naval base. And look at what has been happening all around.

But yet we are being blamed that we are with the Taliban. And the Taliban are doing this to the army. They have attacked our general headquarters. Isn’t there some disconnect? Isn’t there something wrong in this logic?

Obviously, there is something wrong in the logic. The problem is that there’s maybe — maybe I’m saying people are not talking straight and up front.

MORGAN: The problem in the logic comes when you discover that Osama bin Laden is in the middle of Pakistan, because clearly to the Americans, a lot of them will be thinking this is not a coincidence. He’s either been harbored there or somebody knew he was there. Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense.

So I think the problem with the Taliban relationship with Pakistan is it becomes suspicious. MUSHARRAF: No, if this was the case, it doesn’t stand with logic. If there was complicity, and he’s there for five years, I get directly involved. That means I was complicit. I would like to give a logical –

MORGAN: Had you been president –

MUSHARRAF: Let me complete this. Now, if that was the case, I would like — I would have wanted to take leverage out of it. When I was at the receiving end in the 2007, I should have done something with this Osama bin Laden card and gained advantage.

So obviously it is illogical. It is not the case. May I also add –

MORGAN: You mean you would have traded the information that you had bin Laden?

MUSHARRAF: I would have done something to turn the tables in my favor.

MORGAN: You wouldn’t have just handed him over to the Americans?

MUSHARRAF: I don’t know.

MORGAN: Wouldn’t that be the responsible thing to do?

MUSHARRAF: I would have used this card to my favor. That is what I’m saying. I wouldn’t have left it to the next government. You hand him over to the next government.

MORGAN: Can I just question the ethics of that for a moment? If you’re a layman like me, and you say you would have used the existence of bin Laden in Pakistan to your advantage –

MUSHARRAF: You must understand my logic. I’m saying if I was complicit, if I knew, I would have done that. If I was being analytical that I knew and I’m harboring and hiding him, I would have done this maybe.

MORGAN: If you had known for a fact where bin Laden was, would you have handed him over to America?

MUSHARRAF: Let’s not get into the details of something which didn’t happen. Obviously –

MORGAN: Well, it might happen again. That’s why I’m asking.

MUSHARRAF: I can’t answer you right away. It’s not a simple question/answer issue. It’s a very serious issue.

MORGAN: Let me make it simple. Bin laden is dead. If you go back into power and you become president again, and you discover that a senior member of al Qaeda, who has without any doubt been committing atrocities, is living in another compound near Karachi or somewhere, would you tell the Americans? MUSHARRAF: I would like to take action. Why should I tell the Americans? However, there is intelligence cooperation. Even finding that man out, in my time, it was always — intelligence had always been cooperating.

Technical intelligence has — are more with the United States. So to locate a person, it was always been in ISI and CIA together.

So they would know already. And if they don’t know, yes, indeed, I would like to inform them, but take action myself,

MORGAN: Mr. President, thank you very much indeed.

*** END OF INTERVIEW ***

Pervez Musharraf on Facebook, “The accusation of my having allowed intrusion into Pakistan by US forces chasing Osama Bin Laden is absolutely baseless. Never has this subject even been discussed between myself and President Bush leave aside allowing such freedom of action that would violate our sovereignty.”

Former President General (retired) Pervez Musharraf called the operation by US forces to kill al Qaeda leader and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad near Islamabad a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.  ”America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty. Handling and execution of the operation (by US forces) is not correct. The Pakistani government should have been kept in the loop,” Musharraf told CNN-IBN in an exclusive interview. ”Foreign troops crossing the border into Pakistan will not be liked by the people of Pakistan. US forces should not have crossed over into Pakistan,” he said.

General Musharraf on OBL, Guardian report, 911, Indian aggression of PAK airspace v/s USA violation

 General Musharraf: US Strike on Osama Violated Pakistan’s National Soverenighty – IBN Live

Musharraf: Raid Violated Pakistani Sovereignty? – Associated Press

Pervez Musharraf Views Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden death – ARY News

 Pervez Musharraf’s views on Osama Bin Laden’s Operation in Abbotabad at Express News

Pervez Musharraf’s views on Osama Bin Laden’s Operation in Abbotabad at Dawn News

Pervez Musharraf’s views on Osama Bin Laden’s Operation in Abbotabad at Waqt News

Pervez Musharraf’s views on Osama Bin Laden’s Operation in Abbotabad in “Aaj Kamran Khan Kay Sath

Pervez Musharraf’s views on Osama Bin Laden’s Operation in Abbotabad in “Laiken” at Geo News

Musharraf on Osama -  Bloomberg

Excl: Musharraf says ISI did not hide Osama – Times Now

Gen. Musharraf: No proof bin Laden was in Pakistan – CBS News Online

Former Pakistani president, Gen.Pervez Musharraf speaks to Al Jazeera

 Musharraf on CNN

AP – ISLAMABAD (AP) — Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf denied Tuesday that his administration struck an agreement with the United States years ago to let American special forces kill or capture Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan.

The denial follows a report in a British newspaper that Washington and Islamabad reached a secret deal nearly a decade ago allowing the U.S. to conduct operations against bin Laden and two other top al-Qaida leaders on Pakistani soil.

“Pervez Musharraf has seen a media report, and let me make it clear that no such agreement had been signed during his tenure,” said Musharraf’s spokesman, Fawad Chaudhry. “Also, there was no verbal understanding.”

U.S. Navy Seals conducted a unilateral operation May 2 inside Pakistan that killed bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist. The pre-dawn raid was viewed by many Pakistanis as a national humiliation delivered by a deeply unpopular America.

In a report published Thursday, The Guardian newspaper, quoting U.S. officials and retired Pakistani officials, said Musharraf and former President George W. Bush struck the agreement after bin Laden escaped U.S. forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001. If such a raid were conducted, the agreement was that Pakistani officials would publicly denounce the U.S. unilateral action.

“The Guardian report is baseless,” Chaudhry said.

In an Associated Press interview in January 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks, who headed the U.S. Central Command at the time, disclosed a deal with Pakistan allowing U.S. troops in Afghanistan to cross the border in pursuit of fugitive extremist leaders, including bin Laden. Pakistan denied such a deal existed.

“If there is any such agreement, the Pakistan government should place it in the parliament, and if there was any agreement, the American government should make it public,” Chaudhry told the AP from Dubai, where the country’s former military ruler is staying.

He added that during his tenure, Musharraf “always rejected the U.S. request about launching raids in Pakistan.”

Former Pakistani President Musharraf Concedes Incompetence in Bin Laden Search, But Denies Hiding 9/11 Mastermind | On the Record

4 May 2011 – GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: What did Pakistan know? And were they double-dealing us? Those are the questions we all have. And earlier today, former Pakistani President Musharraf went “On the Record.”

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: I assume you know many people in the United States are very displeased with your country that many Americans are suspicious that your country hid Usama bin Laden or that they — or that your country was incompetent in finding Usama bin Laden. What do you say, sir?

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, FORMER PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN: I can accept the second accusation, but hiding him I cannot accept, and I’m very, very sure it was not being done or ordered by me. And knowing the army, that could not have been the case. Yes, incompetence, I will have to accept, yes. Yes, indeed.

VAN SUSTEREN: How does that happen that your government is incompetent? He was picked up in a garrison city, in a city surrounded by military, and he lived rather in — it was unusual. He lived in a house that was much bigger than everybody else’s, a lot of security. How does this happen right under the nose of your military and your intelligence service?

MUSHARRAF: Well, it is very surprising, indeed. I totally agree. But high security is not an uncommon thing in that part of the country. High walls, bashed wires are a common feature in the frontier province especially. And one doesn’t really — it doesn’t at all that much suspicion as it would in other countries, maybe in the United States.

VAN SUSTEREN: But it’s a bit curious because Khalid Sheik Mohamed, the architect of 9/11, he was picked up under the nose of your intelligence service and military. How does that happen?

MUSHARRAF: Let me tell you that know guerrilla warfare and having studied this, let me say maybe populated areas are the best safe havens actually, maybe better than being in mountains unless the mountain is inaccessible as the tribal areas of Pakistan. Otherwise living in habited areas with a population, a big population, may be the safest place.

VAN SUSTEREN: The reason why I ask you this, sir, the question about the incompetence or whether it was hidden deliberately is because your country, many people in your country are now unhappy with my country because this military operation was done without any knowledge of your country. The people are critical. Is that something you agree with? Are you critical of the United States for not informing your country before we did this operation to get bin Laden?

MUSHARRAF: Well, when you say that many of our people are unhappy with your country, yes, indeed, I think so. You are right. That many people in Pakistan are unhappy with the United States.

But let me tell you when you say that is why they may have hidden a person who has declared war on Pakistan, a person who was involved or his organization was involved in many of the terrorist attacks in Pakistan which have killed hundreds, if not thousands of people.

Now if the army and ISI hid him in Pakistan, they are doing this — if they are fighting Taliban and Al Qaeda, they are doing it for Pakistan. We don’t want those organizations and we don’t want our sovereignty actually violated by those people. So people may be disliking the United States, but that doesn’t mean that their own enemy will be harbored by the army and ISI which has suffered at their hands.

VAN SUSTEREN: I might be more in agreement with you, sir, if it weren’t for the fact that your country, the ISI, is protecting the Haqqani network, which is a division of the tell ban, in the northern part of your country. So when you protect them and you are trying to avoid us getting them and they are killing American forces, it’s hard to believe that you are a full partner with us.

MUSHARRAF: Well, I think Haqqani is the son of a person who has been a great revolutionary and fought the Soviets. Now I don’t at all know, when you say we are supporting or protecting them, I don’t think that is also correct. That may not be.

But merely not operating and going against the Haqqani people does not mean that Pakistan army or ISI is supporting him, supporting them through attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan. There may be a very good reason for the army not to be operating in north Waziristan. One of the reasons I can believe is they don’t want to open too many fronts.

The army is overstretched at the moment. They are operating in areas of Pakistan and we had to go into Swat, the army had to go in again, and they have pacified Swat and the other agency. And then they had to go into so many other tasks also that they were involved in floods also, and they are also looking after the eastern border, so they are overstretched.

So why do we not believe the tactical deployment of the army to themselves. And they are in in favor of Taliban and Al Qaeda? What kind of a deduction is this? This is not a correct deduction.

VAN SUSTEREN: That is not my deduction. I’m taking that from Admiral Mullen who met with General Kayani will three weeks ago and he met and said your intelligence service is protecting Haqqani. I know it is you are stretched too thin. But my country, our admiral says the drone can go in there and deal with the Taliban with Haqqani but your country is resisting and there’s a drone feud between our two countries because there’s a lack of cooperation, a lack of complete partnership because Haqqani, it’s our thinking, is protected by your ISI because you are using it as a proxy against India.

MUSHARRAF: Let’s not get involved with India. I don’t think Haqqani is being used as a proxy against India. In India there are other groups. And they are involved in India. And there is great sentiment in Pakistan to join in these groups and go across the border into Kashmir and fight the Indian army but I don’t see them involved in that.

The other point is acting against the Haqqani group, I don’t know if the army support — I can’t imagine they are supporting the Haqqani group to fight you across the border. I don’t think that is true. I don’t know what the army told the Admiral Mullen, but I don’t think we are supporting it. I am sure that they wouldn’t be supporting it. But they may not be acting against him. That doesn’t mean that they are supporting him.

VAN SUSTEREN: Here’s more with former president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VAN SUSTEREN: What’s reported in our news is Admiral Mullen said at the core of the difficulties between our countries, and that also relates to our upset with your country about finding bin Laden there, is this whole Haqqani network and the fact they are killing Americans, and we kind resistance to us trying to go in and to get rid of this network that is killing our forces and making it difficult for the fight in Afghanistan.

MUSHARRAF: You talk about drones and making it difficult — you see fighting in Afghanistan is the coalition’s job and an national army job. We have to have success there.

And now from this side, yes, we need to fight on this side. But these people going across the border and crossing and reinforcing the Taliban on the one side, or they come from Afghanistan and they go back to Afghanistan.

I would like to say that this crossing, intercrossing on the boarder is equally the responsibility of Pakistan and coalition forces, U.S. forces and others to check. Why is the responsibility entirely of Pakistan to check this group? So it is equally the responsibility of coalition forces across the border.

Now on our side, this drone issue, you said we are not allowing it. This is the sensitivity of the people of Pakistan. If you are that keen about using drones, why don’t you give the drones to Pakistan, by the way? Give the drones to the Pakistani army.

VAN SUSTEREN: I will give you a good example why not. I will give you an example why we don’t give the drones to Pakistan. When you started the interview you admitted that it was incompetent that bin Laden was found in your country. So why would we surrender your drones to the military when we don’t have a lot of confidence right now?

MUSHARRAF: Well, drones, when you are talking of Haqqani group, you are always seeing one negative. But what about other people who are in Pakistan who were apprehended in Pakistan? Why don’t you congratulate us for that? Why don’t you say well done, and well done by ISI or well done by law enforcement agencies.

VAN SUSTEREN: We are delighted that he has been captured, Khalid Sheik Mohamed, we are delight bed that. But when you talk about a partnership, it’s like a marriage. A cheating spouse says why are you complaining about me, I come home every night, I come home to my spouse. We need full partners. The Haqqani network is making it difficult to win in Afghanistan. We need full partners.

MUSHARRAF: We are full partners. We have linkages with Taliban also. We dealt with Baitullah Mehsud in the south who was also Taliban. So we have pacified them. They were also going across. And why are we, yes, indeed, Haqqani is the last man, one man that is creating a lot of agitation in the minds of people in the United States. I do understand.

I don’t know the strategic planning or the planning of the army of moving into north Waziristan and acting against this Haqqani. I’m not privy to it. I don’t know. But what I know is the army, maybe they are staying their time to handle the situation.

But your conclusion that Pakistan is supporting is wrong. Pakistan cannot be supporting the Haqqani group. It may not be acting against them. Yes, you can accuse them of that and they must give some good reason why they are not acting against it.

Osama bin Laden dead: Pervez Musharraf jogged in area during military training

The Telegraph – Pervez Musharraf, the former Pakistan president, has said he frequently ran by the area in which Osama bin Laden had been living for the last six years.

The World should not forget Pakistan’s sacrifices: Pervez Musharraf

Hours after the 9/11 aerial strikes, he was asked to make a choice. “You are with us or against us,” the then US secretary of state Colin Powel told him. Pervez Musharraf , then the president of Pakistan, didn’t have much of a choice. He joined forces with the US in the war on terror as Osama bin Laden forged ahead with his mission: Talibinisation of Pakistan. Nearly a decade later, the US’s hunt for its most wanted man has ended in the heartland of Pakistan, barely 50 km from capital Islamabad where bin Laden was shot dead in a special operation. Musharraf, who now lives in exile, in Dubai, is a worried man. One can’t discredit Pakistan and still fight terror, he tells Soma Banerjee.

What would you have done if you were the head of state in Pakistan today?

This wouldn’t have happened if I were the head of state. It is Pakistan’s security forces that should initiate such a military action, not foreign troops. During my regime, our forces have hunted down high-value targets, aided by the US and other countries, but each operation inside the country was carried out by Pakistani soldiers. It is embarrassing for Pakistan if it was unaware of the American operation against Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad.

What is your message to the world, the sub-continent (India and Afghanistan) and to terrorist groups?

Pakistan has played the role of a frontline state to save the world from terror. Secret agencies of all countries had been struggling unsuccessfully to trace Osama bin Laden for the past ten years. Now, just because Osama is killed inside Pakistan, it doesn’t mean that the world should forget our sacrifices. Some countries have said that Pakistan is a haven for terrorists. I would like to clarify that the world cannot achieve desired results against terrorist elements by discrediting Pakistan.

Do you think the US could have conducted this operation without the knowledge of Pakistan’s government?

I am not certain whether Pakistan’s ruling government was informed or not about this operation. However, in view of the prevailing information, it seems that the leadership of Pakistan was not taken into confidence prior to this operation. No doubt the American military operation has achieved great success, but they have also violated Pakistan’s sovereignty by trespassing into the country’s territory.

Is the world a safer place after bin Laden’s death?

The death of Osama will not hurt the nefarious activities of radical elements. On the other hand, they will become more cautious. The death of Osama bin Laden cannot be considered as a satisfactory achievement for becoming relaxed.

Is this more of a symbolic achievement?

No doubt, bin Laden’s killing was a great achievement, but as I have already pointed out, we need to become more cautious and to annul the war on terror the world should acknowledge the sacrifices that Pakistanis have made.

What are the mistakes the US have made in Afghanistan?

The US has committed enormous mistakes in Afghanistan and Pakistan has had to face the music as a result of these mistakes. Time is now ripe to correct those mistakes. An American exit at this juncture from Afghanistan will further heighten the crisis in Afghanistan.

More than half the population of Afghanistan comprises Pashtoons-and when the Americans transferred power in Afghanistan, they ignored the Pashtoons. It’s a reality that all the Talibans are Pashtoons, but it’s also a reality that all Pashtoons are not Talibans. In my opinion peace cannot be restored in Afghanistan without the cooperation of the Pashtoons. After the fall of the Russians in Afghanistan, America left Afghanis in the lurch. It would be a repetition of the same mistake if the Americans dramatically exit the country. It will only heighten the crisis in Afghanistan.

You have tried to help improve ties with India. How do you rate the current state of affairs and what is your view on the bilateral ties?

It’s a reality that India is our neighboring country and geographical locations cannot be changed. Both countries need to address their burning issues, including Kashmir through political dialogue. When I was in government, both countries had agreed to resolve outstanding issues through peaceful dialogue and the ruling government of Pakistan is now pursuing my policies.

What are the challenges ahead?

Terrorists are still present in the region and in my opinion, bin Laden was only a symbol and he has nothing to do with the activities of terrorists. The war on terror can only be won by the elimination of these terrorist elements.

Did you, as head of Pakistan, face pressure from terrorist groups like the al Qaeda or Taliban to maintain distance with countries such as India?

I am a commando. Being a part of Pakistan’s military, I never surrendered before terrorists during my regime. I took every decision by prioritising the interests of my country. There may have been pressure from the terrorists, but I never let them bother me. I have not taken any decision under their pressure.

What do you think of the Indo-Pak cricket diplomacy?

Both Pakistan and India cannot deny the importance of cricket diplomacy as it can work wonders to bring the people and governments of both the countries closer.

If you had a chance to rewrite history, would you have redrawn the map to make India and Pakistan one nation?

Why? Muslims and Hindus have never been a one-nation in the subcontinent

US strike violates Pak sovereignty: Musharraf

New Delhi:Former Pakistan president General (retired) Pervez Musharraf called the operation by US forces to kill al Qaeda leader and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad near Islamabad a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

“If there is a lack of trust, it is bad. We are fighting the same enemy. It is wrong strategically and the issue of lack of trust is very bad. There has to be trust between the two agencies fighting the same enemy,” he replied when asked if US claims that Pakistan was not kept in the loop about the operation against bin Laden were true.

He rubbished speculations that some Pakistani authorities were helping bin Laden and they helped him during his stay in Abbottabad, which incidentally also has the Pakistan Military Academy.

“There is no possibility of any local administration collusion but there could be involvement of some locals. There is an intelligence failure on Pakistan’s part. I don’t know whether Osama was staying there or coming and going. However, a house so close to the military establishment is a failure of intelligence of both US and Pakistan. Pakistan intelligence doesn’t have the resource that US intelligence has,” he said.

While claiming that bin Laden’s death was a victory for the peace-loving people of the world, he also cautioned that just the battle has been won but war against terror continues.

“It’s a victory for the peace loving people in Pakistan and world. His killing is a big victory,” he added

Musharraf: Bin Laden hideout not Pakistan ISI’s fault

CBS NEWS – 3 May 2011

When Gen. Pervez Musharraf was the man in charge of Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden was already living in the compound where he was killed.

Amid a growing controversy about how much Pakistani authorities knew about bin Laden, and when they knew it, CBS News correspondent Lara Logan spoke to Musharraf in Dubai, where he now lives. For his part, Musharrak insists that nobody knew.

Musharraf: “I do agree that (the news about bin Laden in Pakistan) is surprising and a lot of people in Pakistan are not believing that. This is unfortunate. It needs to be investigated. Who slipped up? Why this negligence?”

Logan: “You are really asking people to believe that this all happened without the knowledge of the intelligence services and the military and that it came as a complete surprise?”

Musharraf: “Yes, yes, I am saying that and I mean every word of it.”

Logan: “It’s just very hard to believe that Osama bin Laden could have spent all this time in Pakistan, living right under your noses and nobody would have known about it?”

Musharraf: “Why you continuously saying that? I think instead of wasting time on this issue, let us agree to disagree on this point. I don’t agree.”

The general also disagreed when he was interviewed on “60 Minutes” in 2008. He was pressed on what Pakistan was doing to find bin Laden. This is what he said then: “There is no proof whatsoever that he is here.”

After the capture of bin Laden in Pakistan, and the revelation that the terrorist leader had been living there for several years, Musharraf said: “I don’t remember at all having said that he surely will not be in Pakistan.”

Logan: “You said there was no proof that he was in Pakistan.”

Musharraf: “Yes, there was no proof, obviously, and those who were saying he was in Pakistan, I don’t think they were talking with any evidence.”

Musharraf vigorously defended Pakistan’s past efforts to track down al Qaeda leaders.

Musharraf: “We have achieved successes and that should be recognized. If we continuously keep blaming the army and the ISI for what they have not been able to do, well, if they haven’t been able to do it then it’s CIA’s failure also.”

Logan: “Do you know of any other terrorist leaders wanted by the U.S. that are sheltering in your country?”

Musharraf: “Well, there may be more. Yes, there may be. Yes.”

Al Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Taliban leader Mullah Omar are just two of the senior terrorist leaders believed to be based inside Pakistan at the moment.

Musharraf: Bin Laden death positive; sees retaliation

(Reuters) – Pakistan’s former military ruler Pervez Musharraf called Osama bin Laden’s death on Monday a “positive step” but criticized the United States for launching the raid on the al Qaeda leader within his country’s borders.

Musharraf, who lost power in 2008, told Reuters that Pakistani intelligence ought to have known bin Laden was living near Islamabad. He also said al Qaeda supporters may take revenge against the United States and Pakistan.

Describing the killing as a victory for the people of Pakistan, Musharraf said: “It’s a very positive step and it will have positive long-term implications.”

“Today we won a battle, but the war against terror will continue,” Musharraf said in Dubai, where he has a home.

Bin Laden died in the garrison town of Abbottabad, 35 miles north of Islamabad, where U.S. forces tracked down the al Qaeda leader who had eluded capture for years.

Musharraf said, however, that the operation had infringed on his nation’s sovereignty: “It’s a violation to have crossed Pakistan’s borders,” he said in an interview.

Musharraf also criticized Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus for failing to find bin Laden, whose group staged the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

“It’s an intelligence failure,” said Musharraf, who quit office to avoid impeachment charges. “The intelligence ought to have known.”

Pakistani authorities were told the details of the raid on bin Laden only after it had taken place, highlighting a lack of trust between Washington and Islamabad.

Musharraf called bin Laden’s decision to hide near the capital, rather than in the remote regions of the country where he was thought to be hiding, “an intelligent act.”

At the same time, Musharraf admitted that the attack came at a time when al Qaeda’s influence in Pakistan — a front line in the United States’ fight against Islamist militancy — had been replaced by growing Taliban influence.

“Osama is a person who declared war on Pakistan and many of the terrorist acts have been linked with al Qaeda, therefore it’s a victory for Pakistan,” said Musharraf.

Musharraf, who took office in 1999 through a bloodless coup, two years before the attacks on U.S. soil in 2001, repeated his pledge to return to Pakistan before the next elections, due by 2013. He said he did not expect to face arrest if he returns, but has admitted that he fears assassination attempts.

Musharraf criticises Osama raid

DUBAI, May 7: Former president Pervez Musharraf has slammed the United States for violating Pakistan`s sovereignty in carrying out the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, a media report said on Saturday.

The former military strongman told the expatriate Pakistan community in Dubai that all “peace loving people” should be happy that Bin Laden was killed, but no Pakistani accepted the violation of their sovereignty.

“…no country will accept such a violation by the US, which undermines Pakistan`s sovereignty, army and intelligence,” Gen Musharraf was quoted as saying in The National daily. “This is not acceptable to any Pakistani individual.”

However, Gen Musharraf insisted that Pakistan and the US must work together to eliminate terrorism.—AFP

Pervez Musharraf and Wife in Reema Show Part 01/03

Pervez Musharraf and Wife in Reema Show Part 02/03

Pervez Musharraf and Wife in Reema Show Part 03/03

CUOMO: So let’s get right to it. Intelligence now suggests that OBL had been in this compound for at least 5 to 6 years. That would put him in the compound while you were president. So I ask you, how could you not have known that OBL was somewhere so easy to find?

MUSHARRAF: Well, it is indeed a big, uh, blunder. It’s a big slip up for the intelligence, but I really doubt (inaudible) is clear. It doesn’t appeal to my logic. And you say, I mean how come so many people around the house who all recognize OBL, it’s a household name everywhere in most of the world, how come they didn’t know OBL was there? So this is a very nagging doubt in my mind. That this isn’t logically possible.

CUOMO: Well, two things. On the logic of it Mr. President, two things for you to put into your thinking. One, they have video excerpts of OBL making tapes, practicing for tapes, that put him in the same room over that period, that helps develop the understanding that he was there, and why do you assume that people would have said anything if they knew he were there? That’s the big doubt whether the Pakistani people and intelligence were willing to out OBL

MUSHARRAF: Well, let me tell you where he was. This city, Abbattabad, I know very well. People there are not at all pro-Taliban or pro-al Qaeda. They are not the religious extremist kind. I am very sure that people would have indicated that he was there. Uh, this is not the tribal agency(??) of Pakistan. And the people here, I know, are very very different. But ethnically, they distinguish themselves from the Pashtoons very, very much.

CUOMO: Okay, so let’s take the people out of it. Let’s say they were innocent in this. That takes us to the intelligence and the military. You told me in our first interview that he was in the tribal regions, that you knew this, that only the Pakistani military could get him. Who gave you bad information about where OBL was?

MUSHARRAF: I wonder if I said so calmly that he was in the tribal region. He could be, he could be, in fact that may have been very early stages. Any particular, specific intelligence that I had. But after the operation, that al Qaeda and Taliban fled into Pakistan, into our cities and mountains. I presumed that he may be there. Could be there.

CUOMO: Are you suspicious of your intelligence officials and the leaders you had around you that somebody was keeping this quiet, somebody was helping him stay hidden when he winds up in such an obvious place?

MUSHARRAF: Yes, it’s a very obvious thing. It’s really appalling that he was there and nobody knew. I’m certainly appalled that I didn’t know and that intelligence people from that time onward didn’t know for 6 years that he was inside. And there is no excuse for this great, massive slip up. And an investigation is in order and, uh, people must be punished for this big lapse

MUSHARRAF: This is the assertion being cast on our intelligence agency and the army. And I very strongly believe this is, will not, this is not the case. As a policy, the army and the ISI fighting terrorism and extremism, al Qaeda, taliban. But rogue element within is a possibility. But for 6 years, let me tell you, the attachment commander in that area, could be of the rank of a major, uh, they would have changed about 3 times because we pull officers out in about 2 years. So I can’t imagine that if there was all of them following which was also not a possibility. So my conclusion, really, from all points of view, although I do understand it’s very difficult to believe for any al Qaeda that people didn’t know. It is a big slip up.

CUOMO: Do you believe, you keep using the word slip up, I mean it sounds like it couldn’t have been a slip up. Its too obvious. He was there too long. He’s too high profile. Do you believe it was a slip up, or do you think you need to investigate and find who was helping to hide OBL

MUSHARRAF: Well, one way to find out, if that is the case, as I said, it is not the policy, it is not the policy of the ISI or the army (inaudible) and I’m very sure of that. Because it’s not in our interest. Its not in Pakistan’s interest. Pakistan’s army has at their hands. Pakistan’s ISI has at their hands. So therefore they couldn’t be, at the policy level and the strategic level, be supporting them and, uh, hiding them there.

CUOMO: Would you be surprised to find out that a Pakistani official or intelligence operative had been helping OBL? Would that shock you?

MUSHARRAF: Well, the possibility as I said, at the lower level, somebody following a policy of his own and violating the policy from above, is a possibility.

CUOMO: Why do you feel the US thought it was necessary to have backup commandos anticipating that Pakistani military might attack them on the way out of the OBL compound?

MUSHARRAF: Well, I don’t think that is the case.

CUOMO: That is the case! That’s what they thought might happen, thats why they had the commandos. What do you think of that concern?

MUSHARRAF: The commandos where? Who had the commandos?

CUOMO: That the United States felt that it needed backup forces in anticipation of Pakistan military firing on them when they were found to be in OBL’s compound.

MUSHARRAF: And therefore they had backup from whom? From their own forces? Well, it is a normal military operation, a sting operation like that, a commando operation like that, always has a strategy and it is always, I mean, I know there has to be a “stay behind party” as we used to call it…

CUOMO: Did the United States have a reason to be concerned

MUSHARRAF: Let me finish what I am saying. (CC – Go ahead, please.) The stay behind team’s job is to counter anybody who may interfere with the force. And therefore I think that is a normal drill. So therefore now Pakistan army firing, well certainly it was a violation of our sovereignty and I, I don’t know if there were armed troops, armed troops around and if they saw some helicopters firing in a house without knowing who they are dealing with, there was a possibility of a clash like that and firing from the Pakistani troops on ground could have taken place.

CUOMO: Mr. President, you say there could have been a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, but didn’t you have a deal in place with the administration while you were president allowing for a unilateral attack by the United States if they had actionable intelligence to where OBL was?

MUSHARRAF: Never! And this is the assertion being cast by the Guardian and I rejected that. I condemn such an insinuation. This has been done by a reporter in Pakistan and I’m looking into what action can be taken against him.

CUOMO: Comes from a general. Tommy Franks gave the information that there was a deal in place with you that if the U.S. knew where Bin Laden was, they could go in unilaterally… and backed up by Condoleezza Rice.

MUSHARRAF: I didn’t read that. I didn’t read that Tommy Franks had said that. I read that some report, some sources in Pakistan had given this information to this reporter. And, anybody getting up and saying something, this was thought of earlier. And I wonder at this critical stage why this came up. So therefore I, I suspect, uh, doing, I suspect some conspiracy behind it, some people behind it to say that. In any case, I challenge anybody to produce some evidence. And I do not accept anybody getting up and saying there was a deal. There was no such deal. And that was in 2001 between me and President Bush. I personally was trying to cast my mind back to 2001 after 9/11 and in those 3, 2 and a half months left, after September 2001, I do not remember, recollect, that I even spoke to President Bush. And besides, we didn’t even discuss this issue about allowing such an action.

CUOMO: Right now there’s word that Pakistani officials won’t allow US officials back in the compound. Do you think this is a good decision?

MUSHARRAF: Definitely, that was a good decision. I don’t think we can accept, no government can accept a violation of their sovereignty.

CUOMO: But why is it a violation of sovereignty? This man who has been plotting to kill Americans since and before 9/11, enemy number 1, a huge foundation for our relationship with Pakistan, was finding this man. We find him in a curious location, take him out, now we want to go back to the compound. You say no. What kind of friend is that?

MUSHARRAF: What kind of friend is that, that you haven’t taken us into confidence?

CUOMO: When we find him in your military’s backyard, it makes us a little suspicious, doesn’t it?

MUSHARRAF: Well you are not conscious about sensitivities. What kind of friend is that? That the people are rising against the army and I, what kind of friendship is that?

CUOMO: Do you believe that the US should have gone about this a different way, even though OBL was sitting in the backyard of your military?

MUSHARRAF: Absolutely because in the previous, in my time, we apprehended three dozen, dozens of al-Qaeda people. It was always intelligence cooperation, whether CIA had it or ISI, we cooperated with each other, we spotted the target, we identified it, and that is all from the American side. It was always, invariably, not one different action. Always Pakistan law enforcement agency, the police, or military. Never did US come in to attack the target. We did it. And we always did it. And that is how we got these dozens of people.

CUOMO: Since the raid, the Pakistanis have said you can’t come into the compound. The Pakistanis have outed the name, identity of the head CIA operative in Pakistan. These seem like hostile actions. Do you think that this is the way forward?

MUSHARRAF: Well the way forward is to be better. You can’t clap with one hand. If you don’t trust Pakistan, how can Pakistan trust you? And let me tell you there is a background to this also. Look at the people, what they have suffered. When we joined, when we joined the coalition, I decided to join the coalition after 9/11, one question that was always invariably asked by the people, everyone asked, what makes you think that the United States will not again use us and take us as we did in 1989. And we suffered all the consequences of mayhem and tribal warfare in Afghanistan, 4 million refugees in Pakistan, al Qaeda coming about, Taliban maybe being created in 1995. While everyone was away, we were all alone fending for ourselves. So that, that was the scare that they have. And now that there’s (inaudible) of the United States by 2014 and whatever circumstances (inaudible) without stabilizing Afghanistan. We are thinking this is reminiscent of what happened in 1989 up to 1990 -uh- 1995, 1996. And there was total kind of warfare and destruction of Afghanistan and Pakistan is alone fending for itself.

CUOMO: You say alone fending for itself, you get a lot of aid from the United States and a lot of military cooperation. You don’t want to underplay what the United States does for Pakistan, do you?

MUSHARRAF: Well, no. I don’t want to underplay that.

CUOMO: You’re kind of underplaying it, you’re kind of suggesting we left you alone and the United States hasn’t done anything for you. Lotta money on the table.

MUSHARRAF: Yeah, no, I’m talking about 1989.

CUOMO: That was a long time ago. We’re talking about right now, this circumstance.

MUSHARRAF: We don’t realize what we did. In 1989 there were (inaudible) in Pakistan and then they left. And we were a strategic partner since 1947 for 42 years Pakistan was a U.S. strategic partner. We won the cold war for the west. And then we were suddenly left and sanctions were put on Pakistan. And very good relations with India, which was in the the people of Pakistan. So that’s why I’m saying leaving high and dry. Otherwise, yes indeed, we are happy, we are very glad with you gave us a lot of aid before 1979.

CUOMO: You get a lot of aid now, right? And a lot of it was hinged on the partnership to find OBL

MUSHARRAF: Because of a common cause. No, not only to find OBL.

CUOMO: Well that was a big part of it. This last time we did our interview we came back with that interview, Mr. President, and I asked you if you found OBL would you turn him over to us. You didn’t like the question. You did not handle this question quickly. You said I don’t want to talk about it. It was a big deal! It’s still a big deal!

MUSHARRAF: if you found OBL, would you hand him over.

CUOMO: It’s a sad commentary that Americans have to think about whether Pakistanis are more partial to them or to the sympathies of OBL, don’t you think?

MUSHARRAF: Well that is very sad if your countrymen think that Pakistan is more sympathetic or more partial to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

CUOMO: Well you wouldn’t even answer the question of handing him over because you said I have to think what the people want. I mean what does that suggest?

MUSHARRAF: Even if you ask anytime, I will not answer that in clear terms.. Because there are sensitivities.

CUOMO: But that’s an odd situation, don’t you think? I mean this man is enemy number one for the United States. You’re in partnership with them to catch him and you won’t even say if you’d turn him over?

MUSHARRAF: You think it is very odd because you don’t understand the sensitivities. You think from their point of view, from the American eyes. You see everything from the American eyes. You don’t want to see things from our eyes, from Pakistan’s eyes. From the people of Pakistan. How do the people of Pakistan take everything and a Pakistani government and a Pakistani leader must consider that.

CUOMO: Hmm, that’s a fair point and that’s why we’re happy to have you on Mr. President because you’re giving us that perspective. Let me ask you, what do you see is the future of US/Pakistan relations? How do we move forward together?

MUSHARRAF: Well you have to first of all identify what is required. The requirement is absolutely Pakistan and US relations must be good, in the mutual benefit of Pakistan and also the mutual benefit of the United States to fight terrorism and extremism. And also in the very to fight terrorism and extremism in Pakistan. So it’s a win-win for both. But if there is if there is mistrust and we are pulling in different directions, trust me, we are losing the battle against terror.

CUOMO: Do you believe that Pakistan can be a strong partner to the United States dedicated to going after terrorism?

MUSHARRAF: Is Pakistan being a good partner? (CC – Yes.) Pakistan has always been an excellent partner to the United States, it was the United States which has always let us down until 1989, okay.

CUOMO: All right, but you have to look after 1989. You can’t always look back to 1989, Mr. President. There’s been a lot of history since then.

MUSHARRAF: But you don’t want to. You don’t want to. You don’t think the United States did anything wrong in Pakistan

CUOMO: No no no, I don’t believe that at all. That not fair, Mr. President, that’s not fair. I’m just saying that when OBL is found less than a mile from a major military compound in a suburb of your capital, it raises some eyebrows and you would think Pakistan would be very forthcoming about what went wrong

MUSHARRAF: Well, no. This was a very serious fault, but let me also say that taking it to an extent that you want to alienate Pakistan, you will be a loser. And Pakistan will also be a loser, there’s no doubt. The world will lose. Because if an irresponsible policy is developed because of this incident. After 9/11 took place, did you take your intelligence and your military chiefs to task? That was a big national intelligence failure. (CC – Fair point) Did you take the intelligence and army chiefs to task (inaudible) national intelligence failure. Did you take them to task? It was also a terrible failure.

CUOMO: It’s a fair point and good perspective. Mr. President, I appreciate you taking the time. You’re always forthcoming. Thank you for the opportunity. I wish you the best going forward. I look forward to speaking to you again

Former military ruler Pervez Musharraf denied he had cut an overt or covert deal with the United States, allowing CIA drone attacks against so-called Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan’s tribal regions. Read below….

ISLAMABAD: Former military ruler Pervez Musharraf denied he had cut an overt or covert deal with the United States, allowing CIA drone attacks against so-called Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan’s tribal regions.

However, he admitted that he had allowed the US to use pilot-less aircraft for surveillance purpose in the tribal districts bordering Afghanistan where US-led Nato forces have been fighting a deadly Taliban insurgency for over nine years now.

“I don’t know if the incumbent government has allowed a combat role for the US drones,” Musharraf told the Daily Express in an exclusive interview on Monday.

The former military ruler, who had joined the US-led war against terrorism, also denied allowing American private security firms, like Blackwater (now Xe Worldwide), to maintain a presence in Pakistan. “Blackwater had come to Pakistan after 2008. And I heard this name for the first time in 2009,” he added.

Musharraf’s revelation is likely to embarrass the PPP-led coalition government which has been claiming all along that it was Musharraf who had allowed presence of Xe Worldwide and US drone strikes in Pakistan.

Musharraf also said that graft cases against his successor Asif Ali Zardari and his slain spouse Benazir Bhutto were not concocted but still courts had not ruled against them. Therefore, he promulgated the now-defunct National Reconciliation Ordinance to drop these cases.

About the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Musharraf said that Interior Minister Rehman Malik had told the Central Executive Committee in its last meeting in Larkana that “the general was not involved” in the conspiracy.

About the 1999 coup d’état, Musharraf claimed that the Sharif brothers were in contact with his government through intelligence agencies and had expressed their willingness to go into exile.

Musharraf, who formed the All Pakistan Muslim League to contest the 2013 elections, believes that if Sharif’s party is again voted into power, extremism will increase in the country because, according to him, “Sharif is not against extremist elements.”

The APML chief said he would return to Pakistan to lead his party in the next election even if there was a mid-term election.

The general revealed that he had met Asif Zardari at the residence of a common friend. He refused to name the friend.

Musharraf defended his controversial decisions of storming Islamabad’s Lal Masjid and killing Baloch chieftain Nawab Akbar Bugti. “I’ve no regrets on these decisions,” he said. However, he added that Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and his cousin Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi had endorsed these decisions. The two Chaudhrys have always denied any role in both operations.

Musharraf, the former benefactor of the Chaudhrys, said that the PML-Q was negotiating a power-sharing deal with the ruling PPP only to secure the release of Moonis Elahi, who is currently in jail for his alleged involvement in the multi-billion rupee National Insurance Company scam.  However, he predicted that such a deal would only damage their party.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 26^th, 2011

DAWN – DUBAI, April 16: Former president and army chief Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf has expressed his desire to sort out his differences with PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif. “I would not mind if it happens for the good future of the country,” he said in reply to a question in an interview with DawnNews from Dubai.

He said he had not phoned Mr Sharif to enquire about his health because his heart and mind did not allow him to do so in view of some statements by PML-N leaders.

When asked about warrants issued against him by an anti-terrorism court of Rawalpindi, Gen (retd) Musharraf declined to comment on “these technical, legal questions”.

He said he would definitely return to Pakistan and did not fear going to jail, but “I am waiting for the proper time”.

In reply to a question about a petition filed by former president Rafiq Tarar for withdrawal of Gen Musharraf’s titles of
president and other posts, he said Mr Tarar was an “irrelevant person”.

He disclosed that when he was in power he had good relations with Mr Tarar and had asked him to continue serving as president.

Gen (retd) Musharraf said he had helped Mr Tarar and visited his home when he was president.

“Mr Tarar, who was actually a man of Mian Nawaz Sharif and his father, had played a key role in purchasing the loyalties of judges when Justice Sajad Ali Shah was the chief justice of Pakistan.” In reply to a question about Chief Justice Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry, he said that if he (Justice Iftikhar) could not hear cases against him, he should refer them to other judges.

Pervez Musharraf said he had no regrets over the military coup of Oct 12, 1999, and the unconstitutional steps taken on Nov 3, 2007. “It was my good luck that the coup happened.”

When reminded that the Constitution had been abrogated on both occasions, he said the country was more important than the
Constitution, which, according to him, was a piece of paper.

Pervez Musharraf said he had appointed Senator Mushahid Hussain as secretary general of the PML-Q after consulting Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain. He said the PML-Q had virtually fallen apart and most of its leaders would not contest the next
elections from its platform. Many of them had contacted him and some were considering contesting elections as independent candidates, he said.

The former president admitted that setting up a new party without the help of government and intelligence agencies was a difficult job.

He said he had written letters to the former nazims of all districts, inviting them to join his party and had received a good response.

When asked if his handpicked army chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani was in touch with him, he replied in the negative.

In reply to a question whether Gen Kayani had contacted him when he was named in the Benazir Bhutto murder case, Gen (retd) Musharraf said: “These contacts are often made.” However, he avoided giving details.

He also avoided commenting on the extension granted to the army chief.

However, Gen (retd) Musharraf said that during his tenure he had a vice-chief of the army staff who used to run the affairs of the army. In today’s environment there was no need for the appointment of a VCOAS, he said.

About Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Pervez Musharraf said he liked him. “He is a nice man for Pakistan.”

Asked to name his favourite Pakistani leader, he quipped: “I, myself” and, after a pause, named former president Ayub Khan.

BBC LINK

Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf claims “good dictatorship is better than bad democracy” as he discussed uprisings across the Middle East. The London-based politician told Anita Anand of democracy in his home country, and the warrant out for his arrest there – and also the allied action in Libya, where he said “the endgame is not clear”.

24 March 2011

You are planning a return to Pakistan to run again for President, a job you left in 2008. Why?
For the sake of Pakistan. I am very comfortable. I go around the world lecturing, and they pay me well. But there is a cause bigger than the self. I governed the country for nine years — successfully. So I don’t have to reinvent the wheel. And I know Pakistan is suffering. I know there is a vacuum of leadership. Therefore the cause of Pakistan pulls me toward my destiny. Maybe it’s a call of destiny much more for the nation than for myself.

You stepped down at the behest of the people. We’ve also seen Tunisia’s Zine el Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak step down at the people’s demand. How would you advise Muammar Gaddafi?
I would like to seriously object to the comparison. I left peacefully through my own volition. So please don’t compare me to those two. However, you have spoken about Gaddafi. The will of the people should reign supreme. It’s almost a civil war there. A political situation must be found.

Do you see any good leadership in Pakistan that will shift the country from the grip of religious extremists?
That is why I want to go back.

So how do you combat the rise of the religious right?
You have two choices: succumb to circumstances or do something. I know the people of Pakistan are moderate. It’s unfortunate when the government itself and the leadership appease the religious groups and extremists by turning a blind eye. (See pictures of Pakistan subcultures.)

Which is more of a threat to Pakistan — extremism or India?
At the moment, it’s extremism and terrorism. But you can’t compare. Let’s not think this is a permanent situation. The orientation of 90% of Indian troops is against Pakistan. We cannot ever ignore India, which poses an existential threat to Pakistan.

Is Pakistan the most dangerous country in the world?
It is very dangerous, yes, I will have to admit. But the most dangerous is Afghanistan.

But Afghanistan doesn’t have nuclear weapons.
Yes, we have nuclear weapons, and we are proud of it. Nuclear weapons are the pride of every man, woman and child walking in the streets of Pakistan. Why are we nuclear? Because of India. (See pictures of the world’s worst nuclear disasters.)

What is preventing Pakistan from becoming the modern, progressive state you envisioned when you took power?
The condition of the region. In 1979 we launched a jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Who was the spearhead of the fight? The religious militant groups. In effect we introduced religious militancy by design in Afghanistan, and then [the U.S.] left the place high and dry. The responsibility lies with the West. The U.S. encouraged it all, and we suffered. This is what we face. It comes from history.

But you can’t lay all the blame on history.
Yes, we have to take the lessons we have learned. We have to be careful not to create another blunder. The U.S. is declaring that it will quit in 2014. The Taliban are seeing that people are running away. (See pictures of the battle against the Taliban.)

So the decision to pull out in 2014 is not a good one?
I know [what] public opinion is in the West and the U.S. But real leadership comes when you need to change public opinion, not go with it, because it’s not in your interest or the world’s interest. This is the reality in Afghanistan at this moment

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2061035,00.html#ixzz1IT0BgiO4
Filed under: General Pervez Musharraf, War against Terror/Extremism Tagged: Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda & Terrorist, India, Middle East, War against Terror/Extremism ]]> http://presidentmusharraf.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/musharraf-time-10-questions-2011/feed/ 1 opinion786 http://presidentmusharraf.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/musharraf-al-aan-tv-2011/ http://presidentmusharraf.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/musharraf-al-aan-tv-2011/#comments Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:00:46 +0000 Administrator http://presidentmusharraf.wordpress.com/?p=2218 ]]> 23 Jan 2011

Musharraf says blasphemy law cannot be changed

16 Jan 2011 (Reuters) – Former president Pervez Musharraf said on Sunday that Pakistan‘s blasphemy laws could not  be changed, but that the man who killed the governor of Punjab province over his opposition to them must be punished. Musharraf, who is planning to return to Pakistan to fight elections due by 2013, also said he was open to any coalition partners who wanted to join him, and described the MQM as “a good party” with whom he had no differences of opinion. He said blasphemy was an extremely sensitive issue for the people of Pakistan. “Therefore doing away with the blasphemy law is not at all possible and must not be done,” he told Reuters.

Punjab governor Salman Taseer was killed by his security guard this month after backing amendments to the blasphemy laws, which are often misused to settle personal scores.

The man who confessed to killing him, Mumtaz Qadri, has been treated as a hero by some in Pakistan and religious parties have led demonstrations against any changes to the blasphemy laws.

Musharraf said that, rather than amend the laws, Pakistan needed to find ways to make sure they were not misused.

He also condemned the killing and said it was wrong for anyone to take the law into his own hands.

“Therefore the killer of the governor, he is a culprit, he is a criminal, he must be tried and he must be punished,” he said in an interview at his London home.

NO RETURN DATE

Musharraf declined to fix a date for a return to Pakistan, which he left after stepping down as president in 2008. But he said he aimed to establish offices for his new political party in all the country’s provinces by March. He launched his All Pakistan Muslim League in London in October.

The former military ruler, who could be risking assassination or legal cases if he went home, said he would build up support for his party first. “Obviously I wouldn’t be able to pack a suitcase and buy a ticket and reach Islamabad.”

“Therefore, while I have decided that I must be there well before the next elections, whether they are mid-term or end-term, the exact date will have to be according to the environment we are able to create.”

He said many people had met him or talked over the phone, and that “anyone who wants to join into a coalition is welcome.”

Political analysts say he faces an uphill struggle to win enough support, and would need coalition partners from the fragmented opposition to have any chance of success.

Among possible candidates could be smaller parties with whom Musharraf has worked in the past, including the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), whose leader Altaf Hussain lives in exile in London, and the Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PML-Q).

Musharraf declined to name likely coalition partners, saying he aimed to create a national party. But he said of the MQM: “They are a good party and I have no differences with them.”

He said he had met with MQM leaders, including Hussain, while many PML-Q politicians were in contact with him.

Asked if he expected support from the army, he said that the military were not supposed to become involved in politics.

“However, having said that, I have been in this army for over 40 years … the troops and the whole army knows me … I can never even imagine that this army which I have served for 40 years will be against me.

“I am very sure they will be supportive, but if you are meaning active support against other political parties, no, I am not expecting that; it would undermine the whole process.”

KASHMIR ROAD MAP

Musharraf, who has been criticized by Washington for failing to crack down harder on the Taliban when he was in power, said the West had missed a tremendous opportunity to reach a political settlement in Afghanistan in 2002-2004.

But he said there was “some sense” now in talking to the different parts of the Taliban movement, including its leaders.

“Any one of them who is for peace, giving up confrontation, I think we should deal with them.” But this was not going to be easy since “we are speaking from a position of weakness.”

He also said he believed a road map for peace in Kashmir that he agreed with India in 2007 could be revived.

“We were in the process of drafting an agreement, obviously there were differences on the wording and the expressions …”

He said it was hard to tell if they were within six months of a deal, “but we were making fast progress, that I know.”

However, he also accused India of using its presence in Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan.

Pakistan accuses India of supporting separatists in its Baluchistan province, while India accuses Pakistan of backing militant attacks on Indian targets in Kashmir and elsewhere.

He said the two countries’ intelligence agencies had been in confrontation since independence in 1947. “This tit-for-tat has been going on over the last 60 years,” he said. “I think India and Pakistan need to sit down and stop this confrontation.

Pak should not ashamed over Blasphemy law: Musharraf

LONDON, (SANA): Former president general (retd) Pervez Musharraf has said that Pakistan should not feel ashamed over the Blasphemy law, adding that such kind of laws are also present in Britain, Israel and other countries of the world, adding that the need is to stop the misuse of the Blasphemy law.

He said that need is to improve the law through collective wisdom of the Ulema, adding that drawbacks in the law should be reviewed trough rethinking on it.

Speaking at the launch of his party’s London chapter Pervez Musharraf alleged that Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Quaid Mian Nawaz Sharif can be blamed for today’s gory situation in Karachi, for he had ignored the military’s advice and tried to corner the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (Altaf faction).

Musharraf said he had advised Nawaz Sharif against his policy of cornering the Altaf-led MQM, but Nawaz Sharif didn’t pay heed to his words of caution and pushed the party against the wall and thought that the original MQM’s breakaway faction, known as MQM-Haqiqi, would prevail.

He alleged that Nawaz and Shahbaz have some contacts with the Taliban, adding that if his (Musharraf) perception is wrong than Sharif brothers should have been condemned the attacks.

I had advised against the policy of encouraging gang warfare in Karachi, but my advice was not acted upon, said Musharraf.

Musharraf said that ill-conceived policy bred a lot of resentment and today’s situation in Karachi can be seen in that context.

He said that martial laws in Pakistan are imposed when the democratically elected governments fails to deliver.

Condemning the killing of governor Punjab Salman Taseer, Musharraf said that the killer should be punished according to the law of the land.

He said he had brought various changes in laws made by General Ziaul Haq, adding that the repeal of Hudood Ordinance is one of them.

Former dictator also shown his serious concerns over the price hike and worsening economic condition of the county, adding that Pakistani government should take steps on priority bases to improve the economic condition of the country.

He said that if the present economic condition was not improved there is fear of bankruptcy of the country, adding that if his party would have assigned any role to bring improvements in the lives of the poor people than he would be ready to play his due role according to the wishes of the people.

He said that he does not see any martial law in near future, adding he wants to do a lot of things for the countrymen.

He claimed that his party would win next general elections with heavy majority, adding that he would return the country prior to the announcement of next general elections at every cost.

 Former President Pervez Musharraf has said that he firmly believes that country’s army will support him once he returns to the country because he has served that institution for over 35 years. Talking to Wajahat Khan at “Ikhtalaf”, an Aaj News programme, on Friday, he reiterated his plan about his return to the country, saying that he would definitely go to Pakistan and try to win next elections there as he was wants to play his role in the country’s politics and take the country out of challenges it is facing today.

Answering a question, he said the first task of any state is its people’s well-being and improvement in their quality of life. “State exists for people; their well-being and welfare,” he added. Talking about his aims and objects, he said he wants to win next elections with at least a simple majority to form government, adding that although he wants a single party with a simple majority forming the government, he sees no harm if there is a coalition government after the elections.

Answering a question, he said that although he now had disappointments with the Chaudhries, they were the best choice in 2002 to create PML-Q out of PML-N. Answering a question about his harsh criticism of the Sharif brothers, he defended his remarks against the two leaders, saying “I’m no Christian, I’m Muslim and will therefore retaliate with equal or even more force against their attacks on me”. He also defended his position in relation to action against Nawab Akbar Bugti and Lal Masjid operation, adding that these issues were required to be properly explained to the people. However, he added, the media did not play its due role in this respect.

Answering a question about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the former President said that it is not true that the entire PPP holds him responsible for her murder.

In answer to criticism on his remarks that ISI had been training Kashmiri Mujahideen, he denied that he ever made such remarks, adding that a German magazine had published those remarks out of context. He insisted that his stature has suffered no setback–from the days when he was on top of everything to his programmes with children in his last days at the presidency where he was often seen mumbling. “I have never mumbled or slurred,” he said, adding that his statures remains the same. According to him, he has a quite significant following and the lectures he delivers across the world are attended by a large number of people.

by Pervez Musharraf on Saturday, 01 January 2011

DEMOCRACY is an obsession with the West. Perhaps, rightly so because after the failure of communism and socialism, democracy has emerged as the only successful form of government.

 However, when one looks around in the Third World which is experimenting with democracy, one sees an unacceptable manifestation of the same — a democratically elected government is in place but taking the country towards disaster. Therefore, clearly, politics/democracy needs to be reconciled with national security — progress/development of the state and welfare/wellbeing of its people.

What are the imperatives of democracy? Are fair elections and an elected government the only requirement of democracy? To me, that is merely a label. How the elected government governs is the true essence of democracy. Democracy’s primary functional concern ought to be: ‘Are people masters of their own destiny? Are they empowered enough to look after their own interests?’

People implies masses belonging to all segments: vertically, the rich and powerful, feudal lords, tribal chiefs on top and the grass-roots common man at the bottom; horizontally, all provinces/states, tribes, religions, sects, castes, men and women.

I strongly believe the danger lies in denying power, not in sharing or giving power.

How does national security affect democracy? First and foremost is security against external threats implying the maintainance of adequate forces to pursue national interests with honour and dignity. Clearly, no state, no democracy.

This is the ‘traditional security element’. Pakistan has suffered from an existential threat from the east since independence, after its first war with India in 1948. Therefore, for its security, it adopted a military strategy of minimum defensive deterrence quantified into force levels for the army, navy and air force.

But when the armed forces, well-organised and well-managed as they are, also become strong in numbers, they tend to acquire a voice in national governance.

Next is security from internal threats or centrifugal forces acting against national security, homogeneity or integrity from within society. This is the ‘non-traditional security’ aspect; its various elements which are confronted for functional democracy to evolve are ethnic, tribal, religious or sectarian disparities and discord; regional or societal development inequities; poverty, joblessness and economic disparities; illiteracy; food and water issues.

Let’s discuss how to ensure national security to protect the state in all its dimensions and tailor democracy to suit a typical Third World environment. I will quote examples from my practical experience.

The people’s destiny must be entwined with that of the state so that they develop a stake in it. This is possible when the state rises economically and its wealth is distributed equitably among all regions and peoples.

With the economy put on the upsurge, we have to ensure its benefits trickle down to the people. In Pakistan we identified poverty and joblessness among the rural uneducated, the urban educated unemployed and the urban uneducated unemployed. We tackled each systematically.

For the rural uneducated unemployed, we focused on agriculture and agro-based industry, dairy and livestock. For the urban educated unemployed, we focused on the telecommunication and information technology sectors. For the urban uneducated unemployed, we emphasised building and construction which is labour-intensive. We reduced poverty from 34 to 17 per cent in seven years.

Education and skill development needs to be pursued vigorously. Public-private partnerships can pay rich dividends. We created the National Commission on Human Development; the National Vocational and Technical Education Commission was created for skill development which in turn led to innumerable vocational training centres imparting three- to six-month turnaround courses for construction skills. The overall strategy was for universalising education up to middle class and then diverting the people towards skill development.

Food, water and energy should be considered as the inalienable right of all. Sixty per cent of diseases in Pakistan are water-borne. We initiated a project of installing water-filtration plants down to the union council (15 to 20 villages) level. Electricity was provided to all villages with more than 50 houses. Simple food kitchens for the poorest segments need to be provided with public-private philanthropic participation.

These are the main areas of human security as part of non-traditional security which will reinforce national security and enhance the people’s stakes in the state. This brings me to the aspect of sustainable democracy.

First and foremost, democracy must be tailored to fit the environment in which it is to function. There is no set formula. No country’s example can be superimposed on others without adjustment.

In Pakistan, democratic institutions are under-developed, and democratically elected governments have always failed to deliver. Whenever there has been a dysfunctional, elected government running the state aground (which invariably has been the case), people take the only recourse of appealing to the army to take over. The army’s response to this mass national appeal can only be unconstitutional. There is no constitutional salvation.

In such a crisis, which has struck all too often, the question that gets debated is whether upholding democracy is more important than rescuing the state. An institutional role, therefore, has to be evolved for the military to voice its concerns to prevent any unconstitutional act, which the public pressurises them to do.This I call checks and balances.

The other important factor is the empowerment of the people. We must devolve authority to the lowest level — empowerment and authority devolution to the district level and below means giving them political, administrative and financial authority.

Empowering the people is inadequate if women and minorities are not integrated into governance. They must appropriately be represented at all tiers of political authority so that they feel the satisfaction of belonging and participating in nation-building. We empowered women and minorities by giving them reserved seats in the district, provincial and national assemblies besides their right to contest openly from any constituency.

The ultimate factor behind all development of the state, welfare of its people, the country’s unity and integrity is collective economic well being. Economic strength is the mother of all development and the guarantor of national security and sustainable democracy.

Pervez Musharraf

Brothers in arms, not politicians, betrayed me: Musharraf

LAHORE: Former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf on Monday said some soldiers, not politicians, had disappointed him.

In an interview with Geo programme “Jirga”, conducted by Saleem Safi, he said that he did not feel betrayed by politicians as they were not related to him, like soldiers. He named two of his former aides and retired lieutenant generals, Mehmood and Usmani, saying each one of the two wanted to become vice chief of the army, and both of them quit when refused a loyalty reward as demanded by them.

Musharraf also came down hard on Lt-Gen Hamid Gul (retd) and termed him extremely ambitious person, who wanted to lead the religious forces of Pakistan. Musharraf disclosed that Gul advised him to take a back seat after the 1999 coup and give him the helm to rule the country.

He termed PML-N Quaid Nawaz Sharif dangerous for Pakistan, not foreign powers. When asked to comment on WikiLeaks report which called President Asif Zardari dirty and Nawaz Sharif dangerous, Musharraf refused o speak about Zardari, but chose to call Nawaz a “closet Taliban” and a threat to the country. He said Nawaz could not get along with any army chief or any president, and alleged that the PML-N chief ordered attack on the Supreme Court. He revealed that Nawaz was never wanted to go for nuclear explosions. He was actually forced to order nuclear explosions, he added.

Musharraf did not spare the PML-Q leaders, the Chaudhrys of Gujrat, and said that they were part of all decisions, taken regarding Lal Masjid and the late Nawab Akbar Bugti.

He admitted that issuing the infamous National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) on Chaudhrys’ advice was a bad idea. He said he did not want to meet the late Benazir Bhutto in person, but did so as wrongly advised by the Chaudhrys.
Musharraf wouldn’t say that the Chaudhrys had gone personal against him, rather, he said, they were into the zigzag of politics, and he was confident that they would revert to if it suited them politically.

Speaking about the character of his opponents, Musharraf said that he found Imran Khan and Mehmood Achakzai men of character, but described ANP leader Asfandyar Wali as not a man of his word. He praised the MQM, saying that the party, the 90’s record regardless, did a good work when it assumed power through elections.

Musharraf also denied accepting all US demands at once. He said he had no other choice of joining and supporting the war against terrorism in the wake of 9/11 because he saw India joining hands with the US and its allies to the detriment of Pak sovereignty.

He also rejected the revelations made by an American author Bob Woodword and former US president George Bush that all American demands were accepted by Pakistan.

He admitted that Pakistan had no objection to drone operations by the coalition forces in Afghanistan to the extent of seeking information about terrorists’ locations alone, but denied having allowed them missile strikes inside Pakistan.
On his ouster from power, Musharraf said in retrospect that the lawyers’ movement, the NRO, and curbs on media had brought about his fall. He defended his decision of moving against the judiciary and his reference against Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, but regretted that his decisions had created turmoil in the country.

He said he chose to quit the presidency on realising that there was no point in continuing as a powerless man sustaining curses coming from Parliament sessions and cabinet meetings. He vowed to stage a comeback before elections whenever held. He said he faced threats from militants, as ever, and politicisation of legal issues by his opponents, who wanted to use the judiciary against him to settle their score. He, however, hoped that the courts would be just to him.

Gul wanted to become PM: Musharraf

DUBAI (Online) – Former President Pervez Musharraf has disclosed that Gen (r) Hameed Gul wanted to become Prime Minister of the country and turned against him (Musharraf) when he refused him that post.

Replying to a question while talking to a private TV channel, the former President also reminisced that Chaudhry brothers were never against him; assuring that they had deviated under political expediencies, but would be reverting back to his fold at an ‘opportune moment’.

He also stressed that it were Chaudhry brothers who had ‘pressurised him’ to draw cases against PPP Chairperson Benazir Bhutto and sign NRO. The former President declared the PTI Chairman Imran Khan as the best politician in character and said he was only against him (Mush) for being refused the promised seats in 2002 elections. Replying to a question, he denied JUI-F Chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman was ever against him, and said he was constantly in touch with him (Musharraf).

15 December 2010

Historical background: Events in Afghanistan took a turn in 1979 with the invasion of the country by the Soviet  Union. The Soviets were challenged through a jihad, launched by the Afghans supported by America and Pakistan. The jihad was strongly reinforced by mujahideen, encouraged and brought from all over the Muslim world and also by the Taliban from the madrassas of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. It was spearheaded by various religious militant groups and, thus, we saw the introduction of religious militancy in the region which continued for ten long years. The year 1989 saw the defeat of the Soviet Union and its eviction from Afghanistan.

The fruits of this victory all went to the West, with the Cold War ending in the West’s victory, dismemberment of the Soviet Union, liberation of East Europe and the reunification of Germany. Unfortunately, what Afghanistan and Pakistan got after 1989 were a series of three short-sighted blunders leading to complications and perhaps, avoidable turmoil in the region. The rehabilitation and resettlement of the mujahideen brought into Afghanistan was totally ignored.

The first blunder was the abandonment of Afghanistan and Pakistan by the US in 1989. The chaos that followed for the entire decade of the 90s gave birth to al Qaeda and later the Taliban.

The second was the non-recognition of the Taliban government which ruled 90 per cent of Afghanistan after 1997. My idea of the entire world recognising the Taliban government and opening diplomatic missions in Kabul which would be managed from within, was not paid any heed to. Had it been done, maybe we could have saved the Bamiyan Buddha statues and even untangled the Osama bin Laden dispute.

The third blunder was committed after 9/11 when the Taliban, who were all Pashtuns, were defeated with the help of the Northern Alliance composed of three minority ethnic groups (Uzbeks, Hazaras and Tajiks). The Taliban and al Qaeda were dispersed and they ran into the mountains and the cities of Pakistan. Their organisational and command structure was totally dismantled. The military achieved its objective of getting into a dominant position. The logical course of action after this was to change strategy and place a legitimate government in Afghanistan, This implies a government dominated by the Pashtun majority (half of the Afghan population), because historically nobody other than Pashtuns have governed Afghanistan. Not doing this and persisting with a government dominated by a Tajik minority, still in place, was and still is a great blunder.

The Taliban resurgence started in late 2003, mainly, because of the third blunder of not weaning away the Pashtun from the Taliban. My view has always been that all Taliban are Pashtun, but all Pashtun are not Taliban; therefore, we can wean them away from the Taliban. Now, after eight years we are talking of parleys with moderate Taliban, or even Taliban, but from a position of weakness, when we have declared our intention to quit.

The present situation: The terrorist situation has transformed or visibly developed in the region and in the world, in the last few years. Let us see its contours in various countries.

Pakistan faces four menaces from terrorism. Each one requires an in-depth understanding and a different strategy to tackle: The first is al Qaeda which has a presence in the mountains of Fata, though in small numbers, and needs to be evicted. The second is the Taliban presence in Fata, especially in South and North Waziristan, and in Bajaur agency. However, they are our own people and have to be handled with acumen. We need to follow a triple strategy of force accompanied by a political and a socio-economic component. Deals must be struck with the tribal Pashtuns to wean them away from the Taliban and thus isolate the latter, who can then be dealt with militarily. Then there is the Talibanisation in the settled districts of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and even beyond. This has to be contained with force. The last is extremism and extremist organisations in some pockets of Pakistani society, which are primarily a fallout of Taliban activity in Afghanistan and mujahideen activity in Indian-held Kashmir.

Moderation has to be brought into society through a five-pronged strategy of stopping misuse of mosques for preaching militancy; banning militant organisations and not allowing them to resurface with different titles; ensuring that the curriculum/ syllabus in schools has no content of religious or sectarian extremism and mainstreaming students in madrassas

There is also the issue of mujahideen activity in Indian-held Kashmir against the Indian Army. This is supported by mujahideen groups in Pakistan and has tremendous public sympathy. Furthermore, extremism is on the rise in Muslim youth in India because of alienation of Muslims due to a sense of deprivation and suppression. The situation becomes more alarming due to the nexus emerging between extremists in India and the mujahideen in Kashmir on one hand, and extremists and the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan on the other.

The menace deepens with the emergence of al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghrib centered around Algeria and Mali and, in the Arabian peninsula, centred around Yemen and Somalia. The centre of gravity of all this extremism and terrorism, however, lies in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.

The future course: Losing at the centre of gravity means losing everywhere. Quitting from Afghanistan without getting into a dominant military position and placing a legitimate Pashtun-dominated government in Afghanistan could spell disaster for the region and also endanger the world.

So what is the winning strategy? In Afghanistan we are still diluted in space but since we cannot send additional Nato/Isaf forces we must increase the strength of the Afghan National Army. However, the correct ethnic balance must also be ensured. Then, we need to identify Pashtun tribes and tribal Maliks who have no ideological affinity with the Taliban and arm them to create lashkars to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda. With such a strategy in place, the drawdown of troops from the area should be effect-related rather than time-related. The effect that we would want to achieve is to be in a dominant force position and have in place a legitimate Pashtun-dominated government in Kabul.

(The writer served as chief of army staff from 1998-2007 and President of Pakistan from 2001-2008).

Launching Ceremony of All Pakistan Muslim League

LONDON: Former President General (rtd) Pervez Musharraf on Friday formally announced his new political party “All Pakistan Muslim League” (APML). Musharraf told hundreds of cheering supporters in London and in Karachi, that the best way to deal with Pakistan’s political and economic troubles is to bring his party to power. He said that there is a need to “bring all patriotic people under one flag — that flag should be All Pakistan Muslim League.”  Musharraf admitted that mistakes were committed during his government and sought apology from the nation for the same. “All Pakistan Muslim League to wage jihad against poverty and illiteracy,” he vowed, adding that the time for talks is over and now it is time to act. He invited all Pakistanis to come forward and join hands with APML and strengthen it. He said that his party manifesto will be governed by the Holy Quran, Quaid-e- Azam’s 11 August 1947 Constituent Assembly address and 12 April 1949 Objective Resolution by Liaquat Ali Khan. He described nepotism and corruption as the biggest curse for any society and vowed to rid the country of the same. “Internal and external threats will be dealt with strongly and the fight against terrorism will continue till the elimination of this scourge.” He said that annual GDP growth will be increased to over 6 percent and recalled that 8 percent growth rate was achieved during his government. “I believe in freedom of media and will support it thoroughly…only those are afraid of media who have got dirty laundry to hide,” Musharraf stated. ”Today I announce starting my political career and joining All Pakistan Muslim League. I want to begin my political career with clean slate.”

Pervez Musharraf launches the All Pakistan Muslim League

Former president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf has launched the All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) that plans to enter the political arena for the next general elections. He also issued an apology to the nation for “past mistakes which hurt Pakistan”.

Musharraf told cheering supporters that the best way to deal with Pakistan’s political and economic troubles is to bring his party to power.

He said there is need to “bring all patriotic people under one flag – and that flag should be the All Pakistan Muslim League.”

Musharraf said the only way to tackle Pakistan’s problems was to bolster the army’s role.

Minutes from the Event:

7:00pm

Recitation of verses from the Holy Quran.

The cermemony starts with the national anthem of Pakistan.

The proceeding for former President Pervez Musharraf’s party have started

People chant slogans for the Pervez Musharraf.

Bad mein ho ga har insaan,

Sab se pehlay Pakistan!

Chaaron soobon ki pehchaan,

Sab se pehlay Pakistan!

7:06pm

Naeem Bukhari, host of the ceremony talks about the achievements of Pervez Musharraf.

Bukhrai says “since leaving office General Musharraf is the only politician who has risen in stature.”

He says “ Musharraf above all, moved Pakistanis out of despondency. Brought economic uplift to the country. Why has Musharraf chosen to enter the murky world of Pakistani politics? Because of his love for Pakistan, its people and to address the drift of the current Pakistan government.”

7:09pm

Pervez Musharraf starts his speech.

Mushrraf announces his participation in politics of Pakistan.

The crowd starts chanting slogans in appreciation.

7:14pm

Musharraf says “I did take some wrong decisions in my past. Some of them were political decisions and I am only human, and I apologize for all those mistakes which have hurt Pakistan.”

He says “I have learnt a lot from those mistakes and I am sure I will not make them again. I will start with a clean slate.”

7:17pm

Musharraf says that this is Pakistan is identity which is why he says Pakistan first.

He says that Pakistan is in a bad state and we are responsible for this downfall. It is obligatory for us to not only save Pakistan but also take it towards success.

7:21pm

Musharraf says Pakistan was made when the Muslims of the subcontinent realised that they would not prosper under Hindu domination. We attained Pakistan, and when we look at the people, they did not get the happiness that they aimed for.

The former president says that those countries where the people are not happy get destroyed. Why do people get unhappy? Because they do not get the rights they fought for.

7:23pm

Musharraf says “In our nine years we place the fear of God in the hearts of the rich and powerful. We gave Pakistanis honour around the world and we improved the economic conditions.”

He says it is time for us to move Pakistan forward.

7:27pm

Musharraf says that it is time to revive the fire that once existed in the All India Muslim League. He says “we will remake Quaid’s Pakistan under the banner of the All Pakistan Muslim League.”

He says “APML will do jihad against hunger and poverty.”

7:29pm

He says that the time for talk has passed, now it is time to take action.

APML Flag

Musharraf says that the text “sub se pehle Pakistan” is written in white because it represents the minorities, and their symbol, the ‘shaheen’ because is soars high and lives on elevated places.

7:31pm

Musharraf says “jo darta hai woh khota hai.”

7:35pm

Musharraf says that they will end the culture of dynastic politics.

He says that on the question of more provinces, the people’s decision will be accepted.

He says at the international level, the party will adopt “enlightened moderation” approach.

He says that they want good relationship with India, only after issues are resolved.

The former president says that all focus will be diverted to the country’s progress.

Musharraf says the party’s constitution will be based on the Quran and Sunnah.

 7:38pm Musharraf says nepotism and corruption are the biggest curse.

Musharraf says that men and women should be equal.

He says that the party will particularly focus on educating women

Food, clean water and electricity are the most important necessity

We will make langars for the poorest of Pakistan and involve the Baitul Maal and enforce philanthropic activity.

7:42 pm

The former president says we will raise the GDP like we did before.

He says we will crush anyone who raises his voice against Pakistan.

Musharraf says “we will wage war on terrorism until the war goes on.”

7:47 pm

He says that there can be no success if we do not fight terrorism. There should be zero tolerance towards it.

Musharraf says that there the al Qaeda have no right to be in Pakistan.

Musharraf says that we can generate energy from alternate sources.

He says that people have lied in terms of energy. “Do they think we are idiot?” I want to tell the liars that right now Pakistan has the capacity to generate 19,500 MW of electricity.

Musharraf says agriculture is important. We can do import substitution and export orientation.

7:50 pm

Musharraf says the people are crushed under rising prices. He says that daily necessities should be given to the poor at lower rates.

He says that the health and education system needs to reach the people.

He says he believes in the freedom of media and says that he can claim that he freed the media.

He says we are not scared of the media. Only those are scared who have something to hide.

7:53 pm

Musharraf says he invites all politicians to come and join the APML, especially the youth of the country.

Musharraf says Allah has blessed Pakistan with resources. We have water and energy sources as well as human capital. We are talented people. Why can’t we stand on our own feet.

Musharraf says we will not rely on the IMF.

7:57 pm

The crowd chants slogans, “Musharraf teray jaan nisaar, beshumaar beshumaar!”

Musharraf says he is thankful towards everyone and says “sub se pehle Pakistan.”

The crowd breaks into appreciation.

8:11 pm

PPP leader Jahangir Badar, commenting on the launch of the APML, says Musharraf gave his speech as if he was still the president of Pakistan. He says that he welcomes Musharraf to return to Pakistan as the people want to hold him accountable. Badar also says that the current crises are a result of Musharraf’s regime.

Event: All Pakistan Muslim League (APML) launching Ceremony

 Venue: YMCA Lawn, Saddar, Karachi

Ex-Pakistani leader admits mistakes while in power

October 1, 2010 – 8:03pm

Pervez Musharraf, the former President of Pakistan, aknowledges the applaud of his supporters as he arrives for the announcement of the launch of his new political party, the “All Pakistan Muslim League” in central London, Friday Oct. 1, 2010.

LONDON (AP) – Pakistan’s ex-military ruler Pervez Musharraf has apologized for mistakes made during his last term in office as he launched a bid to return to power. Musharraf told scores of cheering supporters on Friday that some of his decisions had negative repercussions for his nation of 175 million. But the leader who stepped down in 2008 amid protests and under the threat of impeachment stopped short of specifying what the mistakes had been. Critics have accused him of doing little to improve Pakistan’s stagnant economy and not doing enough to clean up the political infighting that has plagued the country.

 ”I take this opportunity to apologize,” he said. “Human beings make mistakes.”

 The 67-year-old former leader spoke as he launched a new political party, arguing that the current leadership offers no hope of alleviating the “darkness that prevails in Pakistan.” He said under his government there would be progress in every field.

 ”I have confidence I can lead Pakistan toward light,” he said.

 Numerous terror plots and attacks, including the 2005 suicide bombings that killed 52 commuters in London and an active plot to wage Mumbai-style shooting sprees in Europe, have been seeded in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Musharraf declared that he had the experience to tackle the challenges of al-Qaida, the Taliban in the mountainous tribal regions and the spread of extremism in Pakistan. He insisted that, unless Pakistan was part of the fight against terrorism and extremism, “that fight will not succeed.”

 ”There will be zero tolerance for extremism,” he said, adding: “People should be patient with Pakistan.”

 He said he wouldn’t do anything different this time around to tackle extremism, but improving the economy was a critical part of the equation. Musharraf, who seized power in a 1999 coup, also said he didn’t support another military coup and doubted another one is imminent.

Security was tight for the launch, which took place at a storied and posh former gentlemen’s club. Reporters were swept for weapons and explosives before coming in, then bomb-sniffing dogs were brought into the room where about 200 people applauded at the announcement. Several Pakistani politicians have used London in recent years to announce their intended political comebacks though few have been successful. Some 1 million Britons are of Pakistani descent and many retain ties to Pakistan.

Musharraf may be arrested or deported, just as Sharif was upon his return to Pakistan in 2007. Musharraf seemed unconcerned. ”There is no case against me in the courts of Pakistan today,” he said. “Whatever cases there have been, have been motivated politically. … I am prepared to face anything. I am not afraid.”

Become APML Member

APML stands for a united “All Pakistan Muslim League”. If you are committed to the progress of Pakistan and wish to see our country head in the direction Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah would have wanted it to move towards, APML is the platform for you. Don’t stand on the sidelines of history, come forward and be counted amongst the “Shaheens” of “All Pakistan Muslim League”.