PAKISTAN LEADER SOFTENS CRITICISM OF ARMY AND SPY AGENCY

[Two weeks ago, Pakistan was gripped by rumors of an impending coup after blunt public statements from both sides. In late December, Mr. Gilani warned that he would not tolerate a military-dominated “state within a state.” He later told a Chinese news agency that the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and the director general of the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, had acted illegally in sending testimony to the Supreme Court as part of a controversy that has threatened to topple the government.]

By Salman Masood  and Declan Walsh

Aamir Qureshi/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani arrived at the

Supreme Court in Islamabad last Thursday.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani softened his criticism of senior generals on Wednesday in what appeared to be an effort to ease the tensions between Pakistan’s sparring civilian and military elites, saying the country could not afford further friction between its most powerful institutions.

“I want to dispel the impression that the military leadership acted unconstitutionally or violated rules,” Mr. Gilani told reporters before leaving for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “We have to be seen on the same page.”

The remarks came less than 24 hours after Mr. Gilani held an unusual meeting with the country’s military and spy chiefs at his Islamabad home and offered the strongest indication yet that the tensions might be dissipating.

Two weeks ago, Pakistan was gripped by rumors of an impending coup after blunt public statements from both sides. In late December, Mr. Gilani warned that he would not tolerate a military-dominated “state within a state.” He later told a Chinese news agency that the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and the director general of the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, had acted illegally in sending testimony to the Supreme Court as part of a controversy that has threatened to topple the government.

The military responded soon after with a warning of “potentially grievous consequences” if Mr. Gilani did not retract his statement. Combined with a sudden visit by President Asif Ali Zardari to Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, the statement set off the coup rumors.

But the president and the army chief met in Islamabad on Jan. 14, suggesting efforts at reconciliation. The tone of the prime minister’s statement on Wednesday indicated that a face-saving agreement might have been reached.

Meanwhile, the scandal at the heart of the tensions, known here as Memogate, seemed to stall as a central figure, Mansoor Ijaz, failed to testify as promised before an investigating judicial commission on Tuesday.

Mr. Ijaz, an American businessman of Pakistani descent, claimed in a newspaper article in October that he had sent a secret memo to the Obama administration in May on behalf of the Zardari government, seeking American help in warding off a possible coup after the Pakistani military was humiliated by the American commando operation in which Osama bin Laden was killed. Mr. Ijaz later said that Husain Haqqani, then Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, was behind the memo. Mr. Haqqani denied the accusation but was forced to step down.

Mr. Ijaz’s failure to appear before the judicial panel in Islamabad was the second time he had missed an opportunity to testify. Saying that he feared for his life, Mr. Ijaz had demanded military protection for his visit. (He has been variously reported as being in Zurich, London or Dubai.) The government refused, saying he would be adequately protected but not treated as a “viceroy.”

The next hearing of the judicial commission is scheduled for Feb. 9, giving Mr. Ijaz one last chance to record his statement. In the Pakistani news media, his failures to appear are perceived to have eroded his credibility.

“He should not be allowed to hold this country hostage to his dangerous shenanigans anymore,” said an editorial on Wednesday in Dawn, which is considered to be Pakistan’s most respected English-language daily newspaper.

Talking to reporters on Wednesday, Mr. Gilani put the blame for the misunderstandings between his government and the military on the former defense secretary, Naeem Khalid Lodhi, a former general and corps commander who was dismissed on Jan. 11 over charges of misconduct.

The civilian government earlier accused Mr. Lodhi, who is close to General Kayani, of facilitating the military’s “illegal” depositions to the Supreme Court about the Memogate controversy. On Wednesday, Mr. Gilani said those statements had been made in a certain context and no longer pertained to the army chief and the ISI director general.

The next major challenge facing the government looms on Feb. 1, when the Supreme Court is scheduled to resume hearing a long-running case that seeks to reopen a corruption investigation into Mr. Zardari’s finances in Switzerland.

@ The New York Times

NEPAL: MAOISTS RUN A SHOW ONCE AGAIN

[What is said in the Nepalese media is that if the Maoists win the elections with Prachanda leading as President, this will lead to instability in the country and the Maoists will succeed in their agenda for a complete restructuring of the country and the society!]

By S. Chandrasekharan

It looked that Nepal was almost reaching the end game with most of the issues relating to the peace process and the new constitution completed within the final dead line of end May given by the Supreme Court while allowing the extension last time.

Despite an extreme position taken in the Palungtar plenum to go for a People’s revolt, it looked that Chairman of the UCPN (Maoist) had realised particularly after his resignation in 2009 that a moderate position rather than an extreme one would make him a "national leader" acceptable to all.

Thus, he had steadily moved to complete the peace process and constitution making without creating any major hurdle as it was well known that without the cooperation of the Maoists, the peace process and the draft of a new constitution cannot be completed.

The ideal situation would have been for a "consensus government" and since this was not feasible- given the lack of trust among the political parties, the next best thing was that a Maoist led government would prove successful. This was the expectation of the people.

Dahal had also led the ‘Dispute resolution Sub Committee’ to resolve almost all of the outstandingdisputes - 198 out of 200 with only two major disputes on State Structure and form of Governance remaining to be solved.

Now all of a sudden, what we now see is a stalled peace process and a resumption of the "Blame game."

As before, at the time when the crucial decisions are to be taken to meet the dead line, the Maoists had a prolonged Central Committee meeting to sort out their internal disputes over the very same issues which had already been decided earlier.

In this cc meeting which ended on 15^th Jan, as usual two reports were placed ( not three this time as Bhattarai, now Prime Minister- did not produce one), one taking a moderate line by Chairman Dahal and another by the so called hard line group led by Mohan Baidya.

Dahal is said to have given in to the Baidya group and agreed to form a ‘respectable army integration’ and a people oriented, anti imperialistic and anti feudal constitution. He had also agreed to discuss the group entry into the Nepalese Army once again ( he had earlier accepted individual entries after prolonged discussion), an armed role for the combatants so integrated and creating positions in proportion of their numbers in the security bodies so created. There is a contradiction here, as an armed role or positions in the security setup will not arise if the "bulk entry" is to be accepted.

There is no way other parties would agree to go back on the decision taken on the mode of integration into the Nepal Army, though there could be adjustments on the positions for the PLA combatants.

Worse still, Dahal agreed in the central committee to withdraw his decisions in the sub committee of the Constitutional Assembly which he headed on the ground that his party did not approve of his decisions. Surely this position will again be not acceptable to other parties who had argued and reasoned in many meetings to come to such decisions!

It looks that the Maoists are orchestrating "very deep differences" to bring other parties to their line of thinking both in the peace process and in constitution making! There is thus the High Drama again!

Not to be outdone, the Nepali Congress has gone back on its approval in principle of a directly elected President as the chief executive. Instead they are now insisting on a directly elected presidential system, but with a prime minister elected by and accountable to the parliament. Thus, the executive powers are to be shared between the prime minister and the president.

What they are insisting is a hybrid model, with the president elected, a cabinet named by the president but responsible to the Parliament and not to the President.

Why has the Nepali Congress suddenly realised that an executive president with all powers is not good for the stability of the country and why did they not raise this issue much earlier? It is not clear.

What is said in the Nepalese media is that if the Maoists win the elections with Prachanda leading as President, this will lead to instability in the country and the Maoists will succeed in their agenda for a complete restructuring of the country and the society!

This shows that the Nepali Congress does not seem to have confidence in themselves in winning the elections and are giving up the fight even before it has started.

Time is running out. The Supreme Court has already  rejected the petitions filed by the Special Committee of the Constituent Assembly and the Government seeking a revision of its earlier ruling against the extension of the assembly.

The CA has the option of completing at least a skeleton of the constitution before the dead line or allow itself to be dissolved by end May to a political vacuum and uncertain political future.

The choice is theirs and people in Nepal will not forgive them if they do not put their act together.

@ South  Asia Analysis Group