Proliferation Press

A webpage devoted to tracking and analyzing current events related to the proliferation of WMD/CBRN.

Archive for February, 2008

Islamic Parties Suffer in Pakistan’s Federal and Regional Elections

Posted by K.E. White on February 20, 2008

Here’s one thing to cheer: The fundamentalist ruling party of the North-West Frontier Province—Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) of the Pakistan frontier region—suffered a huge defeat in Pakistan’s elections earlier this week. 

The shift from MMA-rule to the Awami National Party (ANP) may bring considerable changes to Pakistan’s anti-terror policies, particularly the purpose of Al Qaeda members. 

From The Times of India

The Red Caps are back in the Frontier. In a remarkable display of resilience and commitment to its secular values, the Awami National Party (ANP), which bore the brunt of suicide bombers in the run up to the elections in the country’s most volatile province bordering Afghanistan, swept to power in NWFP on Tuesday as it completely decimated Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) in its stronghold.

So powerful was the Pashtun nationalist party’s resurgence that the MMA affiliate, Maulana Fazlur Rehman of Jamiat Ulema-i-Islami, lost his own seat in his hometown of Dera Ismail Khan, despite the fact that women were stoped from voting in many parts of the province.

To add insult to injury, the Islamic party also lost votes and seats in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), dubbed by some as the nursery of Islamic fundamentalism.   

Posted in election, Pakistan | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

Bolton on the UN & International Law: Not So Needed, After all

Posted by K.E. White on February 19, 2008

Less Shocking: Former UN Ambassador John Bolton favors US unilateralism/bilateralism over international organizations.

More Shocking: His swipe at international law.

From Yale Daily News’ report on Bolton’s Thursday Yale Law School visit:

“There’s only one country that’s going to stop nuclear proliferation and the threats presented by Iran and North Korea, and that’s the United States,” he concluded. “And that’s the cold, hard truth about international organizations.”

Bolton served as U.N. ambassador under a recess appointment beginning in August 2005. His nomination to the post in 2006 was never approved by the Senate.

Bolton described what he sees as the current challenges in American non-proliferation policy and discussed the United States’ best options in addressing nuclear threats — hardly bothering to veil his disdain for international law and institutions.

“When I was here, I didn’t take any courses at all on international law,” he said, “and frankly I don’t think I missed a thing.”

The paradigm for stemming proliferation, Bolton said, is Libya’s voluntary disarmament in 2003 under American and British pressure — without the help of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

Posted in Foreign Policy, John Bolton, proliferation, United Nations | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

CIA Killed Top Terrorist in Pakistan Without Musharraf Green-Light

Posted by K.E. White on February 19, 2008

MSNBC reports that the CIA killed a top al-Qaeda commander in Pakistan, but did not consult with President Musharraf before launching the missile attack.

What reaction will the Pakistani public have? Is this the new way US forces operate in the terrorist hotbed of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border?

From MSNBC:

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone’s operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA’s dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda’s core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government’s official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Posted in CIA, Pakistan, Terrorism, United States | Tagged: , , , , , | 12 Comments »

Election NIght Pakistan: Sweeping But Not Complete Opposition Victory

Posted by K.E. White on February 19, 2008

While the PML-N and PPP have had a huge night, it appears initial forecasts of a two-thirds majority (which would allow presidential impeachment or Constitutional restoration) may need to be corrected. 

Whether owing to vote-rigging or not, the failure to seal a 2/3s majority may be why President Musharraf feels comfortable calling this “mother of elections” the “voice of the nation.”

It also appears that the PML-N had more success than expected. 

From The Dawn:

But while the partial results had already started trickling in, the president, while appearing briefly on the state-run Pakistan Television, called the vote “the voice of the nation” and said whoever won in what he called the “mother of elections” must be accepted. “We must accept the result gracefully.”

While the PPP was likely to win most of the National Assembly and provincial assembly seats in its main power base of Sindh province, besides sharing the spoils in the other three provinces of Punjab, North-West Frontier Province and Balochistan, the PML-N looked doing unexpectedly well in Punjab, even giving some shocks to a friendly PPP.

While top PPP leaders remained comparatively inactive during a 40-day mourning for Ms Bhutto and did not campaign much even afterwards, PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif created his own wave in his home province of Punjab and Hazara region of the NWFP with his hard line against President Musharraf and for the restoration of about 60 superior court judges who were sacked under the extra-constitutional emergency the president had declared on Nov 3 in his now given up capacity as army chief.

Both the PPP and PML-N have vowed to cooperate in the formation of the future government — and possibly have a government of national consensus — if they together win a majority. A two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament would enable them to impeach the president and to deprive the presidency of its powers to sack a prime minister and dissolve the parliament by restoring the Constitution to its pre-Oct 12, 1999 position when General Musharraf suspended it while capturing power by toppling the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif and then amending it by decree.

But that does not seem to be an immediate possibility while a PML-led coalition has a majority in the 100-seat Senate and it is not yet certain if all the opposition parties together will have a two-thirds majority in the 342-seat National Assembly.

The coming days guarantee high-stakes discussions between the PPP and PML-N. How these will pan out, and where Musharraf will end up seems an open question.

But one thing seems clear: While low turnout and violence did mar the elections, the day was a success—a considerable feat in light of Benazir Bhutto’s recent assassination.

And if you didn’t know, Senators Joe Biden (D-DE), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and John Kerry (D-MA) were in Pakistan for the historic day.

Posted in election, Pakistan | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pakistan Election Update: Early Results Suggests Sweeping Opposition Victory

Posted by K.E. White on February 19, 2008

From Bloomberg News:

Pakistan’s opposition parties were poised to win parliamentary elections as voters sought an end to President Pervez Musharraf’s eight years of military rule.

“It seems, according to predictions, that the opposition has won,” Tariq Azeem, a spokesman for the pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid-i-Azam, said by telephone from the capital, Islamabad.

Early results from the 64,000 polling booths showed that the two major political groups — the late Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party and former prime minister Mohammad Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League — could gain control of two- thirds of the parliament’s seats. That would give them government control and the mandate to reverse constitutional changes that have kept Musharraf in power since a 1999 military coup.

Posted in election, Pakistan | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Election Night Pakistan: Early Returns Suggest Musharraf Defeat

Posted by K.E. White on February 18, 2008

But will the two leading opposition parties get to a two-thirds parliamentary majority? And just how well will the PPP and PML-N get along?

The Times of India writes on the early returns. And The Dawn offers this geographic breakdown of support.

The Dawn also offers articles on the killings of policemen and parliamentary candidate, not to mention an election delay owing to violence.

And The New York Times offers this slide show of Pakistan’s consequential and violent election day.

Posted in election, Pakistan | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rice and Gates on Iraq: No Tied Hands for Next President

Posted by K.E. White on February 14, 2008

The Iraq War’s United Nation authorization is just about up. In its place, the Bush administration is working out a “status-of forces” agreement to continue the U.S. military mission in Iraq. 

Such “status-of-forces” agreements do no require Congressional approval, unlike treaties which require a two-thirds Senate majority.

 

Naturally the question becomes: What will the twilight Bush administration lump into this “status-of-forces” agreement? 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought to answer this question, and quell any Congressional concerns over whether or not such an agreement would morph into a lasting troop commitment or security guarantee. 

From Wednesday’s Washington Post

First, some background. Whenever American troops are stationed or temporarily present on foreign soil, a number of legal questions arise, ranging from the overall scope of their mission to the minutiae of day-to-day life — from authority to fight to rules for delivering mail. In more than 115 nations, we have individually tailored status-of-forces agreements. These agreements are crafted to take into account circumstances in each host country as well as the unique requirements and missions of our forces there.

In Iraq, the presence and role of the United States and our coalition partners have been authorized by U.N. resolutions. The current U.N. authorization expires at the end of this year, and Iraq has indicated that it will not seek an extension. It would rather have an arrangement that is more in line with what typically governs the relationships between two sovereign nations.

In these negotiations, we seek to set the basic parameters for the U.S. presence in Iraq, including the appropriate authorities and jurisdiction necessary to operate effectively and to carry out essential missions, such as helping the Iraqi government fight al-Qaeda, develop its security forces, and stem the flow of lethal weapons and training from Iran. In addition, we seek to establish a basic framework for a strong relationship with Iraq, reflecting our shared political, economic, cultural and security interests.

Nothing to be negotiated will mandate that we continue combat missions. Nothing will set troop levels. Nothing will commit the United States to join Iraq in a war against another country or provide other such security commitments. And nothing will authorize permanent bases in Iraq (something neither we nor Iraqis want). And consistent with well-established practice regarding such agreements, nothing will involve the U.S. Senate‘s treaty-ratification authority — although we will work closely with the appropriate committees of Congress to keep lawmakers informed and to provide complete transparency. Classified briefings have already begun, and we look forward to congressional input.

In short, nothing to be negotiated in the coming months will tie the hands of the next commander in chief, whomever he or she may be. Quite the contrary, it will give the president the legal authority to protect our national interest — and the latitude to chart the next administration’s course.

Want to know more status-of-forces agreement? Check out this Global Security article.

Posted in Gates, Iraq, Rice | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Public Opinion on Iraq: Pro-Surge or Pro-Withdrawal?

Posted by K.E. White on February 13, 2008

No clear answer. 

Travis Sharp over at the Council for a Livable World notes that 40% of American believe the surge is working. That’s a two-fold increase from September 2007. 

But Center for American Progress researcher Rey Teixiera makes that the case most Americans want out: either now or in a year.  (Of course that could be flipped: having a majority of Americans wanting more time for success. And seeing success, this majority could then favor yet another year.)

The two reports seem to suggest the following conclusions: 

-an unhappy public that would prefer getting out of Iraq

-but real optimism that a limited success can occur 

In short: Just enough for a possible Democrat to come into office and push a withdrawal plan, just to see the public turns their back on that again.

Posted in Iraq, public opinion, surge | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Pakistan Nuclear Assets: Materials Safe, But Technicians (and Ambassador) Abducted

Posted by K.E. White on February 13, 2008

Two Pakistani nuclear technicians and Pakistan’s ambassador to Afghanistan have been kidnapped

Seems past Pakistani confidence in their nuclear security needs to be revisited. 

From the International Herald Tribune

“The state of alertness has gone up, most certainly,” the Pakistani official said during a rare background briefing to representatives of foreign news media. However, he stressed that “there is no conceivable political situation in which the nuclear assets can fall into the wrong hands.” 

Reports suggest that the ambassador, Tariq Azizuddin, is still alive and efforts are underway for his release.

Additional Note: Pakistan’s parliamentary elections are set for next Monday, February 18th.

Posted in abduction, kidnap, Nuclear, Pakistan, Tariq Azizuddin | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Trouble in Afghanistan: Wither NATO?

Posted by K.E. White on February 10, 2008

The Canadian-led NATO mission in Afghanistan has run into some considerable trouble.

Canada called for more troops from NATO partners, even threatening to pull out if their request went unanswered.

While Germany has softened its opposition to granting more troops, the United States has increased diplomatic pressure on NATO allies to solve the Afghan dilemma.

Speaking at an international security conference in Munich, Defense Secretary Robert Gates openly pressed NATO members to send more troops to Afghanistan.

From the New York Times:

After weeks of calling on NATO governments to send more combat troops and trainers to Afghanistan, Mr. Gates made his case directly to people across the continent in a keynote address to an international security conference here. Mr. Gates summoned the memory of Sept. 11, 2001, to say that Europe is at risk of becoming victim to attacks of the same enormity.

“I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the magnitude of the direct threat to European security,” Mr. Gates said. “For the United States, Sept. 11 was a galvanizing event one that opened the American public’s eyes to dangers from distant lands.”

In a hall filled with government officials, lawmakers and policy analysts from around the world, Mr. Gates added: “So now I would like to add my voice to those of many allied leaders on the continent and speak directly to the people of Europe. The threat posed by violent Islamic extremism is real and it is not going to go away.”

While Iraq dominates headlines in America, Afghanistan remains a vital front in the war on terror. The Afghan-Pakistan border still stands as a critical hotbed of extremist activity.

But getting more troops from war-weary allies is no easy task. France has elevated political success over military success in Afghanistan; Australia refuses to send more troops; and Merkel faces stern opposition to any German troop increase.

From AFP:

According to an opinion poll due to be published in Monday’s edition of the magazine Focus, 84 percent of Germans oppose sending combat troops to the south.

And 63 percent believe the current deployment in northern Afghanistan does not serve German interests, according to the TNS Emnid poll.

Germany, whose troop level deployment in Afghanistan currently stands at about 3,200, earlier this week announced it would take over responsibility from Norway in July for a quick reaction force in the north of the country.

The Sunday Herald—a Scottish newspaper—illustrates just how high the stakes are for NATO in Afghanistan:

The problem is that Nato is not geared up to that kind of thinking, even though it is beginning to concentrate on training the Afghans to take over responsibility for their own security. The alliance was formed to defend the West against attack from the Soviet Union. During that time it never fired a shot in anger, and now it has been tasked to fight what many believe is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Afghanistan is still considered by the security community as the make-or-break mission for Nato, and the urgency of the situation cannot be overstated,” argues Kate Clouston, an associate of the Royal United Services Institute, in a paper on the alliance’s operations in Afghanistan for the independent think tank. “Substantial reform by Nato allies is needed now if the alliance is ever going to be ready to hand over control of the currently unsecured provinces to Afghan national forces.”

The British publication Telegraph has a detailed article on John McCain’s foreign policy, in particular his views on Afghanistan:

A future President McCain would be expected to win favour with European governments critical of the Bush administration’s approach to combating Islamic extremism, by closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in the first weeks of his presidency and declaring that the US will no longer tolerate torture.

British and American pressure on Germany appeared to bear fruit yesterday when it emerged the German government might send an extra 1,000 troops to Afghanistan. But Mr McCain will continue to work to broaden its restrictive rules of engagement.

The Afghanistan offensive will form a major plank of Mr McCain’s outreach to the world, as he battles to win over conservatives in his party.

Posted in Afghanistan, NATO | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.