Balochistan People’s Party

In a January 26 op-ed in the Iranian daily Kayhan, the paper's editor, Hossein Shariatmadari, who is close to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, called on Muslims to unite in a retaliatory attack on American, European, and Israeli "sensitive centers" because of "the war crimes that these countries are committing in the Gaza Strip" and because of their support for Israel.

In his op-ed, Shar'iatmadari stressed that American and European civilians must be harmed in these attacks, so as to make the U.S. and the European countries change their policy towards Israel. He further called for harming Israelis worldwide, and explained that Islamic regimes that prevent an Islamic attack on Israel must be toppled, because

they are defending the enemy.

Following are excerpts from Sharatmadari's op-ed, which was titled "The Defenders of the Enemy": [1]

"The slaughter being carried out by the Zionists in Gaza - which includes the mass murder of Palestinian men, women, and children, cutting off the electricity, water, and fuel, stopping the supply of medicines and food products - along with various other savage crimes, is disgraceful for the Zionists, and for America and its European allies.

"However, it is even more embarrassing and disgraceful for, first and foremost, the heads of several Islamic countries, [including] Egypt, that is insisting on adhering to the abject Camp David Accords and closing the Rafah border crossing [to the Palestinians]; for the cowardly and characterless rulers of Bahrain and the U.A.E., who awarded a prize to the murderer [i.e. President Bush] of the oppressed Palestinian people during his recent trip to the region; and for the Saudi [royal] family, that bears the appellation 'Custodian of the Two Holy Places' but is indifferent to the crimes and violations of the infidel Zionists in the Muslim holy places, and so on.

"But aren't most of the sensitive centers of the Zionists, of the Americans, and of some European states that support Israel already situated within the arms' reach of the Muslims? And aren't the Zionists [vulnerable] and located within arms' reach of the Muslims at the four corners of the earth? What human and legal basis can prevent an attack on these centers and people? Why must the savage, blood-letting Zionists and Americans be permitted to choose the field of battle as they wish? [Why are they permitted] to besiege the oppressed Palestinian brothers and sisters and their children, on the land that belongs to that helpless people, and to shoot at them night and day and to massacre them?

"America and its European and Zionist supporters must know that their support for Israel's crimes will cost them very dearly. Once they discern that this support will cost them the property and lives of their citizens, they will doubtless reconsider their support for the savage Zionists... And didn't the Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini] instruct that if every Muslim pours out one bucket of water, there will be a flood that will sweep away Israel, and destroy it?

"Every time a movement rises up against the Zionist occupier and acts to liberate its homeland, America and its allies accuse it of terrorism, and every state that supports these movements is punished. Why wouldn’t the Muslims act the same way, and attack all the supporters of the Zionists everywhere in the world?

"There is a legal view valid in both the Shi'ite and the Sunni school that it is permissible to attack anyone whom the enemy uses as a shield in the war against the enemies of Islam. Therefore, if some heads of Islamic states prevent the Muslim peoples from attacking the Zionists - thus constituting a shield that prevents support to the persecuted people of that region - it permissible to topple these defenders of the enemy."

[1] Kayhan (Iran), January 26, 2008.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Polls boycott in Balochistan

By Sanaullah Baloch ; 27-01-2008 ; http://www.dawn.com/

FOLLOWING the All Parties Democratic Movement’s (APDM) decision, Baloch and Pushtoon nationalist parties are boycotting the upcoming elections in Balochistan. No doubt, the majority of the moderate, literate and student groups in Balochistan are affiliated with the boycotting parties.

The core issue is not the election boycott, but the serious detachment of the nationalist parties from mainstream politics and the poll process. This is alarming.

The main reason for their boycott of the poll is the military operations unleashed by the federal government which led to killings, arrests and brutalities in Balochistan. Their boycott will certainly give the government an opportunity to re-install a pro-military religious government in the province to continue its unpopular policies.

The four major nationalist parties that are boycotting the polls are the Balochistan National Party (BNP), Pushtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party, National Party (NP) and Jamhoori Watan Party (JWP). These parties believe that the ‘boycott weapon’ might prove to be effective against dictatorship and autocracy.

They believe that the on-going military operation had worsened the situation in Balochistan which had taken a critical turn after the assassination of Baloch nationalist leaders Akbar Khan Bugti and Balach Marri. Also disturbing is the arrest of thousands of Baloch political activists, including Sardar Akhter Mengal, who are being tortured while others have disappeared.

This is not the first time that people in Balochistan are boycotting elections. In 1977 the political parties in the province had boycotted the polls under the umbrella of the PNA because of the military operation and the detention of a majority of Baloch leaders.

In the 1970 elections, when intelligence agencies were not involved in ‘election management’, the moderate Baloch nationalists won three out of four National Assembly seats and eight out of twenty in the provincial assembly. Although five members were elected as independent candidates the majority was supported by the nationalists. JUI was able to win only two seats in the 1970 elections in Balochistan. The Pakistan People’s Party did well in Punjab and Sindh but failed to win a single national and provincial seat in Balochistan.

In 1988, Baloch nationalists won the majority seats in Baloch populated constituencies. JUI and other parties managed to win seats from Pushtoon dominated areas of the province. Nawab Akbar Bugti was appointed chief minister. His unpleasant relations with Benazir Bhutto-led central government made it difficult to initiate a mega economic activity in the province to uplift the socio-economic condition of impoverished masses.

In 1990, once again Nawab Bugti’s JWP and other Baloch nationalists won a majority in the province but were prevented by the intelligence agencies from forming a government. In 1993, Baloch nationalists suffered heavy election losses due to election manipulations by the agencies and some internal fractions.

In 1997, BNP formed by veteran Baloch nationalist Sardar Attaullah Mengal secured quite a reasonable number of seats in the Balochistan Assembly and formed a coalition government in the province. But soon after the May 1998 nuclear tests and the BNP’s opposition to them led to the dismissal of Akhter Mengal’s government.

In the 2002 elections, General Musharraf successfully sidelined the Baloch nationalists and paved the way for pro-Taliban MMA elements. The systematic exclusion of Baloch moderate parties resulted in political violence and the intensification of the tensions between Islamabad and Balochistan. The 2008 elections will further alienate the moderate Baloch and Pakhtoon political forces from the centre.

With Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti eliminated and the BNP president Sardar Akhter Mengal incarcerated, any political engagement with the Baloch is difficult. Selfish religious elements will dominate Balochistan’s election scene and can be expected to form the future government in the province.

In its report of July 2007, Elections, Democracy and Stability in Pakistan, the International Crisis Group expressed concern about Islamabad’s support towards religious groups in Balochistan. It argued, “Now, as before, Musharraf has little choice but to support the Islamist parties to counter his moderate opposition. The pro-Taliban JUI’s help is essential to him, particularly in Balochistan, where the staunchly anti-military Baloch nationalist parties would likely win a free and fair poll. In the national parliament too, Musharraf would need the Islamists’ support to get renewed approval of his dual hats.

“If the Islamist parties gain five more years of power in Balochistan and NWFP, their militant allies – Pakistani, Afghan and transnational – will benefit, and the moderate parties, which still retain the support of the vast majority of the population, will lose.”

Baloch parties have also raised their concerns about the central and provincial caretaker governments and described them as biased and alleged that a ‘master plan’ had been prepared to rig the elections. It seems that the ‘brothers and sisters’ of caretaker ministers in the province will ‘win’ the elections. They claim that free and fair general elections are not possible when 23 out of 28 district nazims belong to the PML-Q, JUI-F and the pro-government BNP. There is visible evidence that close relatives of provincial caretaker cabinet members are contesting the polls from several constituencies and are likely to get elected thanks to the profound influence exercised by the provincial administration.

The APDM leaders are holding rallies to convince the masses as to how could free, fair and transparent elections take place in a country where political parties are prohibited from campaigning freely in an atmosphere of intimidation induced by the military and where top Baloch representatives have been persecuted on ethnic basis. They have been jailed for years without any transparent judicial trials. Political activists have been detained for months under the pretext of maintenance of public order.

Although, the government seems determined to hold elections in the province, the turn-out in the province will be low and the legitimacy of the polls will remain questionable. In future, any provincial government in this volatile province would not be in a position to function and deliver, as it will lack a mandate from the people. The nationalist parties enjoy very strong mass support and they can paralyse the provincial government when they want.

The writer is a member of the Senate.

balochbnp@gmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurds’ Power Wanes as Arab Anger Rises

BAGHDAD — As a minority group in Iraq, the Kurds have enjoyed disproportionate influence in the country’s politics since the ouster of Saddam Hussein in 2003. But now their leverage appears to be declining as tensions rise with Iraqi Arabs, raising the specter of another fissure alongside the sectarian divide between Sunnis and Shiites.

The Kurds, who are mostly Sunni but not Arab, have steadfastly backed the government, most recently helping to keep it afloat when Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lacked support from much of Parliament.

With their political acumen, close ties to the Americans and technical competence at running government agencies, the Kurds cemented a position of enormous strength. This allowed them to all but dictate terms in Iraq’s Constitution that gave them considerable regional autonomy and some significant rights in oil development.

But now the Kurds are pursuing policies that are antagonizing the other factions. The Kurds’ efforts to seize control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and to gain a more advantageous division of national revenues are uniting most Sunnis and many Shiites with Mr. Maliki’s government in opposition to the Kurdish demands.

For the United States, the diminution in Kurdish power is part of a larger problem of political divisiveness that has plagued its efforts to build a functioning government in Iraq. While several political parties can come together to address a particular issue, none can seem to form the lasting allegiances needed for actual governance.

The Kurds, with their pro-American outlook, were a natural ally. But now the Americans are increasingly placed in the uncomfortable position of choosing between the Kurds, whom they have long supported and protected, and the Iraqi Arabs, whose government the Americans helped create.

One major Shiite group, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, has not publicly taken sides, but powerful people within the party have been openly critical of the Kurds. Others expressing frustration are leading members of Parliament and Hussain al-Shahristani, the oil minister and a prominent Shiite politician, who calls Kurdish oil contracts with foreign companies illegal.

Humam Hamoudi, a leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, said, “They are no longer the egg in the balance,” using an Arabic proverb that refers to the item that tips the scale. Mr. Hamoudi added, “The Kurds are not so powerful.”

Independent analysts largely back that assertion. “There’s a strong feeling that the Kurds have overreached,” said Joost Hiltermann, a senior analyst for the Middle East at the International Crisis Group who is based in Istanbul.

“The Kurds had their eye on independence in the long term, and they wanted to use the current window to increase the territory they hold and the powers they exercise within the territory,” he added. “They’ve done well on the powers, but not so well on the territory. They now face real restrictions.”

The jousting threatens to undermine much of what the Kurds have achieved in political influence and to supersede, at least temporarily, the far deeper divide between Sunnis and Shiites.

And by helping unite Sunnis and Shiites, the Kurds’ overreaching has strengthened the hand of Mr. Maliki despite widespread doubts about his ability to govern effectively. The tensions could even persuade the central government to further postpone an already delayed referendum on whether to make Kirkuk part of the Kurds’ semiautonomous region.

“The government got a lot of support when they stood against the exaggerated demands of the Kurds,” said Jaber Habeeb, an independent Shiite member of Parliament who is also a political science professor at Baghdad University. But to capitalize on this support, which is almost certain to be temporary, he said, the government must move quickly to improve electricity, water and other basic services.

The Kurds have been locked for decades in a power struggle with Sunni Arabs, most recently with Mr. Hussein. That led to the Hussein government’s Anfal campaign, in which about 180,000 Kurds died and 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed, according to Kurdish counts.

The United States and its allies created a no-flight zone over the Kurdish areas after the Persian Gulf war in 1991, and the areas have since become increasingly affluent. While much of Iraq has been engulfed in violence since 2003, Kurdistan has been notably peaceful, with streams of foreign investment and a building boom in Erbil, the largest city. Against that backdrop, the Kurdish aspiration to bring more territory, including Kirkuk, into its semiautonomous region looks greedy to the Arabs.

In a signal of its displeasure, Parliament has refused to approve a new budget because it awards the Kurds 17 percent of the total revenues, which many representatives say is more than their share based on population. Because Iraq has not had a census in decades, it is impossible to know the true size of the Kurdish population. Some Kurdish leaders say it could be 23 percent; some Arabs say it is 13 percent.

The Kurds are also believed to collect millions of dollars in duties on goods coming into Iraq but they neither send the money to Baghdad nor share accounts of the income, according to the International Monetary Fund.

Parliament members are also angered that the Kurds want Baghdad to pay salaries of their militia, the pesh merga, from the Defense Ministry’s budget. The pesh merga operate primarily in Kurdistan rather than serving the country as a whole.

However, the Kurds contend that in the event of an invasion they would be on the front lines. Such a situation seems all too real to the Kurds, because Turkey has recently threatened to invade to rout the rebel Kurdistan Workers Party. The rebels have been mounting attacks over the border into Turkish territory.

Perhaps most grating for Iraqi Arabs, the Kurds have refused to back down on the oil exploration contracts they have signed with foreign companies. Arabs view the central government as the only entity empowered to approve contracts, albeit in consultation with the regions where the oil is located.

The Kurds argue that the central government has been dragging its feet on an oil law and that they cannot afford to defer oil exploration and development further, said Ros Shawees, a former vice president of Iraq and point man in Baghdad for Massoud Barzani, the president of the semiautonomous Kurdistan Regional Government.

The Kurds acknowledge that they are worried by the opposition that has developed, although they are reluctant to concede that they may have overplayed their hand. “It is necessary to keep such feelings to a minimum,” Mr. Shawees said. “We have to work in different respects to show that the Kurdish region doesn’t just make demands and take things, but that the region is an example for all regions and it can benefit all Iraq.”

For now, however, the budget has yet to be approved, the oil law and revenue sharing laws are in limbo, and there is a new and visible fault line on the Iraqi political scene.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The arrest in London of exiled Baluch human rights activists looks like a bid by Musharraf to frame his opponents and silence critics

A former MP and government minister from Pakistan-occupied Baluchistan, Hyrbyair Marri, has been languishing in Belmarsh prison for the last two months. He was arrested at his west London home in early December on charges of plotting terrorist acts abroad (it is assumed in Pakistan). His next pre-trial hearing is today at the central criminal court.

Marri was minister for construction and works in the provincial assembly of Baluchistan from 1997 to 1998.

Baluch leaders and Pakistani opposition figures believe the charges against him are without substance and have condemned Marri's arrest and imprisonment. They claim that the Pakistani dictator, President Pervez Musharraf, has a vendetta against the Marri family, who are leading nationalists in the province of Baluchistan - a formerly independent nation that was invaded and annexed by Pakistan in 1948. They cite leaks that Musharraf has privately vowed to crush the Baluch self-determination movement and destroy its leaders. They also highlight the fact that the Pakistani authorities have been pressing the British government to arrest and extradite Marri and several other Baluch nationalists who live in London.

Their claims seem to have some credibility. Marri's arrest in London two months ago came just two weeks after the Pakistani authorities assassinated his brother, Balaach Marri. His murder was strongly condemned by opposition leaders such as Imran Khan and the late Benazir Bhutto.

Marri's other brother, Mehran Baluch, who also lives in the UK and is the Baluch representative to the UN human rights council, was last year the subject of a top-secret extradition bid by Pakistan, on charges that critics have condemned as trumped up.

The actions of the Musharraf regime against these three brothers look like a systematic attempt to target the family and crush three major voices of Baluch dissent. What is particularly shaming is that the UK government appears to be colluding with this plot by the despots in Islamabad.

Marri's arrest in London also coincided with a major Pakistani military offensive against Baluchistan, which has included the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas using US-supplied fighter jets and other weapons small arms, some of which may have been supplied by Britain. The Labour government is aiding the Pakistani tyrant; authorising the sale of the military hardware that he uses to sustain his dictatorship and suppress his own people.

Hundreds of innocent Baluch civilians have been killed in Musharraf's scorched-earth military campaign. Thousands more people have been detained without trial or forced to flee their homes to escape Musharraf's terror tactics.

Earlier this week, I spoke to the chair of the human rights commission of Pakistan, Asma Jahangir. She confirmed the apparent attacks on civilian areas; saying she visited the site of a supposed rebel military camp that was blasted to pieces by the Pakistan army and air force. Littering the ground, she said, were domestic artefacts, civilian clothing and children's toys.

Marri has been charged alongside another Baluch human rights activist, Faiz Baluch, of north London.

I know both the detained men. They are Baluchistan nationalists and human rights activists. We worked together to expose Pakistan's persecution of the Baluch people and to support the broader struggle for democracy in Pakistan. The defendants never expressed to me any support or sympathy for terrorism. All our campaigns have been lawful and peaceful. I would be very surprised if either man was involved in any terror plot. Marri is a member of one of the most distinguished and esteemed Baluch families. He is a rather unlikely terrorist.

It is my opinion that these terror charges are likely to have resulted from pressure by the Musharraf regime. We know that Musharraf has been pressing Britain for the extradition of Baluch nationalists exiled in London.

Britain and Pakistan have been in secret negotiations for a prisoner-swap deal. The UK police want to extradite terror suspect Rashid Rauf from Pakistan. They are keen to question him in connection with the 2006 plot to blow up transatlantic airliners.

In exchange for handing over Rauf to the UK, the Pakistani government is demanding the extradition from Britain of Baluch nationalists.

Late last year, however, after the UK government failed to extradite Mehran Baluch, Rauf, a high security prisoner, mysteriously escaped from police custody in Pakistan.

Despite their carelessness, Musharraf's men are still pressing for the Baluch nationalists to be handed over. If Marri and Baluch are extradited, they will never get a fair trial and will face torture, imprisonment and probable execution.

Astonishingly, our government, in our name, is colluding with a bloody dictator like Musharraf. Gordon Brown should refuse to give in to pressure and blackmail by the Pakistani dictatorship. He should publicly reject requests for the arrest and extradition of Baluch leaders and activists, and cease supplying military aid to the tyrant in Islamabad.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2008/02/crushing_dissent.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 1, 2008 ; Washington

WHATEVER the outcome of the Pakistani elections, now scheduled for Feb. 18, the existing multiethnic Pakistani state is not likely to survive for long unless it is radically restructured.

Given enough American pressure, a loosely united, confederated Pakistan could still be preserved by reinstating and liberalizing the defunct 1973 Constitution, which has been shelved by successive military rulers. But as matters stand, the Punjabi-dominated regime of Pervez Musharraf is headed for a bloody confrontation with the country’s Pashtun, Baluch and Sindhi minorities that could well lead to the breakup of Pakistan into three sovereign entities.

In that event, the Pashtuns, concentrated in the northwestern tribal areas, would join with their ethnic brethren across the Afghan border (some 40 million of them combined) to form an independent “Pashtunistan.” The Sindhis in the southeast, numbering 23 million, would unite with the six million Baluch tribesmen in the southwest to establish a federation along the Arabian Sea from India to Iran. “Pakistan” would then be a nuclear-armed Punjabi rump state.

In historical context, such a breakup would not be surprising. There had never been a national entity encompassing the areas now constituting Pakistan, an ethnic mélange thrown together hastily by the British for strategic reasons when they partitioned the subcontinent in 1947.

For those of Pashtun, Sindhi and Baluch ethnicity, independence from colonial rule created a bitter paradox. After resisting Punjabi domination for centuries, they found themselves subjected to Punjabi-dominated military regimes that have appropriated many of the natural resources in the minority provinces — particularly the natural gas deposits in the Baluch areas — and siphoned off much of the Indus River’s waters as they flow through the Punjab.

The resulting Punjabi-Pashtun animosity helps explain why the United States is failing to get effective Pakistani cooperation in fighting terrorists. The Pashtuns living along the Afghan border are happy to give sanctuary from Punjabi forces to the Taliban, which is composed primarily of fellow Pashtuns, and to its Qaeda friends.

Pashtun civilian casualties resulting from Pakistani and American air strikes on both sides of the border are breeding a potent underground Pashtun nationalist movement. Its initial objective is to unite all Pashtuns in Pakistan, now divided among political jurisdictions, into a unified province. In time, however, its leaders envisage full nationhood. After all, before the British came, the Pashtuns had been politically united under the banner of an Afghan empire that stretched eastward into the Punjabi heartland.

The Baluch people, for their part, have been waging intermittent insurgencies since their forced incorporation into Pakistan in 1947. In the current warfare Pakistani forces are widely reported to be deploying American-supplied aircraft and intelligence equipment that was intended for use in Afghan border areas. Their victims are forging military links with Sindhi nationalist groups that have been galvanized into action by the death of Benazir Bhutto, a Sindhi hero as was her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

The breakup of Pakistan would be a costly and destabilizing development that can still be avoided, but only if the United States and other foreign donors use their enormous aid leverage to convince Islamabad that it should not only put the 1973 Constitution back into effect, but amend it to go beyond the limited degree of autonomy it envisaged. Eventually, the minorities want a central government that would retain control only over defense, foreign affairs, international trade, communications and currency. It would no longer have the power to oust an elected provincial government, and would have to renegotiate royalties on resources with the provinces.

In the shorter term, the Bush administration should scrap plans to send Special Forces into border areas in pursuit of Al Qaeda, which would only strengthen Islamist links with Pashtun nationalists. It should help secular Pashtun forces to compete with the Islamists by pushing for fair representation of Pashtun areas now barred from political participation.

It is often argued that the United States must stand by Mr. Musharraf and a unitary Pakistani state to safeguard Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. But the nuclear safeguards depend on the Pakistani Army as an institution, not on the president. They would not be affected by a break-up, since the nuclear weapons would remain under the control of the Punjabi rump state and its army.

The Army has built up a far-flung empire of economic enterprises in all parts of Pakistan with assets in the tens of billions, and can best protect its interests by defusing the escalating conflict with the minorities. Similarly, the minorities would profit from cooperative economic relations with the Punjab, and for this reason prefer confederal autonomy to secession. All concerned, including the United States, have a profound stake in stopping the present slide to Balkanization.

Selig S. Harrison is the director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy and the author of “In Afghanistan’s Shadow,” a study of Baluch nationalism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW YORK: Iran is stronger today because of the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the American ambassador to the United Nations said Friday.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq removed a key rival of Shiite Iran with the ouster of Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated government. Iran has friendly ties with the Shiites now in power in Iraq.

"It's helped Iran's relative position in the region, because Iraq was a rival of Iran ... and the balance there has disintegrated or weakened," Zalmay Khalilzad said while answering questions from students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. "And so one of the objectives of Iran, in my view, is to discourage a reemergence of Iraq as a balancer. And Afghanistan, too, the change was helpful to Iran."

Khalilzad's boss, President Bush, has called Iran a major sponsor of terrorism, and the U.S. is leading the push for a third set of U.N. sanctions against the country because of its nuclear program.

But to Khalilzad, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no question that an unintended consequence of U.S. decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq has been to strengthen Iran's position in the Mideast.

Iran almost went to war with the Taliban in the late 1990s, because of its extremist theology and its killing of Afghan Shiite Muslims. With the United States' overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, Iran's relations with Afghanistan improved, their trade grew and Iran helped build roads and power lines in Afghanistan. But the Bush administration says Iran is now arming the Taliban to make life difficult for the U.S.

"I, as you know, have met with the Iranians many times over the years in my various positions, including in Afghanistan," he told the students after delivering a speech on the importance of solving the problems of Middle Eastern politics.

"And I used to tease the (Iranian) ambassador that we have done so much for you in Iraq and Afghanistan, the least you can do is to be helpful to this effort. Otherwise, one day you will get a big bill."

He and the crowd laughed.

Whether or not U.S. actions have increased Iran's power, the country also has been playing a greater role in Iraq's economy, supplying Iraqis with electricity, household goods and food. Iraqi leaders from the Shiite bloc that are now in power have said their ties with Iran's governing Shiite Persians will grow.

Despite that, Khalilzad said, he believes "ultimately that Iraq will not be dominated by Iran. Iran would want them to be dependent, but it doesn't mean Iran will succeed. So I have tried to encourage other Arab states who see the change as permanently favoring Iran, not to think that way."

Khalilzad said a third round of U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran is justified because of the country's violations of previous resolutions intended to discourage it from pursuing nuclear weapons.

Iran insists its nuclear program is intended only to produce energy and has refused U.N. demands that it suspend its uranium enrichment program — technology that can produce both fuel for nuclear reactors and the fissile material for a bomb.

Khalilzad said that Iran has the "right to have access for nuclear energy," and the United States is willing to work with Iran and other nations to assure they have "reliable access to fuel for nuclear reactors."

But he said there must be controls.

"Having this Iran have access to fissile material that brings it so close to a nuclear weapons capability, is just too risky for this region and for this world," Khalilzad said.

Khalilzad, who was born in northern Afghanistan and immigrated to the United States in high school, denied rumors that he might take a shot at running for Afghanistan's presidency, now held by Hamid Karzai.

"I didn't come here to collect contributions to my campaign. I know how poor students are," Khalilzad joked.

"I have seen those reports and rumors. I can say categorically that I'm not a candidate for the presidency of Afghanistan," he said. "I'm proud of my heritage and honored that I've had the opportunity to represent the United States in helping the Afghans. I will always have a place in my heart for Afghans and Afghanistan, and will do what I can to be helpful to them, they will always be part of me."

After speaking to the students, Khalilzad also defended himself against criticism that he had violated Bush administration rules by participating in talks with Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. They appeared onstage together on Jan. 26, and the U.S. State Department later said Khalilzad did not seek permission to participate.

"I think there was a misunderstanding, because some people thought that we had discussions or negotiations with them. There wasn't anything like that," he told The Associated Press. "There was no discussion, no negotiation, no greeting of them. Just answering questions."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Mured Baloch ; translated by Aziz Baloch, courtesy of Asaappublications.com

02-02-2008

Recently the speaker of the United States House Representatives Nancy Pelosi was interviewed and stressed the release of Baloch nationalist leaders in an English newspaper. She demanded an end the Pakistan military operation in Balochistan. By expressing her concern labeling Baloch as terrorist, their genocide is going on and that should be stopped immediately.

United States house representatives expressed their keen interests in the consistent oppression against Baloch people, the army operations in Balochistan, and arresting patriotic Baloch leaders. The United States of America is supporting the Pakistani army to end Al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups but they expressed their doubt and demanded more sophisticated inquiries in this matter about Pakistan’s role.

In such a crucial time, where two prominent Baloch fearless leaders Shaheed-i-Azum martyred Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, and young commander Nawabzada Mir Balach Marri both were fighting against Pakistani army in two different fronts for the self-determination of Balochistan had been martyred. And Balochistan National Party leader Sardar Akhtar Mengal who continued his peaceful political struggle for Baloch national rights, had been arrested and was kept in prison for a long time because of Pakistani intelligence agencies dirty tricks based on their modified and unfounded charges.

On the other hand, British police in the United Kingdom due to the hint of Pakistani intelligence agencies arrested young Baloch nationalist leader Nawabzada Hairbiyar and his fellow Faiz Baloch. Both were busy peacefully in lighting the Baloch problems internationally, in such harsh times Baloch are going and understanding the stand from the United States for Baloch and their criticism to Pakistan eventually will bring positive result for Baloch national struggle.

In the period of 2006 Richard Boucher, United States, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asians Affairs, visited Pakistan while being questioned by about B.L.A {Balochistan Liberation Army} he responded that United States has no solid prove to declare BLA as a terrorist organization. If we examined all the international in-depth media coverage about Balochistan, particularly Washington post, Voice of America, New York Times, and other celebrated newspapers and magazines reports about Balochistan problems compare to other countries, the United States’ important circle repeatedly brought up the subject of Balochistan, which is a positive thing, and it’s a victory for Baloch national movement.

It may bring trouble for Pakistani rulers and agencies because the United States provided the weapons and financial support to Pakistani army against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but such support has been used to crush the Baloch nationalist struggle and President Pervez Musharraf instead of fighting against Islamic extremist of North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, he has been spending his energy tracing and punishing the Baloch nationalist.

Foreign countries, particularly the United States interest towards Baloch problems indicates they are tired of Pakistani rulers double-faced policies and they may acknowledge their provided weapons and financial support against Islamic extremism have been used against the sons of Baloch on their own soil.

From the United States responsible circle, encouraging statement for the Baloch nation one after another shows Baloch should take advantage of their support and convince the international community and bring them in their {national legitimate and legal struggle} favor. Pakistani rulers are tirelessly trying to mask the Balochistan crisis but their tyranny and oppression against the Baloch people is being unmasked to the world. It proves that the Baloch are not terrorists, but Pakistan has always been keen on perpetuating its imperialistic policies, thus have disgraced themselves on the world stage.

President Pervez Musharraf and its officials are struggling to show the international community the Baloch problems is not that serious, mostly in the international forums, Pakistani officials have been considering the Baloch problem as a Pakistan’s internal problem {they do not let the led out from the boiling pot} and keep avoiding to response the “Balochistan crisis” question. Even Baloch nation says, Balochistan is being merged by force by Pakistan and Baloch are determined through their national struggle that they will take back their motherland in the real historic form. How can in such conditions, can Baloch problems become a Pakistan internal matter?

When Baloch national struggle is increasing and international media keep asking the Pakistani rulers and its officials to response about the root cause of Baloch problems where President Pervez Musharraf and his obedient team keep trying to hide the truth and dismiss in front of the international community the existence of Baloch resistance movements. At the same time Pakistani rulers in the next day acknowledged such organizations and officially enforced restriction upon them.

Baloch nationalist movements are not that weak. Such an organizations when it’s able to: fire rockets on the head of the state, its army helicopters were fired at, in an attempt to bring them down; the province chief minister has been attacked. In Gwadar port, Chinese engineers are being targeted, inside the cities army check post and their vehicles are openly attacked, their financial institutions are being fired rockets and bombed. Still rulers are considering few Sardars are fighting for their ego and leading such an organization and saying it’s the anger of Baloch leadership, which is nothing but stupidity.

Baloch nation should end their personal differences, likes and dislikes and leave all personal grudges behind. Be united under the leadership of prominent and great Baloch nationalist leaders, Nawab Khair Baksh Marri they should be under one umbrella in a single program and brighten the self-determination of Balochistan cause in a different front and each one should play their role. That has been the desires of the Baloch martyred and let’s fulfill the dream of such noble elders; this is the source of liberation.

Written by Mured Baloch in Urdu, translated by Aziz Baloch, courtesy of Asaappublications.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------