امریکی بیل آوٹ کیا ہے ؟

بینکوں کو کیش یا نقدی سے خالی ہاتھ ہونے سے بچانے یا ’بیل آؤٹ‘ کرنے کے لیے سینیٹ میں پیش کیا جانے والا سات سو ارب ڈالر کے ترمیمی منصوبہ یا بِل کا مسودہ بھی کم و بیش وہی ہے جو کہ ایوانِ نمائندگان سے نامنظور ہونے والے بل کا تھا۔

اس بل میں چند تبدیلیاں کی گئی ہیں جو حکومتی ضمانت کی شقوں سے تعلق رکھتی ہیں اور بچتوں پر حکومتی ضمانت ایک لاکھ سے بڑھا کر ڈھائی لاکھ ڈالر تک کر دی گئی ہے۔

بینکوں کو بیل آؤٹ بل کی ضرورت کیوں پڑی ہے؟

امریکہ کی مارٹگیج مارکیٹ میں بھاری سرمایہ کاری کے بعد ساری دنیا میں سرمائے کی مارکیٹیں شدید مشکلات کی شکار ہیں۔ بینکوں نے بڑے پیمانے پر گھروں کے لیے ایسے قرضے دے دیے ہیں جن کے بارے میں واپسی کی توقعات غیر یقینی ہیں۔ بظاہر یہ معاملہ مقامی دکھائی دیتا ہے لیکن اب اس نے ساری دنیا کو اپنی لپیٹ میں لے لیا ہے۔

امریکی بینک کیونکہ اب یہ نہیں بتا سکتے کہ انہوں نے جو قرضے دیے ہیں ان کی حقیقی مالیت اب کتنی رہ گئی ہے اس لیے ان قرضوں کو اب آگے فروخت نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ اس ڈر سے کہ دوسرا مشکل میں پھنس جائے گا، بینک ایک دوسرے سے اب ان قرضوں کے سودے نہیں کر رہے۔ قرضوں کے اس بحران کے نتیجے میں امریکہ اور یورپ کے کئی بینک بیٹھ چکے ہیں۔

بل پر سینیٹ میں ووٹنگ کیوں ہو رہی ہے؟

ترمیم شدہ بل پر پہلے سینیٹ میں ووٹنگ اس لیے کرائی جا رہی ہے کیونکہ کانگریسی قیادت یہ سمجھتی ہے کہ اسے سینیٹ میں زیادہ حمایت حاصل ہے۔

ایوان نمائندگان کے ارکان کے برخلاف سینیٹ میں ہر سال ایک تہائی رکن انتخاب کا سامنا کرتے ہیں۔ اس لیے بیل آؤٹ پلان سے اگر لوگوں میں ناراضی پیدا ہو گی تو اس کا اثر سینیٹ پر کم پڑے گا۔

اس کے علاوہ سینیٹ میں نظریاتی تقسیم بھی ایوانِ نمائندگان کے برخلاف کم ہے اور ریپبلکن سینیٹر ایوانِ نمائندگان کے ارکان کے مقابلے میں زیادہ میانہ رو ہیں۔

اس لیے بیل آؤٹ منصوبے کے حامیوں کا خیال ہے کہ سینیٹ میں بل کی منظوری سے ایوان نمائندگان کے ارکان پر دباؤ بڑھ جائے گا اور اس کے ارکان باہمی اختلافات کو ایک طرف رکھ کر بل کی منظوری دے دیں گے۔

لیکن اگر ایوانِ نمائندگان میں پیش کیا جانے والا بل سینیٹ میں پیش کیے جانے والے بل کے مسودے سے زیادہ مختلف ہوا تو پھر اسے ہاؤس آف سینیٹ کی کانفرنس کمیٹی کو بھیج دیا جائے گا، جس سے منصوبے میں مزید تاخیر ہو گی۔

ایوانِ نمائندگان نے بل کو مسترد کیوں کیا؟

اس بل کے مخالف دونوں جماعتوں میں موجود ہیں اور انہوں نے مل کر کوشش کی کہ بل منظور نہ ہو۔ ان کا خیال ہے کہ بل انتہائی غیر منصفانہ ہے اور لالچی بینکاروں کو یہ تحفظ نہیں ملنا چاہیے۔ ان کا خیال ہے کہ اگر اس بل کی منظوری دے دی گئی تو اس سے ٹیکس دہندگان پر پڑنے والے بوجھ میں مزید اضافہ ہو گا۔

اس کے علاوہ اس بل سے فیضیاب ہونے والے اداروں کے سربراہوں اور اعلیٰ افسران کی تنخواہیں بھی اعتراض کا باعث ہیں اور ناقدین کا کہنا ہے کہ ان تنخواہوں کی بھی حد مقرر کی جانی چاہیے۔

بیل آؤٹ پلان میں کن بڑی تبدیلیوں پر غور کیا جا رہا ہے؟

ترمیمی منصوبے میں متعدد تبدیلیاں کی گئی ہیں تاکہ اس امر کو یقینی بنایا جا سکے کہ نہ صرف عوام کو اس مالیاتی امداد کا زیادہ فائدہ پہنچے بلکہ ٹیکس دہندگان کی رقم بھی کم خرچ ہو۔

ترمیم شدہ بل میں نہ صرف ’ڈپازٹر پروٹیکشن‘ کی حد میں اضافہ کیا گیا ہے بلکہ چھوٹے کاروباروں کی مدد اور رینیو ایبل انرجی کی تشہیر کے لیے کچھ ٹیکسوں میں چھوٹ بھی دی گئی ہے۔ اس کے علاوہ اس منصوبے میں چائلڈ ٹیکس کریڈٹ کے پھیلاؤ اور حالیہ سمندری طوفان کے متاثرین کی مدد کی بات بھی کی گئی ہے۔

ایوانِ زیریں میں کچھ ڈیموکریٹس چاہتے ہیں کہ ان گھر مالکان کی مدد بھی کی جائے جنہیں دیوالیے کا سامنا ہے تاہم سینیٹ میں موجود ریپبلیکنز دیوالیہ ہونے کے قوانین میں کسی قسم کی تبدیلی کی شدید مخالفت کر رہے ہیں۔

یہ تجاویز بھی ہیں کہ اس مالیاتی امداد میں حکومت کا حصہ کم کر دیا جائے اور اس کے لیے بینکوں کے اکاؤنٹنگ قوانین میں تبدیلی کی جائے جنہیں موجودہ قانون کے تحت اپنے سب پرائم قرضوں کے ڈوبنے سے ہونے والے نقصانات کی کل مالیت دینی ہوتی ہے۔

تاہم اگر اس بل میں بڑے پیمانے پر تبدیلیاں کی جاتی ہیں تو اس پر اجماع کے امکانات کم سے کم ہو جائیں گے۔

اگر بل منظور نہ ہوا تو کیا ہو گا؟

ایوانِ نمائندگان کی جانب سے ابتدائی بل کی نامنظوری کے بعد دنیا بھر میں بازارِ حصص شدید مندی کا شکار اور متزلزل رہے۔ صرف امریکی ڈاؤ جونز ہنڈریڈ انڈیکس میں سات سو ستر پوائنٹس کی کمی دیکھنے میں آئی۔ یہی نہیں بلکہ تیل کی قیمتوں اور ڈالر کی قدر میں بھی کمی ہوئی اور یہ تمام عوامل سرمایہ کاروں کے لیے ایک بڑا دردِ سر ثابت ہوئے ہیں۔

بہت سے سرمایہ کاروں کا کہنا ہے کہ مرکزی مسئلہ مالیاتی نظام کی بحالی کے حوالے سے چھائی ہوئی بے یقینی کی کیفیت ہے۔ بل منظور نہ ہونے کی صورت بینک بامی قرضوں کی فراہمی سے کتراتے رہیں گے اور کریڈٹ مارکیٹیں منجمد رہیں گی۔

اس کے نتیجے میں بڑے اور چھوٹے کاروباری اداروں اور حتٰی کہ عام افراد کو بھی قرضوں کے حصول میں نہ صرف مشکلات کا سامنا ہوگا بلکہ جو لوگ یا کمپنیاں یہ قرضے حاصل کر بھی لیں گے انہیں زیادہ شرحِ سود ادا کرنا ہوگی۔

بیل آؤٹ بل کی منظوری کے بارے میں کتنی امید کی جا سکتی ہے؟

دونوں صدارتی امیدوارں، بارک اوبامہ اور جان میکین کی حمایت کے بعد یہ امید بڑھ گئی ہے کہ بل کی منظوری کے لیے مفاہمت کا کوئی نہ کوئی راستہ نکال لیا جائے گا۔

صدر بش متنبہ کر چکے ہیں کہ اگر بل منظور نہ ہو سکا تو اس کے سنگین نتائج برآمد ہو سکتے ہیں۔ انہوں نے سیاستدانوں پر زور دیا ہے کہ وہ مفاہمت کا راستہ تلاش کریں۔

بدھ کو سینیٹ میں ووٹنگ کے بعد امکان ہے کہ جمعرات کو ایوان نمائندگان میں بل پر بحث ہو گی اور توقع کی جا رہی ہے کہ سینیٹ میں بل کی منظوری ایوانِ نمائندگان میں بل کی منظوری کی راہ کو قدرے ہموار کر دے گی۔

بیل آؤٹ پلان کس طرح کام کرے گا؟

منصوبے کے تحت امریکی وزیر خزانہ ہنری پولسن اس سرمائے سے بڑے مالیاتی اداروں کے مشکوک قرضوں کی خریداری کریں گے اور اس کے بدلے میں امریکی ٹیکس دہندگان کو ان بینکوں میں نان ووٹنگ اختیار حاصل ہو جائے گا جن کے قرضے خریدے جائیں گے۔ اس طرح اگر بینک اس بحران سے نکل کر منافع میں آئے تو ٹیکس دہندگان کو منافع بھی حاصل ہو سکے گا۔ تاہم اگر ٹیکس دہندگان کو خسارہ ہوا تو مالیاتی اداروں کو اس کی کچھ نے کچھ قیمت ادا کرنی ہو گی۔

بینکوں کے سربراہوں اور اعلیٰ عہدیداروں کی تنخواہوں اور مالیاتی فوائد پر پابندیاں لگا دی جائیں گی اور اب انہیں ملازمتیں چھوڑنے کے صورت میں نام نہاد گولڈن پیرا شوٹ اور ان جیسے بھاری معاوضے حاصل نہیں ہو سکیں گے۔

بینکوں اور مالیاتی اداروں کو مستقبل میں مارٹگیج قرضوں میں خساروں سے تحفظ کے لیے ’انشورنس پالیسیاں‘ خریدنا ہوں گی۔

امریکی حکومت قرضے خریدنے کے لیے کیا منصوبہ بندی کر رہی ہے؟

امریکی حکومت عالمی مالیاتی مارکیٹوں سے قرضہ لینے کا ارادہ رکھتی ہے۔ مجوزہ منصوبے کے تحت وزارتِ خزانہ کو سات سو ارب ڈالر مالیت کی’ٹریئری سکیورٹیز‘ جاری کرنے کا اختیار مل جائے گا۔

منصوبہ یہ ہے کہ وزارتِ خزانہ ان ڈوبے ہوئے اثاثوں کو ہاؤسنگ مارکیٹ میں بہتری کے بعد دوبارہ مالیاتی مارکیٹ میں فروخت کر دے گی اور اسے کچھ نفع بھی ہوگا۔

یہ بھی خدشات ہیں کہ مزید حکومتی قرضوں کا اجراء سا مسئلے کا حل نہیں کیونکہ اس کے نتیجے میں بجٹ خسارہ قریباً دوگنا ہو جائےگا۔ اس سے عیر ملکی بینکوں پر امریکہ کو زیادہ انحصار کرنا پڑے گا کیونکہ ممکنہ طور پر یہی بینک ہی’ٹریئری سکیورٹیز‘ کے خریدار ہوں گے۔

اس ’بیل آؤٹ‘ کا عام امریکی پر کیا اثر ہو سکتا ہے؟

اگر آپ امریکہ میں رہتے ہیں تو آپ کے حصہ کے قومی قرضے میں تیئیس سو ڈالر کا اضافہ ہو جائے گا۔ ان امدادی منصوبوں کی

کل رقم ایک اعشاریہ آٹھ کھرب ڈالر ہونے کا امکان ہے اور یہ فی امریکی خاندان پندرہ ہزار ڈالر کے مساوی ہے

ماخذ  بی بی سی اردو

ISI reshuffle

The reshuffle comes at a sensitive time for Pakistan’s half-million-strong and nuclear-armed military. In the Bajaur tribal agency along the Afghan border and in the Swat valley, it is locked in fierce and enervating military operations against the Pakistan Taliban. At the same time, the army’s relations with its sponsors in Washington have sunk to a fresh low after the ISI was accused of aiding Taliban militants, and the ensuing breakdown in communication between the U.S. and Pakistan saw a flurry of unauthorized American airstrikes target militants in the tribal areas. U.S. Special Operations forces also mounted their first known ground assault within Pakistani territory this month.

Pakistan may now enjoy what seems to be healthy if noisy democracy, but the office of army chief remains the most powerful in the country — certainly exceeding the effective control of any politician or civilian bureaucrat. And now, Pakistan’s army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani is showing he is truly in charge of the military — and hence the most powerful man in the country.

Just before midnight on Sept. 29, Kayani replaced the head of the country’s premier intelligence agency and elevated a slew of hand-picked generals to key positions in a major shake-up of the military leadership. The most striking appointment is the decision to promote Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shujaa Pasha as the new head of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), one of the world’s most powerful spy agencies — routinely described, and decried, as “a state within a state.” Gen. Pasha, who had headed military operations in the tribal areas, replaces Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj — an appointee and relative of recently departed president and ex-army chief Pervez Musharraf, who was infamous for intertwining military and political affairs.

The reshuffle comes at a sensitive time for Pakistan’s half-million-strong and nuclear-armed military. In the Bajaur tribal agency along the Afghan border and in the Swat valley, it is locked in fierce and enervating military operations against the Pakistan Taliban. At the same time, the army’s relations with its sponsors in Washington have sunk to a fresh low after the ISI was accused of aiding Taliban militants, and the ensuing breakdown in communication between the U.S. and Pakistan saw a flurry of unauthorized American airstrikes target militants in the tribal areas. U.S. Special Operations forces also mounted their first known ground assault within Pakistani territory this month.

Some observers in Pakistan criticized the personnel shakeup as a response to U.S. pressure. They came just weeks after U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher, publicly demanded that reform of the ISI be carried out. They also followed last weekend’s secret meeting between Pakistan’s recently elected president, Asif Ali Zardari, and CIA head Michael Hayden about what the U.S. intelligence agency called the “double game played by Pakistan’s spy agency.” While in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly, Zardari told Roger Cohen of the New York Times: “The ISI will be handled, that is our problem. We don’t hunt with the hound and run with the hare, which is what [former president Pervez] Musharraf was doing.”

However, others argue against the notion that the U.S. forced the reforms on Islamabad. The timing of the promotions was not extraordinary and had been made “on the basis of merit,” says Talat Masood, a retired general turned military analyst. “These postings were in the normal course of events, with many of the officers due for rotation or retirement,” he says. “Gen Kayani used this opportunity to bring in new people according to his [priorities].”

Yet one of Kayani’s priorities, analysts say, is restoring relations with Washington, the source of over $6 billion in military aid since 2001. “There has been a strain in relations between the Pakistan army and the Pentagon,” says Hasan Askari-Rizvi, a military analyst, referring to the recent U.S. unilateral actions that sparked sharp condemnation from Kayani as well as public outrage. “The army wants to deal with this through talks and negotiations. Now, with these promotions, you have a team at the top that is in line with General Kayani’s thinking on terrorism and militancy in the tribal areas. There was a lot of skepticism about General Nadeem Taj’s commitment to fighting militants.” By appointing Gen. Pasha, who has been leading the military’s campaign in the tribal areas and has been noted for speaking out against Islamabad’s previous policy of the supporting the Taliban, “General Kayani has an ISI chief who is behind in policy, and the American complaint has been answered,” adds Askari-Rizvi.

In the wake of the July 7 bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, the ISI was accused of involvement and helping the Jalaluddin Haqqani network, which was blamed for the attack. Indeed, the dispute between Islamabad and Washington appears to center on the activities of the Haqqani network and other militants blamed for mounting cross-border attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan, which have led to a spike in violence in its eastern provinces this year. According to Pakistan’s military spokesman Gen Abbas, this may be because “the priorities are mismatching.” While the U.S. is focused on Afghanistan, the Pakistan army sees the battle currently raging in Bajaur as its priority, he said. “We cannot risk opening up another front while we don’t have the resources.”

Nevertheless, the change at the top of the ISI is likely to be welcomed by Washington, and may even relax tensions with Islamabad, analysts say. While it helps Kayani advance a more coherent approach to the challenge of rising militancy, it also underscores the army’s enduring clout. The ISI nominally falls under the purview of the prime minister, but on this occasion the civilian government merely gave formal approval to a decision by the military leadership. Two months ago, the civilian government attempted to bring the ISI formally under its control. The move was vetoed by the armed forces, proving again where power truly lies in Pakistan.

it is not our war

Pakistan’s election of a civilian president, Asif Ali Zardari, was meant to help solve the problem of former military head and president Musharraf’s questionable loyalty to U.S. aims. Musharraf was increasingly believed to be supporting military and intelligence elements in Pakistan who themselves supported Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. President Bush announced his happiness with Zardari’s selection shortly after it was announced.

Nevertheless, the change in Pakistan’s administration is unlikely to be the key to easy resolution to the rise in Taliban and Al Qaeda’s strength. Recognizing the challenge, Democratic and Republican policy makers alike are calling for an increase in troops in Afghanistan (which itself may be challenged by likely announcements in September of delayed withdrawals from Iraq).

It is not only the physical border between the two countries that cannot be easily closed. It would also be difficult to simply paste over the long and complex history of Pakistani interference in Afghan affairs (at times with full support from the United States, as during the Afghan-Sovient war). Even more difficult: any effort to reduce all of Pakistan’s regional interests to a singular interest in helping the U.S. battle militant groups in its Northwest provinces.

In an interview earlier this week, Democratic candidate Barack Obama argued that greater pressure must be put on Pakistan to use U.S. aid to defeat terrorists. Republican candidate McCain has been silent of late on Pakistan but implicitly supports some version of U.S. action in Paksistan with his claim he’ll follow bin Laden to the “gates of hell” (bin Laden is assumed to be in Pakistan, with other senior al Qaeda leaders).

But both presidential candidates may be staking claims for the next administration on quicksand, if they continue the Bush habit of forging policies by viewing Pakistan as only either “for us” or “against us,” or by failing to consider the role of Pakistani people in shaping Pakistan.

There are at least three problems in Pakistan that lie outside of Zardari’s ability to fix: its economic situation is so dire it is producing instability now; the federal government has virtually no standing with even the middle class in Pakistan; U.S. military moves are proving counterproductive.

The first, put forward by Anatole Lieven, is that Pakistan’s current economic situation is so dire for most people, right now, that desperation and anger alone may tip the balance in favor of Pakistan’s insurgents.

By the time a new administration has begun to work out its plans, it will be next spring. And as the editor of a leading Pakistani newspaper said to me in Lahore last Monday, “if the government here can’t do something serious to help the population economically within six months, it will be finished.”

He and others have warned that mass anger at rising food prices and lengthening electricity cuts could combine with hostility to the government’s campaign against the insurgents and to Pakistan’s alliance with America. Sporadic violent protests against power cuts have already occurred in several cities. The resulting instability could wreck any hope of Pakistan continuing its tough campaign against the insurgents.

…

Limited American financial help can tide Pakistan over its immediate crisis. At the same time, the United States should urgently craft longer-term aid programs intended to strengthen resistance to the spread of insurgency.

These should be focused on the North-West Frontier Province. The planned $750 million for the tribal areas is a good idea in itself, but given the security situation and lack of basic infrastructure in these areas, it will be many years before this money can be spent effectively. Meanwhile, the North-West Frontier Province itself is in grave danger from the militants.

Second, the Pakistani central government has limited control over its people. They do not feel a sense of symbolic allegiance to a national identity, nor do they have ties to a national government that has done little for them.

M. Junaid Levesque-Alam writes eloquently on this point:

Today, American leaders surveying options in the region display even less prudence than a child in an unfamiliar marketplace. They openly speak the language of violence, fail to ask necessary questions, and evince little concern about the costs of their decisions….

. . . .in pressing and prodding Pakistan to take greater military action alongside America, U.S. leaders reveal just how little they know about the country and the path to lasting peace.

Does the civilian government – whose “cooperation” we seek in the intensified fight – possess any real authority? What are the priorities of Pakistan’s perennially-looming institution, the army? Why should ordinary Pakistanis back an escalating war against some of their own?

But, in addition to having basic development problems on its hands, the U.S. cannot count on the support of an enlightened middle class, as Lieven demonstrates with respect to his own family, for “the scene is so dispiriting that much of the middle class simply ignores politics altogether. My mother’s side of the family, all educated and solidly middle-class, have to my recollection never evinced interest in any of the parties in light of the transparent hankering for power displayed by the politicians.”

Against this backdrop, the government’s cachet among its people is limited. The notion that such a fragile institution, beset by incompetence, invisibility, and cronyism, can simply wave its hands in the air and convince its citizens to become an appendage of the U.S. “war on terror” is a wild fantasy.

US needs to understand

The Bush administration is looking for illusive, quick results when a long-term perspective is crucial for success. Frequent U.S. airstrikes by drones in Pakistan’s tribal belt and the recent limited land operation in South Waziristan by U.S. forces have sparked anger throughout the country. Outraged moderates are joining hands with religious parties, asking the government to review Pakistan’s alliance in the war on terror. The government will resist such pressure, but it will be hard to pacify the public if these strikes escalate.

Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, recently told an interviewer, “I traveled three months to recruit and only got 10-15 persons. One bombing by the Americans that killed innocents, and I got hundreds of recruits!”

The Bush administration is looking for illusive, quick results when a long-term perspective is crucial for success. Frequent U.S. airstrikes by drones in Pakistan’s tribal belt and the recent limited land operation in South Waziristan by U.S. forces have sparked anger throughout the country. Outraged moderates are joining hands with religious parties, asking the government to review Pakistan’s alliance in the war on terror. The government will resist such pressure, but it will be hard to pacify the public if these strikes escalate

The United States needs to face the fact that it will not capture Osama bin Laden without Pakistan’s help. If U.S. policymakers have misgivings about elements of the ISI or other intelligence agencies, now is the time to address them, given that Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the Army chief of staff, and the present civilian government are serious about fighting terrorism and militancy.

Iran, Pakistan finalise gas pipeline deal without India

Iran and Pakistan have finalised a deal on USD 7.4 billion gas pipeline project without the participation of India, ending settled differences on the agreement during four-day negotiations in Tehran. The two countries have agreed to sign draft agreement and a letter of understanding by the end of October, a senior Iranian official said yesterday. The India-Pakistan-Iran talks in Tehran, which began on September 24, was not attended by India, who said it will not attend the tri-nation meetings unless transit fee issue is resolved with Islamabad.

Iranian Oil Minister’s special representative Hojjatollah Ghanimifard, however, said “Iran welcomes India whenever it joins us in the peace pipeline project.”Ahmed Mokhtar, a senior advisor to Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and the country’s Petroleum Secretary Farooq Qayyum, represented Pakistan at the talks.

The two countries are now scheduled to sign the final deal by November.

The two sides have prepared the final text of the agreement and Iranian and Pakistani officials will meet again in Islamabad on October 15-19.

Iranian Oil Minister’s special representative Hojjatollah Ghanimifard told the official Iranian news agency that both countries have reached consensus on “all conditions of the deal, and the draft agreement is ready to be signed by lawyers and experts of different technical, financial and commercial sectors The Iranian and Pakistani representatives have settled differences on the deal during four-day negotiations which lasted until last night, IRNA reported Saturday.

“According to the negotiations, the Pakistani side is to submit the draft agreement to us next week, and we will declare our views on it in a week,” Ghanimifard said.

He noted that the last round of the discussions will be held in Pakistan in mid October. “The two sides will explore the draft agreement not to be contrary with the MoU already signed by the leaders of the countries parties to the project,” he said.

According to the initial agreements in 1990, the project was to be carried out by Tehran, Islamabad and New Delhi to transfer Iranian natural gas to India through Pakistan. The 2,600 km pipeline would carry 60 and 90 million cubic meter of gas a day to Pakistan and India respectively.

Oh God. Save Us Please

Mr Zardari, co-chair of the Pakistan People’s Party, was diagnosed with a range of psychiatric illnesses, including dementia, major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The illnesses were said to be linked to the fact that he has spent 11 of the past 20 years in Pakistani prisons fighting charges of corruption. He claims to have been tortured during his incarceration.

In March 2007 New York psychiatrist Philip Saltiel found that Mr Zardari’s time in detention left him with severe “emotional instability”, memory loss and concentration problems, according to court documents seen by the Financial Times.

“I do not see any improvement in these issues for at least a year,” he wrote.

Stephen Reich, a psychiatrist from New York State, said Mr Zardari was unable to recall the birthdays of his wife and children and had thought about suicide.

Mr Zardari used the medical reports to successfully fight a now defunct English High Court case in which the Pakistan government sought to sue him over alleged corruption. The case was dropped in March.

Mr Zardari was not available to comment on the documents, but Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the Pakistan high commissioner to London said he was now fit and well.

Mr Zardari is his party’s candidate to succeed Pervez Musharraf as president of the nuclear-armed country.

However, his coalition government with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, fell apart yesterday after Mr Sharif withdrew his party, the The Pakistan Muslim League-N.

Source : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/2622123/Pakistan-presidential-candidate-Asif-Ali-Zardari-suffering-from-severe-mental-problems.html

Which is the terrorist state ? you decide

• the hundreds of thousands of civilians incinerated in the U.S. fire bombings of Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo, and in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki;
• the two to five million post-World-War-II refugees from the Soviet Union who were forcibly returned to Stalin, to face either immediate execution or a slow death in the Gulag, on the orders of Roosevelt and Eisenhower in Operation Keelhaul;
• the millions of civilians who died from hunger and disease as a result of U.S.-instigated mass starvation of Germans during 1945-1950 under the Morgenthau Plan;
• the millions of Native Americans killed by soldiers and occupiers of their land in the 19th Century or allowed to starve to death by the U.S. government in the 20th (a clear case of genocide);
• the thousands of Iranians tortured and murdered by SAVAK, the secret police of the regime installed in 1953 as a result of a CIA-led coup which overthrew the popular Iranian Premier, Mossadegh);
• the million or so Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians killed by the American military in the 1960s and 70s whilst defending their countries from American domination (or simply because they happened to be where the Americans carried out their carpet bombings);
• the tens of thousands of civilians who were tortured and murdered by CIA-installed dictatorships in Central and South America;
• the 200,000 people (all civilians) killed (using U.S.-supplied equipment) as a result of Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor in 1975 for which prior approval was given by the then U.S. President and U.S. Secretary of State (Ford and Kissinger);
• the six million Brazilian Indians who have died as a result of the policies of multinational corporations;
• the 10,000 to 20,000 people, mostly civilians, killed in the U.S.-supported 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel;
• the 300,000 Iranians killed in the Iran/Iraq war, which was started by Iraq at the instigation of the U.S. (which supplied Iraq with the weapons it used);
• the 200,000 civilians killed by Reagan’s CIA-cocaine-funded Contras in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras in the 1980s;
• the 6,000 (perhaps as many as 20,000) Iraqi civilians killed during the 41 days and nights of bombing by the British and the Americans in 1991 (during which time the civilian infrastructure was targeted, a war crime), including:
• the 500 civilians (including whole families) burnt alive and turned into cinders when American missiles penetrated a shelter in Baghdad;
• the tens of thousands of Iraqi conscripts slaughtered on the ”Highway of Death” by U.S. Navy pilots during their attempted retreat from Kuwait in 1991 (another war crime because the soldiers killed were not in a combat situation);
• the tens of thousands of Kurdish civilians killed in South-East Turkey during the 1990s by Turkish government soldiers using weapons and equipment supplied to them by the U.S. (which knew exactly what they were doing with them);
• the tens of thousands of civilians in Sudan who have died due to the absence of medicines resulting from the destruction of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant by American cruise missiles in 1998 and from the economic sanctions imposed on Sudan;
• the one to two million Iraqi civilians, two-thirds of them children, who have died in the last ten years as a result of the effects of the hundreds of tons of cancer-causing depleted uranium left over from the million or so exploded rounds of DU ammunition used in attacks by American warplanes in the 1991 American/British 6-week terrorist campaign against Iraq and from the subsequent U.S./British-imposed economic blockade and criminally punitive sanctions (not to mention those killed by the bombing raids which occur every week);
• and the tens of millions of civilians who die every year in Third World countries from starvation, disease and despair because their countries are mired in poverty and corruption as a result of economic exploitation by American multinationals acting with the support and approval of the American government.

To those in the higher echelons of a government of a terrorist state which, by means of its military and its CIA, has killed tens of millions of civilians in foreign countries, the killing of a few thousand of their fellow citizens is simply another exercise in mass murder, needing a little more planning, but not much different to what they and their predecessors have done before.

When asked about the number of Iraqis who died in the war [the 1991 Gulf Slaughter], US General Colin Powell [current US Secretary of State] replied:  “It’s really not a number I’m terribly interested in.” — The Allied Genocide of Iraq

Terrible though that act of terrorism [the Madrid bombings] was, it was small compared with the terrorism of the American-led “coalition”. Yes, terrorism. How strange it reads when it describes the actions of “our” governments. So saturated are we in the West in the devilry of Third World tyrants (most of them the products of Western imperialism) that we have lost all sense of the enormous crime committed in our name. — John Pilger, The crime committed in our name

Where the War on terror is heading to

in the midst of the fear psychosis and frenzy created by the US/global economic meltdown, a grave and dramatic encounter between the US and the Pakistani troops went almost unnoticed. The Economist reports that although both the US and Pakistan deny it; “but it appears that on September 15th they fought a short war.

“America started it. Local reports suggest that, under cover of darkness, two helicopter-loads of its soldiers crossed on foot from Afghanistan into the Pakistani tribal area—and terrorist haven—of South Waziristan. But, on this occasion, Pakistani border troops responded as to the act of aggression that it constituted: shooting over the heads of the advancing Americans, forcing them back.

“So, for related reasons, the ramifications could hardly be greater. A ruggedly inaccessible region, the tribal areas form a hinge between Pakistan and Afghanistan. By manipulating the sentiments of the 3.5m Pushtun tribesfolk who live there, past rulers, including British colonial administrators and Pakistani dictators, have sought to influence events in Afghanistan, where Pushtuns also predominate.

“In this way, the Soviet army was driven from Afghanistan in 1989—by American-armed mujahideen. But now, in a sadly predictable repetition, it is America and its allies that attract the tribesmen’s wrath.

“Mr Bush’s new aggression was first unveiled on September 3rd with an American airborne assault on the village of Jala Khel, in South Waziristan, which, American officials claimed, killed a score of al-Qaeda militants. The army and journalists in Pakistan said the victims were civilians.

Bush made the world a safer place –

World safer place because of Bush’  says Zardi

Zardari obviously wants to curry favor with the U.S. Zardari is famous for getting his cut of everything. Maybe he wants to increase the flow of U.S. aid. For now the U.S. and NATO seem to be confining their actions in Pakistan to drone operations although there have been some reports of more helicopter overflights. It remains to be seen if Zardari will be able to create any sort of stable government in Pakistan. In some border areas the army is pursuing an offence against militants but this has driven many over the border into Afghanistan. Some militants may have gone with them.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!