|
Yaqoub Mehrnehad, the
Baloch political activist, condemned to death in Iran
By Reza Hossein Borr ; 03-03-2008
London, 27 Feb-08— The Baloch armed groups claimed the death sentence for
Yaqoub Mehrnehad, the Baloch peaceful and civil political activist, means
that armed struggle in Balochistan, Iran is legal and legitimate.
Yaqoub Mehrnehad, The
leader of the Voice of Justice, the only civil society organization in
Baluchistan, has been condemned to death for organising a lawful meeting
between the public and the local authorities in Baluchistan. He had official
permission for holding this meeting. The local authorities, security forces
and the Governor of Baluchistan were present at the meeting. The meeting
started peacefully and ended peacefully without any disturbance.
Some members of the public raised some questions and the questions were
answered by the different local authorities. There was no violence. There
was no disturbance. There was not any other illegal activity. It was fully
in the framework of the Iranian law and constitution.
The security forces raided the office of the Voice of Justice after the end
of the meeting and arrested all the organisers including Yaqoub Mehrnehad.
Those who were arrested were tortured by police but released after few
months. Yaqoub Mehrnehad was tortured and sentenced to death. The
authorities alleged that he had contacts with Abdul Malik Rigi, the leader
of People's Resistance Movement of Iran. Rigi has denied that.
Yaqoub Mehrnehad and Rigi had severe of differences over conducting
political activities. Yaqoub Mehrnehad reasoned that like all the Iranian
citizens, the Baluch had the right to engage in political and civil
activities peacefully. He argued that some civil campaigners in Iran’s
prisons were even allowed to conduct interviews with foreign media, that the
government of Iran shows some kind of flexibility for political activities.
Abdul Malik argued that they began their activities peacefully but their
members were arrested, tortured and executed. He argued that it was the lack
of opportunities for political activities that forced him and his friends to
take arms.
Yaqoub Mehrnehad did not accept this argument and began his political
activities peacefully within the framework of the Iranian law and
constitution. Within a short time, he and his friends were arrested and
tortured and he was condemned to death. These arguments happened in their
weblogs. They never met. They never had direct contact. Mehrnehad now is
condemned to death and his death sentence has been confirmed by the Supreme
Court of Iran proving that Rigi was right in his arguments. The Baloch armed
groups claim his death sentence proves the following points:
1. The civil campaigning and political activities are illegal and
illegitimate in Balochistan and therefore, anybody who engages in civil
campaigning and peaceful political activities can be condemned to death.
2. When civil campaigning and peaceful activities are banned, political
activists have no any other alternative but resorting to armed struggle.
3. The claims by Abdul Malik, the leader of People’s Resistance Movement of
Iran, proved to be true when there was no opportunity for civil campaigning
armed struggle BECOMES legitimate, legal, moral and acceptable.
4. There are 100 armed groups in Baluchistan. They have always claimed that
their armed struggle is legitimate and legal as the last resort because the
Islamic Republic of Iran has not provided the right political environment
for peaceful political activities.
5. All of these groups have claimed that they began their political
activities peacefully through legal means and in the framework of the
Iranian constitution. All of them claimed that their members were arrested,
tortured and condemned to death because of the legal, peaceful and civil
campaigning.
6. All of these groups claim they resorted to armed struggle only after all
other options were tested and considered by the Islamic Republic of Iran as
illegal and illegitimate.
7. The Baluch people and Baluch political activists and human rights
organisers have come to one shared and common conclusion: the Iranian regime
is determined to force the Baluch people to complete submission for their
complete eradication.
8. The policies of Iranian regime
towards the Baluch people are very clear: starvation to death or migration
to other countries.
9. There are numerous
evidence to prove this claimed.
10. According to official figures of the Iranian regime, 76 percent of the
Baluch people live and poverty line. Such high level of poverty is the
result of deliberate policies of the Iranian regime for eradicating the
Baluch people through starvation. Poverty line is about 12 percent
nationally.
11. Disease is widespread in Baluchistan. The Baluch people are deliberately
denied access to acceptable health care facilities. Consequently, there are
more sick people in Baluchistan than any other part of the country.
12. Illiteracy rate in Baluchistan is the highest in the country. This is
also the consequence of the official policy of the regime to exclude the
Baluch children from formal education and driving them to poverty and
starvation.
13. Famine in Baluchistan is more widespread and regular than any other part
of the country. This is the result of the government's policies of
abandoning the land without any developmental projects to create sufficient
water reservoir.
14. The deforestation of Baluchistan is moving fast and wide to transform
Baluchistan into a complete desert to force the people to starve to death or
migrate to other countries.
15. The fertile lands of Baluchistan have been confiscated and given to
agents of the Iranian regime.
In such circumstances the Baluch people
are responding to measures designed to their complete elimination. When
Baluch people saw the consequences of the regime's policies in Baluchistan,
they took the following actions:
1. like all other citizens, they began complaining and informing the
government officials.
2. The complaints led to the arrest of the people who filed the complaints.
3. The Baluch people consulted their religious leaders and persuaded them to
see the supreme leader of Iran and inform him of their plight.
4. Their religious leaders met the supreme leader and other authorities but
no action was taken except that the religious leaders were put under more
pressure and forced to silence.
5. The educated groups began a series of lobbying, meeting different
government officials but their meetings did not bring any positive action.
6. They began to write in the Internet sites and Blogs. Consequently some of
them were arrested, tortured and hanged under the false accusation of drug
trafficking.
7. Some of the less educated people of Baluchistan began armed struggle as
they did not see any positive results coming from peaceful activities.
8. Abdul Malik Rigi began his activities as a civil campaigner and
distributed leaflets about the plight of the Baluch people. His colleagues
were arrested, tortured and executed under the usual allegation of drug
trafficking.
9. Abdul Malik Rigi concluded that the Iranian regime was determined to
completely eliminate the Baluch people through different ways and therefore,
he took farms and conducted several armed attacks on the security forces. He
became quickly popular in Baluchistan and turned into a hero and legend. The
other people of Baluchistan who witnessed his popularity followed his
strategy of armed struggle.
Now there are about 100 armed groups in Baluchistan who are campaigning to
prevent the Iranian regime from suppression, oppression, and starvation of
the Baluch people.
Conclusions taken by Baloch armed
groups
By sentencing Yaqoub Mehrnehad to death and the arrest of his 16 years old
brother, the regime has proved the credibility of the claims of the Baluch
people that their armed struggle was the only strategy for preventing the
Iranian regime from the genocide of the Baluch people.
No people will sit idle and witness his own demise. According to all laws
and human rights conventions and organizations, individuals and peoples have
the right of survival and have the right of defending themselves. The Baluch
people are not an exception. They have their rights to defend themselves
like all other people. If the United States of America has the right of
invading Afghanistan and Iraq and removing their regimes for self-defense,
if Turkey has the right of attacking the Kurdish fighters for self-defence,
if other people had the right of defend themselves throughout history,
Baluch people have the same right.
At the same time the Baluch people have done their best to comply with
international law. When Amnesty International published its report on Baluch
people and requested Abdul Malik Rigi to stop taking armed action against
the civil targets of the Iranian regime, he responded by stopping his armed
struggle completely. But when Amnesty International requested the Iranian
regime to stop the killing of the Baluch people, the Iranian regime did not
pay any attention to it and followed its policy of repression, oppression
and violence against Baluch people.
Keeping in mind that the Iranian regime has banned civil and peaceful
political activities in Baluchistan, the international community, human
rights organisations and democratic governments of the world must recognize
the right of the Baluch people for self-defence.
Reza Hossein Borr,
The author is a leading management consultant, leadership adviser and senior
mentor. He is the author of four books, 14 change management models and 150
CDs on self-development, vision building, strategy, culture, system change
and leadership. He is also the author of the New Vision for the Islamic
World: Strategies for Changing Cultures and Systems.
Websites: www.rezaaa.com www.coachingandmentoringonline.com
He can be contacted by Email: hosse5706@aol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who killed Benazir Bhutto?
The Henry Jackson Society
By Ahmar Mustikhan, 20th
February 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
1. The murderers of Benazir Bhutto will probably never be known. But
circumstantial evidence suggests that several of Pakistan's leading figures
had cause to benefit from her removal and should be questioned about the
assassination at the very least.
2. Troublingly, these individuals have also been accused of links with al-Qaeda
and the Taliba’an.
3. The close relationship that these figures have enjoyed with General
Musharraf casts further doubt over his ability to continue in office in
Pakistan while posing as a friend of the West.
------
Will the murderers of Benazir Bhutto ever be known and bought to justice?
Probably not. But we do know there were powerful individuals who wanted
Bhutto out of the way; allegedly including serving and retired generals,
present and past intelligence chiefs, an international businessman suspected
of connections to a terrorist bombing, and the son of a former military
dictator.
Moreover, it is believed by well informed Pakistanis that all these top
people have been tacitly colluding with terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden
– or at least not seriously attempting to track him down and bring him to
justice. In fact, al Qaeda and the Pakistani establishment are, to some
extent, two sides of the same coin, in that they are anti-democrats and
promoters or appeasers of religious fundamentalism. and former member of the
provincial assembly,
President General (retired) Pervez Musharraf’s military and intelligence
colleagues were, for example, responsible for the killing of two democratic,
secular and anti-Taliba’an leaders from the rebel Pakistani province of
Baluchistan. The former Governor and Chief Minister, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti,
was assassinated in 2006,[1] Mir Balaa’ch Marri was bumped off last
November.[2] These murders are evidence that Musharaaf’s men are capable of
the assassination of political opponents.
The key person who stood to gain from Bhutto’s death was President Musharraf
himself. With Bhutto dead, a key election rival was conveniently out of the
way.
The elections were not Musharraf’s idea. He knew that no matter how much he
loaded the electoral dice, voting is risky. Even with fraud and
intimidation, he might lose. As indeed he has. But Musharraf had no choice.
President George Bush realised that openly backing a dictator was
increasingly embarrassing. He demanded a democracy make-over to save US
face. Musharraf was not happy. He unwillingly accepted elections and a
power-sharing formula dictated to him by Washington. Did he have any other
choice? Probably not. After all, he is dependent on US aid and weapons and
therefore cannot easily afford to snub his masters in the White House and
Pentagon.
Of course, Musharraf was not the only person to gain from the assassination.
Other beneficiaries were intelligence bureau chief, Brigadier Ejaz Shah, and
former Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) chief General Hamid Gul. The latter
blames Bhutto for not letting him become army chief. Gul is, to boot, widely
seen as Musharraf’s alter ego.
Gul and Shah - along with former Punjab chief minister, Chaudhry Pervez
Elahi -were among those named by Bhutto herself prior to her assassination,
but none of them have been interviewed as far as we know, let alone arrested
and charged with her murder.[3]
As Bhutto’s relationship with US administration officials warmed up,
unbeknown to her, these dangerous players in Pakistan politics - with whom
Osama bin Laden reportedly has had ties - were closely following her moves.
From Bhutto’s plane trip to Colorado with Zalmay Mamozy Khalilzad, the
Permanent US Representative to the United Nations, to her phone talk with US
Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, just a week before her return to
Pakistan last year, she was on the radar of both Pakistani intelligence and
terrorists alike.
Pakistan has misled the world into believing that it was incapable of
arresting bin Laden and Taliba’an leader Mullah Omar. But after Bhutto met
Khalilzad, it is alleged that Musharraf secretly met Khalilzad’s chief
nemesis – the one-eyed Mullah Omar - in the Pakistan garrison city of Quetta,
bordering Afghanistan.
“Musharraf met Mullah Omar before and after his visit to Saudi Arabia,
within a period of just three weeks,” claimed one senior official in Quetta
(the capital of Pakistani-occupied Baluchistan), although this claim has
been impossible to verify. The official said it was impossible to prove the
meetings took place, given the secretive and deceptive nature of Pakistan’s
body politic and its draconian muzzling of journalists and press censorship.
But Afghan president Hamid Karzai has repeatedly alleged that Mullah Omar is
hiding out in Quetta.[4]
Evidence for the belief that Musharraf may be protecting Omar’s Taliba’an
and al-Qaeda comes from the way he has fiercely resisted US requests to
extend its anti-terror operations inside Pakistan, particularly into the
tribal areas where Omar and the Taliba’an are based.[5] Why would Musharraf
be so hostile if he was genuinely committed to defeating fundamentalism and
terrorism? After all, he readily accepts all other forms of US assistance
and interference when it suits him to do so.
One of Musharraf’s main mentors, General Mahmud Ahmed, who conducted the
masterstroke of catapulting Musharraf into power, is rumoured to have had
contacts with Mullah Omar. Ahmed, a former chief of the ISI, has been
accused by some people of having financial dealings that link him to the
9/11 attacks on the US.[6]
In autumn 2007, declassified US documents finally acknowledged high level
Pakistani links with the Taliba’an.[7]
It is perhaps not a coincidence that the city where Bhutto was assassinated,
Rawalpindi,is the headquarters of the Pakistani army. This is the world’s
fifth largest army, and a nuclear-armed one. It is also imbued with
religious fervor. The soldiers of the Pakistani army chant “Allah O’ Akbar”
as part of their daily drill.
Ever since Pakistan’s inception in August 1947, Rawalpindi has had the
dubious distinction of being a place where other civilian prime ministers
have also met their deaths. Prior to Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s first Prime
Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was gunned down there on 18 October, 1951. Not far
away once stood the jail where her father, former President Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto, was hanged on 4April 1979.
The city is also home to Ejazul Haq, another possible suspect in Bhutto’s
murder. He is the son of General Zia ul Haq, who died, along with US
Ambassador Arnie Raphel, in an air crash on the 17August 1988. Haq the
younger was Religious Affairs Minister in Pakistan’s federal cabinet.
The Haqs have a pathological dislike of Bhuttos. Indeed, it was General Zia
ul Haq who hanged Benazir Bhutto’s father. When asked why he felt he had to
kill Bhutto, the late General is aid to have responded, “There was one grave
and two people - myself and Bhutto. So I sent Bhutto to it.”
This history of personal, family and political rivalry is one reason why
many people in Pakistan suspect Ejazul Haq might have had a hand in
Benazir’s Bhutto’s killing.
Of course, Pakistani government officials have sought to pin the blame on
rebel commander Baitullah Mehsud. Interestingly, one of Mehsud’s
spokespeople called foreign news services to deny the Pakistani claim.
Meshud normally loves to boast about his triumphs, so this denial is
significant.
A brother of Pakistan-supported Taliba’an warrior Abdullah Mehsud, the
younger Mehsud has had a meteoric rise as chief of the shadowy
Tehrik-i-Taliba’an in southern Waziristan. A news report has said Mullah
Omar has expelled him from the Taliba’an over tactical differences.[8]
Mehsud was not playing Omar’s game of colluding with Musharraf. He was
confronting the Pakistan army, instead of attacking NATO troops. Given the
links between Omar and the Pakistani military establishment, such attacks on
Islamabad’s forces were destablising and unacceptable, which is why Omar
removed Mehsud.
Blatant falsehoods are not uncommon in Pakistan politics, and presidential
candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has correctly pointed out that on past form
the Musharraf regime cannot be trusted.[9]
For example, Musharraf has repeatedly claimed that Daud Ebrahim is not in
Pakistan. Ebrahim is allegedly implicated in the killing of 250 people in
Mumbai on 12 March 1993; supposedly in retribution for Hindu extremists
taking over Babri Mosque.[10]
Moreover, just two years ago, it is said that Musharraf was sufficiently
close to Ebrahim for Ebrahim to invite him to attend his daughter’s wedding
to the son of Pakistan’s former test cricket legend, Javaid Miandad, in
Dubai.[11]
While in Dubai in the late eighties and early nineties, Ebrahim and bin
Laden had extensive contacts, as both were multi-millionaire business people
and moved in similar circles - one was reputedly in smuggling and the other
in real estate. Today, both are in Pakistan and Ebrahim’s men appear to be
looking after bin Laden’s business interests, which critics allege -
although this is unproven - involves various dubious financial and
commercial operations. The US suspects Ebrahim of abetting bin Laden’s
global operations.[12]
But most importantly in this tangled trail of suspicion, the name of the
assassin plotter that Benazir Bhutto herself allegedly mentioned to
Musharraf before her arrival in Pakistan was that of Ejaz Shah, director of
the country’s intelligence bureau.
Ejaz Shah was the man who “monitored” and “handled” bin Laden for nearly two
decades both in his present position and in his previous postings in the
Pakistani intelligence. He was almost certain to lose his job had Benazir
Bhutto been elected as prime minister of Pakistan.[14]
Shah, a retired brigadier of the Pakistan army, is the same man who failed
to act against Ahmed Omar Saeed Shaikh,[15]
A Musharraf protégé to this day, Shah was in charge of Pakistan’s
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) operations in Kashmir. At the time of
Daniel Pearl’s killing, Shah was the Home Secretary - the top law official -
of Pakistan’s most populous province, Punjab.
At the same time of Pearl’s abduction, the ISI kidnapped TIME correspondent
Ghulam Hasnain – some say in retribution for his expose of Daud Ebrahim’s
lavish lifestyle in the investigative monthly Newsline.[17]
Incredibly, the link between the two abductions escaped media attention.
Hasnain was badly tortured during his abduction, and arrived in the US,
ostensibly to seek asylum but he later returned to Pakistan to continue with
his professional life.[18]
However, Pearl was not so lucky and, shockingly, Musharraf seemed to blame
Pearl for inviting his own death.
Over the years, Ejaz Shah has wriggled his way up the greasy pole. He is
considered Musharraf’s close friend and has allegedly conducted special
operations for him in the past, like his infamous attempt to silence rape
victim Mukhtar Mai.[19]
As part of his job, Shah is said to have been in regular contact with the
likes of Osama bin Laden, Daud Ebrahim and Ahmed Saeed Omar Sheikh.[20]
In an interview with David Frost, Bhutto clearly identified Shah as the
person wanting to see her dead and mentioned his links with Ahmed Omar Saeed
Sheikh.[21] In an apparent slip of tongue, instead of naming Daniel Pearl
she said Sheikh had murdered Osama bin Laden during the live telecast.
Bin Laden’s personal dislike for Benazir Bhutto was an open secret. His
hatred stemmed primarily from his world view that women should not lead
Muslim societies. Most Muslim men (and many Muslim women) still believe the
ancient religious teaching that women are inferior to men and unfit for high
office. Bin Laden is said to have offered huge sums of money to Pakistani
legislators to oust Bhutto through a vote of no-confidence as early as her
first term as elected prime minister of Pakistan (1988-90).
“Bin Laden operatives approached us with bag-loads of money,” recalled Mir
Hasil Bizenjo, secretary general of the National Party, who was then a
member of the National Assembly.
At that time, Bhutto reported bin Laden’s attempted interference in Pakistan
politics to Saudi King Fahd. She mentioned the event in her revised
autobiography Benazir Bhutto- Daughter of the East.[22]
So who really killed Benazir Bhutto? None of us know for sure. But one thing
is certain, there are several plausible suspects and they all have links to
President Pervez Musharraf. At the very least, Musharraf and ISI leader Ejaz
Shah can be accused of not providing Bhutto with adequate security measures.
And as was unfortunately confirmed, poor security made her assassination
possible.
Ahmar Mustikhan is a journalist from Baluchistan. He currently lives in the
US and can be reached at ahmar_reporter@yahoo.com
----------------
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5289880.stm
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7106270.stm
[3] http://video.aol.com/video-detail/karachi-probe-bhutto-names-suspects/1991470969
[4] http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/27/bush.leaders/index.html
[5] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Musharraf_rebuffs_US_proposals_for_CIA-run_operations_in_Pak/articleshow/2735400.cms
[6] http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html & http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/SheikhMahmood.htm
[7] http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm
[8] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA24Df03.html
[9] http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071229/ts_alt_afp/usvote2008pakistanattacksbhutto_071229012906
[10] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2781853.stm & http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4711615.stm
[11] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4711615.stm
[12] http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2003/10/sec-031016-usia01.htm
[13] http://www.asiaportal.info/infocusblog/?p=11
[14] http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/01/pakistan.voterigging/
[15] http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/SheikhMahmood.htm
[16] http://newsstuff.0catch.com/article9.htm
[17] http://www.newsline.com.pk/NewsSept2001/coverstory1.htm
[18] http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/01/28/pakistan.missing.journalist/
[19] http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/opinion/04kristof.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
[20] http://www.himalayanaffairs.org/articledetails.asp?id=330
[21] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ
[22] http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/apr/10bhutto.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuwaiti analyst:
Best if Israel, not U.S., destroys Iranian nukes
09/03/2008 ; http://www.haaretz.com/
The destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities would be in the interest of
the Arab nations in the Gulf, and it would be less embarrassing if it was
done by Israel rather than the U.S., a top Kuwaiti strategist said in
remarks published Sunday.
Officially Kuwait, like the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council,
wants a peaceful solution to the nuclear standoff between Tehran and the
West and will not allow the U.S. to use its territories for any attack on
Iran.
But when asked in an interview with the daily Al-Siyassah about the
consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear reactors, analyst and
former government adviser Sami al-Faraj said it would not be such a bad
thing.
"Honestly speaking, they would be achieving something of great strategic
value for the GCC by stopping Iran's tendency for hegemony over the area,"
he said, adding that "nipping it in the bud by Israeli hands would be less
embarrassing for us than if the Americans did it."
Al-Faraj said Tehran was interfering in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian
territories, and inciting strife between Sunnis and Shiites.
"The question is what would it do if it were a nuclear nation? We have to
call a spade a spade and say that burying the military nuclear Iranian
project is in the interest of GCC states, and other countries in the area,"
added al-Faraj, who heads the independent Kuwait Center for Strategy
Studies.
Tehran has denied it is seeking nuclear weapons and insists its program is
for peaceful purposes. Despite three sets of United Nations sanctions, it is
still defying demands to suspend uranium enrichment.
GCC countries -Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman
and Bahrain - have announced they want to use nuclear energy for civilian
uses as well.
Al-Faraj told the daily the GCC offered to cooperate with Tehran on a joint
nuclear fuel station, but Iran turned down the offer.
Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar all host U.S. military facilities.
Peres: Iran is the
world's greatest problem
President Shimon Peres on Sunday called Iran the world's greatest problem
but said Israel would not act on its own against the Islamic nation's
nuclear program.
"Iran is a danger not just for Israel but for the rest of the world, the
combination of being a center of terror and developing a nuclear option is
the most dangerous you can think of," he said at his official residence, a
day ahead of an official visit France.
Peres said an active Iranian nuclear reactor would make the world
ungovernable. But he added that the problem was not Israel's alone.
"Israel will not be forced [to act]. Israel will do whatever she should do,
but Israel doesn't claim that she is the leader of the world," he said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|