'Irresponsible' US remarks to affect war on terror: Pakistan (AFP)

ISLAMABAD (AFP) – Pakistan on Friday warned its cooperation in the US-led war on Al-Qaeda was at risk after heavily criticising the top US military officer for suggesting it could have approved a journalist's murder.

The row threatened to further strain relations already damaged by a covert US raid that killed Osama bin Laden two months ago and is the latest sign that cooperation in the war on Al-Qaeda and in neighbouring Afghanistan is at risk.

Pakistani journalist Saleem Shahzad's body was found just outside the capital Islamabad on May 31, bearing marks of torture.

He had complained of being threatened by the intelligence services and his colleagues believe that Inter-Services intelligence (ISI) was responsible for his disappearance, two days earlier, en route to a television studio.

On Monday, the New York Times quoted US officials as saying that the ISI ordered the killing to muzzle criticism after Shahzad wrote about links between rogue elements of the military and Al-Qaeda.

Admiral Mike Mullen waded into the fray on Thursday by saying: "I haven't seen anything that would disabuse that report" when asked about media reports that the Pakistani government approved Shahzad's killing.

Nevertheless, when asked if Pakistan's intelligence service had been involved, Mullen said he could not confirm the allegation.

Regardless, the remarks aggravated relations already strained by a covert US raid north of Islamabad in May that killed Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and the killing of two men by a CIA contractor in Lahore in January.

"If someone has given such a statement then it is extremely irresponsible," Pakistani Information Minister Firdous Ashiq Awan told a news conference.

"The statement by Admiral Mike Mullen regarding Pakistan will create problems and difficulties in the bilateral ties," she said.

"It will also impact our joint efforts in war against terrorism," added Awan, refusing to elaborate but saying the foreign ministry would issue another statement. The foreign ministry spokeswoman was not reachable.

In the wake of the bin Laden raid, the United States recalled dozens of military trainers on Pakistan's orders and huge tensions remain over a covert American drone war against militants on the Afghan border.

Pakistan remains the main land route used by the United States to send supplies for the 150,000 foreign troops fighting in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Islamabad set up a judicial commission last month, giving the five-member panel six weeks to investigate the circumstances of Shahzad's murder.

Mullen said he was "concerned" about the killing and suggested that other reporters had suffered a similar fate in the past.

Reporters Without Borders says that 16 journalists have been killed since the start of 2010 in Pakistan, which it ranks 151st out of 178 countries in its press freedom index.

"It's not a way to move ahead. It's a way to continue to quite frankly spiral in the wrong direction," said Mullen.

The ISI denied any involvement in murdering Shahzad, who worked for an Italian news agency and a Hong Kong-registered news site, despite widespread belief among his colleagues that intelligence agents had picked him up.

Pakistan's seemingly powerful military was humiliated by a unilateral American raid that found and killed bin Laden in the army town of Abbottabad on May 2, opening it up to allegations of complicity or incompetence.

On Thursday, Pakistan also denied a Washington Post report that the architect of its nuclear weapons programme claimed North Korea paid bribes to senior Pakistani military officials in return for nuclear secrets in the 1990s.

The Post said documents released by nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan purportedly show him helping to transfer more than $3 million to senior officers, who he says then approved the leak of nuclear know-how to Pyongyang.

The United States has long been concerned about Islamabad's nuclear arsenal despite insistence from Pakistan that the weapons are totally safe.

View the original article here

How will the Kabul raid affect a peace deal? [VIDEO] (The Christian Science Monitor)

New Delhi – For all the talk about peace negotiations with the Taliban, one word rarely comes up: cease-fire. Instead, the US and the Taliban talk while shooting, a fact brought home again with the major terrorist attack overnight on a landmark hotel in Kabul.

The siege left seven civilians dead, including one Spaniard. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid says one reason his group struck the InterContinental Hotel was the presence of foreigners.

Such provocative targeting of civilians by the insurgents, as well as the civilian deaths that result from US-led operations, erode trust around the negotiating table. However, since both sides clearly intend to try to show a stronger hand on the battlefield, neither Afghan nor American observers expect the attack to shut down the peace process.

“When you see this kind of incident, especially in Kabul, it brings mistrust among the people over the peace process, but it does not means we will sit quiet and stop the peace efforts,” says Attaullah Lodin, a member of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council.

RELATED Kabul raid shows Taliban's strength, tests Afghan security coordination

He says at this point the peace talks have to involve those who deepen insecurity, including a€?foreign forces killing innocent and weak Afghans in the villages in their raids and bombings, or those [insurgents] who carry out attacks on the mosques and crowded areas.a€

For many Westerners there is not the same equivalency between so-called collateral damage from military missions that target insurgents and a group that goes door-to-door in a hotel to hunt guests.

'Diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to friends'But in a speech earlier this year making the case for peace talks, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued against letting the Taliban’s brutality derail efforts to end the war.

"Now, I know that reconciling with an adversary that can be as brutal as the Taliban sounds distasteful, even unimaginable. And diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends," said Secretary Clinton. "But that is not how one makes peace.”

Still, the attack could have minor impacts on the calculations surrounding the talks.

Sign up for the daily World Editor's Picks newsletter. Our best stories, in your inbox.

It has not been clear whether the Taliban are using talks as a tactic to encourage international withdrawal, or if they are genuinely interested in finding a negotiated settlement. The continuation of major terrorist assaults only deepen this uncertainty. On the other hand, the attack is a reminder that despite 130,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban remain capable of striking inside the capital.

“I hope politicians are not too influenced by this [attack] and [do not] drop the political approach,” says Thomas Ruttig with the Afghanistan Analysts Network in Kabul. “The attack yesterday showed that the Taliban cannot be gotten rid of through a military-only approach.”

What about a cease-fire?In order to avoid the danger of each side outraging the other with stepped-up attacks, one solution is to seek some form of cease-fire to give space for talks.

A cease-fire would also help stop further fragmentation of the insurgency, which adds uncertainty to whether a peace deal could be enforced by Taliban leaders. As the US steps up attacks on mid-level commanders, fresh leaders are elevated who are not as bonded to the top-level leaders.

“When you continue to hammer the organization, that means you have more factionalization,” says Christine Fair, a regional expert at Georgetown University in Washington. “It does mean you are increasing your odds of having significant spoilers [to any settlement].”

Western analysts who follow the region, including Dr. Fair, Mr. Ruttig, and Seth Jones at the RAND Corporation, say they have never heard serious discussion about pursuing a cease-fire deal.

Mr. Lodin says everyone on the High Peace Council is suggesting a cease-fire, but he does not expect it to happen soon. The Taliban, meanwhile, have demanded that foreign soldiers depart Afghanistan – which is a lopsided form of cease-fire – but the US has made it clear that withdrawal would be an outcome not a precondition or intermediate step.

The Taliban spokesman Mr. Mujahid declined to say much about the attack’s impact on peace talks.

“I do not want to comment on this since I did not get the official statement from the leadership, but I would say that the fight is going on on a daily basis, the enemy attacks us everywhere and the goal of freedom that we have, we can not forget that goal,” says Mujahid by phone.

Fair argues that the InterContinental was not really meant as a Western target since mostly Afghans these days actually stay overnight in the past-its-prime hotel. She sees this as a message to Afghans that while the internationals are starting to leave, the Afghan conflict remains.

---

Related video:

newslook

View the original article here