"The Influence of lobbyists hired by the Pakistan Government in Washington, D.C. is marginal in U.S. Foreign Policy towards Pakistan" (Quotation of Retired Ambassador and Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, Mr. Riaz Khokhar in Geo TV Meray Mutabiq, June 27).

Pakistan has again been hit by exploitation by its own government. Mr.Zardari and Benazir's favourite lobbyist in Washington, the ubiquitous Mark Siegel, is back again raking millions of taxpayer dollars and delivering nothing. But, the victims of this legal scam are the people of Pakistan and its few honest taxpayers. Mr. Siegel is hired with the aim that he is not only a friend of late Benazir Bhutto; but, also some intangible benefit could be expected from his connections to Israeli and American Jewish circles. Mr. Siegel uses his influence where it counts. He did not care to stop the Phalcon deal between India and Israel, because he was busy undermining the dictatorial Musharraf government.  At the same time promoting Benazir as the saviour of chaotic Pakistan.   He used his influence with the Israeli officials to connect Benazir to Ehud Barak, and thereby creating a bridge between Israel and Pakistan at the highest level. Currently, he is busy establishing Mr.Zardari credential as a quintessential democrat and a champion of fight against Pakistani Taliban. The sacrifices of young soldiers and officers of Pakistan in the war against terrorism are selectively ignored. Mr. Siegel has not been able to influence his friends in Israel and its intelligence services, not to meddle in affairs of Pakistan, through surrogate subversives imported from Uzbekistan. We reproduce below what the American and Pakistani media has said about this burning issue, exposed by an Afghan Ambassador, who may be looking for another source of income from the millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into Afghanistan.  What is good for Zardari, Musharraf, is good for Karzai. Let the Pakistani, Afghan, and Indian, awam (people) eat cake or better yet die fighting one another. This irony is not lost even to the blind. The fault dear Caesar, lies not in our stars that we are underlings.

Mother Jones, a U.S. Magazine, has published the letter of  Said Tayeb Jawad of Afghan Embassy in Washington, D.C. (see Below).

http://www.motherjones.com/files/Afghanistan_Lobbying_Memo.pdf

Lobbying dollars flowing out at super speed

Sunday, June 28, 2009

By Shaheen Sehbai

WASHINGTON: At least 11 big and small, known and unknown, lobbying companies have been hired by Pakistan and state-owned Pakistani organisations in the US, paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars every month, some of them having mysterious names and almost dubious credentials.

Although lobbying is a legal profession in Washington, the way it is conducted has earned it the nickname of "officially certified corruption" and what the Pakistan government, Pakistan Embassy and Pakistani organisations are doing may come close to this unofficial definition, analysts say.

The information about these lobbying firms is public record and is available on official websites of US government agencies and organisations. But somehow Pakistani clients of these lobbying firms have tried to camouflage their widely spread activities under different names and different categories so that at one time not more than two or three companies could be officially acknowledged as government lobbyists.

The lobbying debate was fired by Geo TV's talk show "Meray Mutabiq" hosted by Dr Shahid Masood on Saturday night but details gathered by The News revealed much more than the programme could cover.

All lobbyists are registered in the US as "foreign agents" under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and have to disclose their activities and operations under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. All this data is then made available to the public through information posted on their official websites.

Under FARA data seven Pakistani entities are listed as clients of at least 11 lobbying companies. One such firm was de-listed in March and its client was the PPP.

Likewise lobbyists' info, an official organisation that keeps all the data on lobbyists for the last 40 years and is the best recognised source of latest information on lobbying and lobbyists, lists seven Pakistani entities, which have hired the 11 lobbying firms in the US. These in their order of listing include:

- Council on Pakistan Relations (CPR): This is said to be based in Michigan but no other information is available except an expensive Washington DC address, 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, one block away from the White House and next to the famous Willard Hotel. There is a website for this organisation, www.pakistanrelations.org, but it does not name any one or any organisation, which can be identified. The details of the website are also hidden and when The News tried to find who owned the website and where it was located, Go-Daddy.com, the domain provider listed it as a secret/private website. Go-Daddy.com charges $10 extra to keep all the information about the website owner secret. CPR has hired one of the most expensive firms in Washington, Cassidy and Associates which has former Assistant Secretary Robin Raphel as one of the senior vice presidents. General Musharraf had also hired this company in October 2007 at $1.2 million per year to lobby for him just before the imposition of the emergency in Nov 07.

- Pakistan American Business Association: This is described as a non-profit organisation and has hired a big firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, ranked by The National Law Journal in 2006 as one of the 100 largest law firms in the country. Who are these Pak-American businessmen and where are they getting the huge dollars to pay this firm and for what results is not yet known.

- Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) has hired Benazir Bhutto's personal lobbyist, Mark Siegel's firm Locke Lord Strategies on a one-time payment of $150,000 to lobby for PIA's landing rights in the US.

- Pakistan People's Party (PPP) until recently had three lobbyists, BKSH, a subsidiary of Burson Marsteller, Mark Siegel's firm LLS and a firm owned by one T Dean Reed. Lakhs of dollars were paid by PPP before the elections 2008 when Benazir Bhutto was trying to win over the US leaders to replace General Musharraf. On March 9, 2009 PPP terminated the contract of BKSH.

- Embassy of Pakistan in Washington: The latest information on lobbyists.info shows that the Pakistan Embassy has currently retained three main lobbying firms: Moses Boyd, Mark Siegel's LLS and Ogilvy Public Relations (one of the names in this firm's list of associates is Irfan Kamal. Who is he and what role he plays, whether any, is not known).

- Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan: Under this name, a mysterious firm named 'Team Eagle' has been hired as one of the two lobbying companies, the other bang White & Case LLP in which one Pakistani name, Imran R Mir, is mentioned as an associate.

- Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting: Under this name only one name of a Pakistan-based company Asiatic Advertising is registered. No details of transactions are available for this firm.

These seven Pakistani organisations have thus hired 11 firms, separately and mysteriously in some cases, but what output and results are these companies providing is unknown and not clear. It would be a suitable case for parliamentary oversight bodies like the Public Accounts Committee to look into the details of these firms and how much they were paid for what results.

The data provided by US government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) until June 2008 is as follows. This lists some of the firms hired and paid by the Musharraf regime and some by the PPP government. It is amusing to note that the purpose of payment in some cases is just ridiculous like training Pakistani officials in the Embassy on how to deal with US media. The following is the data as listed on FARA web site:

- BKSH & Associates #5402, 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005

Pakistan People's Party (t) Nature of Services: Public Relations.

The registrant contacted congressional staffers, members of the Congress, and the US government officials to check on status of Resolution 445 and to assist the foreign principal in its effort to promote democracy in Pakistan and in providing its views on the current political, economic and humanitarian situation on the ground in Pakistan. The registrant also contacted congressional staffers to discuss upcoming visit of representatives of the foreign principal to the United States. $31,299.65 for the six-month period ending June 30, 2008.

- Burson-Marsteller #2469 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3544

Pakistan People's Party (t) 60 Nature of Services: Media Relations.

The registrant developed media monitoring reports, spoke with media representatives, secured and attended meetings for party representatives, and secured and staffed interviews for party representatives on behalf of the foreign principal. $49,837.13 for the six-month period ending April 30, 2008.

- Cassidy & Associates, Inc #5643 700 13th Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005

Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (t) 60 Nature of Services: Lobbying.

The registrant contacted congressional staffers and the US government officials to promote a better understanding of the foreign principal's political, social and economic developments. $100,000.00 for the six-month period ending March 31, 2008. Printed as of: February 11, 2009 Page 160 of 229 Pakistan.

- Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP #5835 1101 New York Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005-4213

Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, Embassy 60 Nature of Services: Legal and Other Services/Lobbying.

The registrant provided services to the foreign principal including developing action plans that advance Pakistan's commercial and trade objectives vis-‡-vis the US government and the private sector. $294,042.83 for the six-month period ending April 30, 2008.

- JWT Asiatic, a division of WPP Marketing Communications (Pvt.) Ltd #5722 ABN Amro Bank Building 16 Abdullah Haroon Road Karachi, Pakistan.

Government of Pakistan 60 Nature of Services: Advertising. Activities: None Reported Finances: None Reported.

- Locke Lord Strategies, LP #5856 401 9th Street, NW Suite 400 South Washington, DC 20004

Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP); Asif Ali Zardari, Co-Chairperson of the PPP 60.

Nature of Services: Lobbying.

The registrant agreed to promote the democratic transition of Pakistan and to encourage the international investigation of the assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Finances: None Reported

- Locke Lord Strategies, LP #5856 401 9th Street, NW Suite 400 South Washington, DC 20004

The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 60. Nature of Services: Lobbying.

The registrant will conduct strategic and governmental affairs communications on behalf of the foreign principal. Finances: None Reported

Printed as of: February 11, 2009 Page 161 of 229 Pakistan.

- Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide #5807 1111 19th Street, NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036

Embassy of Pakistan (t) 60 Nature of Services: Media Relations.

On behalf of the foreign principal, the registrant provided media training to embassy staff, drafted informational materials for distribution to journalists and other media outlets, facilitated the embassy's interactions with journalists and other media outlets, and provided strategic guidance with respect to the United States media. $256,809.00 for the six-month period ending May 31, 2008.

- Reed, T Dean #5044 37277 Branchriver Road Purcellville, VA 20132-1922

Pakistan Peoples Party (t) 60 Nature of Services: Public Relations.

The registrant provided public relations advice and consultation to the foreign principal and the editing of a newsletter. $10,500.00 for the six-month period ending March 31, 2008.

- Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc. #5401 101 Constitution Avenue, NW Suite 600 West Washington, DC 20001

Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Embassy (t) 60

Nature of Services: Legal and Other Services/Lobbying.

The registrant monitored, advised and evaluated legislative issues, as well as arranged meetings and accompanied Pakistani government officials to meetings with members of the Congress, and congressional staffers to discuss general US-Pakistan issues. Representatives of the registrant also traveled to Pakistan to meet with Pakistani government officials. $330,000.00 for the six-month period ending June 30, 2008.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=22972

Lobbying for Pakistan

A few months ago, a Congressman from the state of Florida wrote an op-ed in a conservative leaning paper in Washington DC, arguing that India should be made a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I did not learn about this piece serendipitously. It was posted on the website of the leading Indian lobbying group in the United States, called US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC). The op-ed was an obvious sign of USINPAC's increasing political power in DC. Any lobbying group ought to be proud of such an achievement.

USINPAC, founded just six years ago, has serious clout. It has created a Congressional Indian Caucus in the House of Representatives that - at last count - has 176 members. Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1. There is an Indian Caucus in the Senate as well. It has 35 members - split nearly evenly between Democrat and Republican - and Senator Hillary Clinton serves as co-chair. When long-time Virginia senator George Allen insulted a young Indian-American by taunting him with the word "macaca" USINPAC played a large part in helping to end his career.

In 2005, the lobby was able to get India to be excluded from the Department of Homeland's Security's Special Registration Program for immigration. When Barack Obama's campaign accidentally leaked a memo which described Hillary Clinton as "D-Punjab" due to her close ties with Indian business, the Obama apology letter was addresses to the head of USINPAC, Mr Sanjay Puri. The Indian lobby's most significant successes have been in the form of the nuclear-deal between India and the US, as well as in various arms deals.

The Washington Post compares the Indian lobby - in terms of efficiency and ambition - with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), long considered the benchmark when it comes foreign policy lobbying.

All this sets up the question of the Pakistan lobby in America.

Historically, various groups have tried to poke their noses into Washington DC. The leading group is PAKPAC, which actually grew out of APPNA - Association of Pakistani Physicians of North America - more than a decade earlier than USINPAC, though it has simply not experienced the same kind of growth or acquired similar clout.

Despite its limited success, PAKPAC has maintained a consistent presence on Capitol Hill and on the 28th of June will have an event with Senator Joe Biden, newly elected Muslim congressman Andre Carson of Indiana and the first Muslim congressman in the US, Keith Ellison (who, incidentally, is a member of the India Caucus). Biden is one of the front-runners for getting the vice-presidential nod with Barack Obama and an expert on issues related to Pakistan.

What has kept PAKPAC from becoming more integral to American foreign policy with respect to Pakistan, and from expanding its influence, is the same thing that afflicts Pakistan in so many other places: religion and military.

A great number of Pakistanis living and growing up in the US prefer working for Islamic groups over and above national ones. For many, Palestine and Arab issues take precedence over Pakistani matters. Some of this is PAKPAC and APPNA's fault, because they didn't cultivate a corner for the devout and pious Pakistanis to feel welcome until recently. The other was a problem of perception. APPNA allowed itself to be depicted by American-Islamic groups as a den of hedonism, alcohol and flirtation, when in fact, it was a tame and respectable group. There was also no attempt to create networks with notable religious personalities and philanthropists in Pakistan. When it is apparent that religious identity plays an important role for many Pakistanis, this was a mistake.

The greater problem has been military rule. When the Generals came to power they decided they didn't need to engage in creating inroads with Pakistani ex-pats, since they could walk into CENTCOM and Pentagon. A few years ago, flush from $6 billion handed out by the Bush administration, General Musharraf decided that he was going to simply buy an entire Congressional Pakistani caucus. He proceeded to get 55 members. True to the military's wasteful ways, he got in a bidding war with USINPAC for Congresswoman Sheila Jackson (D-TX) who had been an important member of the Indian caucus. When USINPAC offered her campaign $40,000, he upped the Indians and paid her campaign $50,000. Incidentally, despite being the head of Musharraf's Pakistan caucus, she is still listed as a member of the Indian caucus in Congress. Being in both caucuses isn't contradictory but it does make one wonder why Musharraf needed to pay her so much money in the first place - the same amount might have allowed him to make inroads with multiple congresspersons elsewhere.

The military's bypassing of the civilian ex-pat groups like PAKPAC and smaller groups like Pakistani American Leadership Centre and National Council of Pakistani Americans, set back the evolution and natural growth of the Pakistani lobby. There are many websites belonging to smaller action groups that haven't been updated in years - incidentally the same years while the military was in charge.

Now, as Pakistan is attempting to become a fully-functioning democracy again, is an important time for the Pakistani lobby to find new members and a new identity.

The natural inclination will be to set up as a counter-weight to the Indian lobby while defending all of the various excursions by the new government. This would be foolish.

It is eminently clear that the most pernicious issues affecting Pakistan today are those of terrorism, corruption and military dictatorship. Whoever decides to take the lead in lobbying has to focus on these three inter-related problems first and foremost.

Meeting with Senator Joe Biden and making him a centre-piece of any future Pakistan policy is a great idea. He may be up for being head of a Senatorial caucus. Demanding accountability and straight answers from ambassador Haqqani should be at the top of the list as well. Aitzaz Ahsan is on his way to the US right now, reportedly to meet with US officials; Pakistan's lobbyists should grab a hold of him to give him support (and give him some much needed advice as to whom he should keep as friends when he goes back). Another important issue has to do with finding a solution to FATA - whether it will be provincial autonomy or merging into NWFP. Finally, the lobbyists must set up an independent watch-dog body that gives unbiased reports to Pakistani ex-pats around the world. It's obvious that we cannot count on the Pakistani government to monitor itself.

There is nothing anywhere that says that a lobby has to be a lap-dog. The goal of a lobby is to work for a country. That means being honest about what the country most needs.

(From: The News, Pakistan)

The Pakistani government deployed a team of lobbyists to Capitol Hill on Monday to contain the fallout from the destabilizing actions by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, as congressional Democrats and the Bush administration sought a review of the country's foreign aid.

"The focus is on the Hill right now," said Mark Tavlarides, a former national security aide in the Clinton administration whose firm, Van Scoyoc Associates, is paid $55,000 a month from the Musharraf government - a significant boost from the $40,000 the firm earned before July.

In the wake of Musharraf's moves over the weekend to scuttle the constitution and, effectively, declare martial law to hold onto power, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top congressional Democrats promised to review the $845 million in foreign aid the administration has requested for Pakistan next year.

Congressional Democrats may want to be more punitive toward the authoritarian regime than the Bush administration, which cast its lot with Musharraf after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Pakistani government - and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto - have lined up some of the capital's top lobbying talent, ensuring that the struggle for power in Islamabad will have a Washington front.

"Pakistan will only be a reliable and capable ally against terrorism when its government is not seen as an enemy by its own people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement. "The interests of the United States are best advanced by policies that do not promote one goal at the expense of the other."

The lobbyists will have their work cut out for them, as lawmakers finalize an end-of-the-year spending package to fund each federal agency.

Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), who chairs a powerful subcommittee that allocates foreign aid urged her congressional colleagues Monday to revisit the $747 million the House approved earlier this year for Pakistan.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), her counterpart in the Senate, included in his version of the bill restrictions on that money if the State Department does not demonstrate the Pakistani government has implemented Democratic reforms, such as allowing "free, fair and inclusive" election, "respecting the independence of the judiciary" and ensuring freedom of expression for journalists and critics of the government.

"U.S. aid to the Musharraf government should stop until constitutional order, civil liberties and judicial independence are restored, until political prisoners are released, and until free and fair elections are allowed," Leahy said in a statement Monday. "The Bush administration has only paid lip service to the abuses of Gen. Musharraf's authoritarian rule."

Congressional Democrats have been at odds with the White House all year, but both sides exhibited a willingness to cooperate over foreign aid funding.

"This is one where the administration and the Congress should sit down together and work for a common purpose," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Monday at the National Press Club.

The divisions may come over the money set aside for counterterrorism, which appears safe for the moment. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "We are reviewing all of our assistance programs, although we are mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counterterrorism efforts."

As Musharraf moved to stifle dissent in recent months, his backers and opponents alike have marshaled Washington's lobbying community on their behalf.

Just last month, the Pakistani Embassy hired Cassidy & Associates for a whopping one-year, $1.2 million contract. Heading up the account is Robin Raphel, a former assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs in the Clinton administration. The firm declined to comment on its lobbying activities on behalf of the embassy.

Tavlarides said he is "basically trying to get reactions from [members of Congress] about the state of emergency. The embassy recognizes that Congress is a coequal branch of government in shaping U.S. policy towards Pakistan."

Meanwhile, the Pakistani opposition party, led by Bhutto, has retained public relations giant Burson-Marsteller and its affiliates, the lobbying firm BKSH & Associates, and the polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates. The firm declined comment on its activities, which it is charging an initial $75,000, to be followed with monthly payments of $28,500.

The contract filed with the Justice Department does, however, give some insight into what all of the money buys. Among the promised services: surveys of "100 American political, journalistic, and business elites in Washington, D.C., and New York"; an "internal brainstorming session"; and setting up meetings for Bhutto in Washington "with an eye towards convincing U.S. officials that Prime Minister Bhutto is still relevant to further the democratic process in Pakistan."

At the top of the Pakistan government's worry list is that it will lose American foreign aid, which has totaled some $10 billion since the Sept. 11 attacks, most of it military, according to an analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The government's lobbyists "have to walk a fine line. Lots of members are upset about this," said a Democratic congressional aide working on the issue, who added that so far, the issue has not split down partisan lines.

It's unclear, though, whether the administration will act to tighten American aid to Pakistan. A planned sale of F-16s to Pakistan "is definitely going to be under discussion," the Democratic aide said.

He noted that aid does not come in one lump package but, instead, in many "different spigots."

"The administration will figure out some spigots to remove or delay to signal that we are not happy with them," said the aide.

Brookings Institution scholar Stephen P. Cohen has long been critical of the aid program, arguing in a recent paper that the United States has become "Musharraf's ATM machine, allowing him to build up a military establishment that was irrelevant to his (and our) real security threat, yet presiding over an intensification of anti-American feelings in Pakistan itself, and failing to provide adequate aid to Pakistan's failing social and educational sectors."

Lobbyists from the Pakistan government, Bhutto and rival India have all been actively working Congress for months. And recently, they have been joined by human rights organizations like the International Crisis Group.

It remains unclear exactly what Bhutto is seeking, said a Democratic congressional aide working on Pakistan issues. Her lobbyists' arguments were "less harsh than I thought they might be," said the aide, speculating on rumors that Bhutto may be trying to cut a power-sharing deal with Musharraf.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, called for timely elections and protection for opposition voices.

India, meanwhile, has long been using the issue of religious extremism in Pakistan to gain leverage on the contentious issue of control of Kashmir, which has been a simmering conflict for decades. Among India's lobbying firms is GOP powerhouse Barbour, Griffith and Rogers, which is being paid $58,333 a month, according to its 2005 Justice Department filing. The firm declined to comment. The Pakistani government deployed a team of lobbyists to Capitol Hill on Monday to contain the fallout from the destabilizing actions by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, as congressional Democrats and the Bush administration sought a review of the country's foreign aid.

"The focus is on the Hill right now," said Mark Tavlarides, a former national security aide in the Clinton administration whose firm, Van Scoyoc Associates, is paid $55,000 a month from the Musharraf government - a significant boost from the $40,000 the firm earned before July.

In the wake of Musharraf's moves over the weekend to scuttle the constitution and, effectively, declare martial law to hold onto power, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top congressional Democrats promised to review the $845 million in foreign aid the administration has requested for Pakistan next year.

Congressional Democrats may want to be more punitive toward the authoritarian regime than the Bush administration, which cast its lot with Musharraf after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Pakistani government - and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto - have lined up some of the capital's top lobbying talent, ensuring that the struggle for power in Islamabad will have a Washington front.

"Pakistan will only be a reliable and capable ally against terrorism when its government is not seen as an enemy by its own people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement. "The interests of the United States are best advanced by policies that do not promote one goal at the expense of the other."

The lobbyists will have their work cut out for them, as lawmakers finalize an end-of-the-year spending package to fund each federal agency.

Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), who chairs a powerful subcommittee that allocates foreign aid urged her congressional colleagues Monday to revisit the $747 million the House approved earlier this year for Pakistan.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), her counterpart in the Senate, included in his version of the bill restrictions on that money if the State Department does not demonstrate the Pakistani government has implemented Democratic reforms, such as allowing "free, fair and inclusive" election, "respecting the independence of the judiciary" and ensuring freedom of expression for journalists and critics of the government.

"U.S. aid to the Musharraf government should stop until constitutional order, civil liberties and judicial independence are restored, until political prisoners are released, and until free and fair elections are allowed," Leahy said in a statement Monday. "The Bush administration has only paid lip service to the abuses of Gen. Musharraf's authoritarian rule."

Congressional Democrats have been at odds with the White House all year, but both sides exhibited a willingness to cooperate over foreign aid funding.

"This is one where the administration and the Congress should sit down together and work for a common purpose," House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Monday at the National Press Club.

The divisions may come over the money set aside for counterterrorism, which appears safe for the moment. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "We are reviewing all of our assistance programs, although we are mindful not to do anything that would undermine ongoing counterterrorism efforts."

As Musharraf moved to stifle dissent in recent months, his backers and opponents alike have marshaled Washington's lobbying community on their behalf.

Just last month, the Pakistani Embassy hired Cassidy & Associates for a whopping one-year, $1.2 million contract. Heading up the account is Robin Raphel, a former assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs in the Clinton administration. The firm declined to comment on its lobbying activities on behalf of the embassy.

Tavlarides said he is "basically trying to get reactions from [members of Congress] about the state of emergency. The embassy recognizes that Congress is a coequal branch of government in shaping U.S. policy towards Pakistan."

Meanwhile, the Pakistani opposition party, led by Bhutto, has retained public relations giant Burson-Marsteller and its affiliates, the lobbying firm BKSH & Associates, and the polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates. The firm declined comment on its activities, which it is charging an initial $75,000, to be followed with monthly payments of $28,500.

The contract filed with the Justice Department does, however, give some insight into what all of the money buys. Among the promised services: surveys of "100 American political, journalistic, and business elites in Washington, D.C., and New York"; an "internal brainstorming session"; and setting up meetings for Bhutto in Washington "with an eye towards convincing U.S. officials that Prime Minister Bhutto is still relevant to further the democratic process in Pakistan."

At the top of the Pakistan government's worry list is that it will lose American foreign aid, which has totaled some $10 billion since the Sept. 11 attacks, most of it military, according to an analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The government's lobbyists "have to walk a fine line. Lots of members are upset about this," said a Democratic congressional aide working on the issue, who added that so far, the issue has not split down partisan lines.

It's unclear, though, whether the administration will act to tighten American aid to Pakistan. A planned sale of F-16s to Pakistan "is definitely going to be under discussion," the Democratic aide said.

He noted that aid does not come in one lump package but, instead, in many "different spigots."

"The administration will figure out some spigots to remove or delay to signal that we are not happy with them," said the aide.

Brookings Institution scholar Stephen P. Cohen has long been critical of the aid program, arguing in a recent paper that the United States has become "Musharraf's ATM machine, allowing him to build up a military establishment that was irrelevant to his (and our) real security threat, yet presiding over an intensification of anti-American feelings in Pakistan itself, and failing to provide adequate aid to Pakistan's failing social and educational sectors."

Lobbyists from the Pakistan government, Bhutto and rival India have all been actively working Congress for months. And recently, they have been joined by human rights organizations like the International Crisis Group.

It remains unclear exactly what Bhutto is seeking, said a Democratic congressional aide working on Pakistan issues. Her lobbyists' arguments were "less harsh than I thought they might be," said the aide, speculating on rumors that Bhutto may be trying to cut a power-sharing deal with Musharraf.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, called for timely elections and protection for opposition voices.

India, meanwhile, has long been using the issue of religious extremism in Pakistan to gain leverage on the contentious issue of control of Kashmir, which has been a simmering conflict for decades. Among India's lobbying firms is GOP powerhouse Barbour, Griffith and Rogers, which is being paid $58,333 a month, according to its 2005 Justice Department filing. The firm declined to comment.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=1228DEA1-3048-5C12-00FE46B05D430F12

Pakistan hires another lobbyist in Washington

* Former assistant secretary of state for South Asia to represent Pakistan for $1.2m

* Lobbying contract has a year's validity

By Khalid Hasan

Washington: Pakistan has got itself yet another lobbyist at a yearly cost of $1.2 million, which brings the number of those it has been using to sell itself on Capitol Hill and in the corridors of the government to two, though there could be more.

The other firm representing Pakistan here is Van Scoyoc Associates, which is paid $55,000 a month. "We continue to represent the embassy and work with the ambassador and his team on a daily basis," according to Mark Talvarides, vice president for Van Scoyoc and lead lobbyist on the contract.

Pakistan's representative:The new lobbyist for Pakistan is a firm called Cassidy and Associates, and the person who would be carrying Pakistan's flag will be former assistant secretary of state for South Asia, Robin Raphael. Raphael, who retired from the foreign service a few years ago, earned the permanent ire of the Indian government and the Indian-American community for questioning the authenticity of the instrument of accession allegedly signed by Maharaja Hari Singh, which, India maintains, put the seal of approval on the state's accession to India. That is a position accepted neither by Pakistan nor the people of Kashmir, nor the United Nations for that matter. This correspondent was present at the press conference where the erstwhile assistant secretary made her observation, which caused uproar in India. She was instructed never to repeat that bit again and she did not. The only other government Cassidy works for is Equatorial Guinea.

Year-long contract: According to records filed with the Justice Department, the contract with Pakistan has a year's validity. However, other things being equal, there is likelihood of its being renewed. Cassidy's work will involve lobbying and public relations campaigns promoting Pakistan's status as an "important strategic partner of the US", according to The Hill, a small publication devoted to congressional coverage.

Mumtaz Zahra Baloch, first secretary at the Pakistan embassy, told The Hill, "We thought we had some challenging issues and we thought we should add another lobbying firm." Robin Raphel, who is also senior vice president at Cassidy, stressed Pakistan's necessity as an ally for the American counter-terrorism strategy. "We need to recognise it is not easy what Pakistan is trying to do here in assisting us in the fight against the terrorism in the region," she said. She said her job would be to make sure "all relevant parties have the facts", adding, "I think it's clear there is a less than perfect understanding of Pakistan here."

Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party is represented by BKSH and Associates and its affiliate Burson-Marsteller LLC to promote fair elections in Pakistan. Pakistan Embassy first secretary Baloch told The Hill, "We believe there is common ground between her party and the government."

Consensus Between PPP & PML (N) in Linking with Lobbying Firms In Washington

By kami • May 8th, 2008

It is the norm that a new government in a country changes its lobbying link in Washington, DC as well. Presently, while the late Bhutto's Pakistan People Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) are busy in keeping their alliance intact on the issue of restoration of sixty judges, they are also discussing the selection of two new lobbying and public relations firms in Washington to represent Pakistan.

Currently Van Scoyoc Associates and Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide do lobbying and public relations for Pakistan. The country's contacts with these firms will end within next few weeks.

As these two major parties have negotiated the number and distribution of their ministries, reflecting the number of seats they have won in the Pakistani national assembly, they are also discussing with each other as to which two lobbying firms they are both comfortable with in Washington.

In Islamabad, PPP is a bigger partner than PML (N) because it won more seats in the national assembly.

In the selection process of lobbying firms compared to PML-N, PPP has it easier because the late Benizir Bhutto (BB) had hired Marsteller and BKSH & Associates to represent the party's interests in Washington. The PPP probably would like to pick the same firm, if PML-N agrees.

Compared to the Sharif brothers, late BB's connections in Washington are deeper and wider.

About a decade ago when I was interning for Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, I observed BB's meeting with the Representative McKinney on May 27, 1999. The relatively young BB was both charming and convincing.

Unfortunately, she is not in this world, her party still has some good reliable friends in Washington. One of them, very well-connected among the Democratic party, is Mark Siegel. He seems to be willing to help in Washington both, Pakistan and its Islamic identity.

I have observed Siegel, a German-American, giving a good profile to Islam and letting Washingtonian know that we, people of three Abraham faiths, must learn to live together, a position far from some neo-con's approach of confronting Islam on-head. (Siegel, by the way, once used to lead the Democratic National Committee (DNC).)

Just as PML- N and PPP have some differences in Islamabad, including about the reinstatement of some 60 Justices, they are having the same issue in the selection of lobbyists in Washington.

Since Marsteller and BKSH & Associates lobbied PPP's position in Washington before the party won election in Pakistan, the firm has felt closer to PPP than to PML-N.

Being in Washington, I am not in a position to watch PML-N internal debate closely on this issue. However, I have learned, with a few e-mails and phone calls, that it's possible that some leaders of PML-N have taken the position that their party should let PPP pick the BKSH & Associates to represent Pakistan. They have faith in that firm's professionals to do their best focusing on giving a good profile to Pakistan by ignoring any difference between the two parties in Pakistan.

If a major part of PML-N leadership believes that their party would not be ignored by BKSH & Associates, it will let PPP select the said firm which has already established good professional relationship with late BB's PPP party.

However, in its internal debate a group of PML-N leaders, who do not have much first hand experience with the U.S. political system, is arguing against BKSH & Associates professionals' possible tendency of favoring PPP over PML-N in Washington, while the firm gets paid from the Pakistani taxpayers rather than from PPP's own pocket.

This introverted or perhaps even xenophobic group of PML-N leaders has more than one reason to think suspiciously.

The group understands well that, compared to their party which expressed more faith in Pakistani voters, the late BB believed in taking short cuts to getting the top Pakistani position via Washington.

While former Prime Minister and PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif didn't visited Washington after President Musharraf made him leave Pakistan, late BB had made many Washington visits in order to use American influence in getting Musharraf to soften his attitude toward her.

In her skills of interacting with the West and Washington the late BB was far ahead on the curve. Since the Sharif brothers knew it was not their forte to deal with Washington successfully, being in opposition, they never tried to compete with BB.

Its known among Pakistani-American community that the PML-N leadership had given up on Washington. Some cool heads in their party thought tacitly that they could coattail BB; in the case she was able to move Washington against Musharraf. Economically speaking, PML leadership might consider it a shroud move on their part because BB was spending a substantial amount of dollars on Washington lobbyists. But PML's penny-wise strategy turned out to be very costly. It allowed some elements to damage party's character by presenting it as a kind of conservative Islamic party that believed in confronting Washington.

Former Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif's ability to establish rapport with former President Bill Clinton, however, reflects PML leadership's desire to have a good relationship with the States.

The attitude of the two major Pakistani parties reflects that it's not just matter of their having different level of skills for dealing with Washington. The PML-N leadership tend to express deeper trust in Pakistani people. A few years back, Shahbaz Sharif, the former and future Chief Minister (CM) of Punjab, the most populated Pakistani province, used to live in New York. Instead of running after Washington's power brokers, he kept himself closer to the Pakistani-American community.

Several years ago when he was the Chief Minister of Punjab, I had a few interactions with him in the Blair House in Washington, DC, at the Andrew air force base, MD, and in the World bank. Compared to his older brother Nawaz Sharif - a relatively mellow and spiritual man who likes to develop friendly relationships on deeper level with the people around him - I found the younger brother Shahbaz Sharif more specific, focused, to the point, no-nonsense and very business-minded man. Being a man of few words, he prefers not to pay much attention people's irrelevant stories.

On my request, a common friend named Shaheen Butt invited me to a Thanksgiving dinner with the CM in New York in November 2006. At the end of the dinner, I reminded him privately for the need to improve his party's image in Washington. I felt his priority was his party's workers rather than persuasion of some well-known political operators in Washington.

It's understood that the PML-N's lack of interest in Washington negatively affected Washington's approach toward the party. The policy-makers here developed the feelings of PML's over sensitivity to the country's Islamic identity. There are prevalent thoughts that the Pakistan Muslim League-N is prone to play on the anti-American emotions in Pakistan. I disagree with this thinking, though.

BB and her mother Nusrat Bhutto, originally an Iranian lady, are known to have feudal background. Sharifs, on the other hand, belong to an industrialist family. They are one of the most pro-business leaders among developing countries. Having a sizeable business in Saudi Arabia, Sharifs have deeper spiritual connections with that country, but somehow they didn't use mush Saudi Arabia's political link to Washington to court it.

In terms of Sharif family's pro-business propensity, during their rule in Pakistan their party got rid of many useless laws inhibiting the new businesses and resultant economic growth. They tried to boost the economy with multiple advances. Their party lowered the business taxes, relaxed foreign exchange currency rules, and encouraged Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by letting the foreign corporations form better capital markets for investing in the energy, communication, transportation sectors and in country's dying infrastructure.

For the first time in Pakistani history, the Sharif brothers built roads on our Washington DC beltway model and link some major industrial city in their country. Furthermore, being good businessmen, the Sharif Brothers tried their best to lure many foreign businesses into their county by allowing them to have more than 50% shares in the businesses, which neighboring India would not do so easily.

Most economists agree that the higher economic growth during Musharraf's regime was a partial result of the long-term affect of PML-N's liberalizing economic policies during their rule. Because of Sharif brothers' radical pro-business approach their party, rather than Bhutto's PPP, should have been sweetheart of Washington. It did not transpire this way partially because contrary to the late BB's education in the US, and UK, the Sharif brothers were educated in Pakistan. Unfortunately, they did not have the opportunity, perhaps, to learn enough about the tolerance and highly inclusive nature of American society.

On Washington's part, because of Sharifs' more pro-Pakistani people-focused approach, Washington never bothered to appreciate its leaders fully; this in turn deprived American businesses from exploiting many good business opportunities they otherwise could have avail during Sharif's' regime.

Nadir Chaudhri, a spokesman of former PM Nawaz Sharif and Ahsan Iqbal, the current education minister of Pakistan and a PML-N leader visited Washington in the last week of June and October of last year respectively. I had helped to arrange some of their meetings on Capitol Hill and with some of Washington' experts on South Asia.

In the meetings our most American hosts expressed serious apprehensions about PML-N, fearing that they were a bunch of fundamentalist who would try to implement 'Sharia' laws in Pakistan, if and when their party won the election in Pakistan.

Looking into the country's historical economic policies, compared to PML-N's very pro-business policies, the late Prime Minister Z.A. Bhutto, BB's father, had almost destroyed the country's industrial base by nationalizing almost all major business complexes in Pakistan, unfortunately.

But the late BB was an expert at segmenting her audiences and designing the particular messages accordingly, which prevented the West from learning enough about the corruption and mismanagement baggage her party carried in Pakistan.

Because of BB's sharpness and her superiority in dealing with Washington has created some insecurity and distrust among a group of PML-N leaders. And this is the very group who is going to oppose the hiring of BKSH & Associates.

This group also believes that BB's sophisticated deals with Washington never allowed the power brokers to pay proper attention to PML-N, which because of its pro-capitalist and pro-growth economic policy should have been a natural ally of the United States. The group also feels that because of Washington's ignorance of PML-N, it would be impossible for their party to get equitable profile from the lobbying firm and the personalities like Siegel who have been involved with PPP for several years in Washington.

One of the reasons this group wants to have equal saying as that of PPP in the shopping of lobbying firm for Pakistan because it's acutely aware of their party's not-so-good reputation in Washington. However, it's not in the interest of PPP to put the decision of selecting the lobbying firms on hold for months. As I said at the beginning its easier for PPP to make a quick decision and the party is trying its best to get this job done as soon as possible.

Some South Asian circles feel it's unlikely for Zardari to have a long political life. Either his son would take over within next couple of years after completing his bachelor degree in England, or the army would push Zardari out of politics sooner rather than later. This might be another factor making part of PML-N leaders complacent and letting PPP do whatever it wants to in the selection of the lobbyist in Washington.

And it's not going to take us months before we learn with which lobbying firm in Washington the PPP and PML-N end up on consensus basis.

http://www.pakspectator.com/consensus-between-ppp-pml-n-in-linking-with-lobbying-firms-in-washington/

Militant Islam Monitor > Articles > Bhutto coverage abysmal -fails to point out corruption and Pakistan lobbyist Siegel's lack of credibility

Bhutto coverage abysmal -fails to point out corruption and Pakistan lobbyist Siegel's lack of credibility

December 29, 2007

Bhutto Assassination Coverage Abysmal

December 28, 2007 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Network news coverage of the assassination of ex-prime minister Benazir Bhutto has so far failed to meet the minimum standards to which even television news should ascribe.

Case in point, CNN's affable appearing dupe, Wolf Blitzer "breaking" a story fed to him by longtime Bhutto fixer and big time Dem political schemer Mark Siegel in which a supposed October 16 email from Bhutto implicated - well before the fact - Pak strongman Musharraf in any harm that might eventually come to her.

"Two months before her death, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto sent an e-mail to her U.S. adviser and long-time friend, saying that if she were killed, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would bear some of the blame" [source, http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/bhutto.security]

Fox and other cable news providers uncritically ran with Blitzer's story, failing to vet Mr. Siegel or note his past history, especially his status as a registered foreign agent with a penchant for media manipulation at key political junctures.

As the Washington Post reported at the time, in 1997 Siegel took the unusual step of also implicating Congressman Dan Burton^1. in wrongdoing, accusing him of a political "shakedown" for money.

"I should tell you," Siegel wrote on July 25, in a two-page memo to a Bhutto aide in Islamabad, "that I worked in Washington for over 25 years and have never been shaken down by anyone before like Dan Burton's threats." [source, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf031997.htm]

Of course the charge, never substantiated and failing to have resulted in any disciplinary action against Burton, found its way into the media via a "leak," thus accomplishing its primary goal of compromising the reputation of the hard charging GOP Congressman.

Siegel's clear effort to demonize Musharraf in the current matter played well into the soap opera-like coverage of the Bhutto assassination, coinciding as it did, nicely with what seems to be the running narrative - a beatification process, hard to discern from garden variety propaganda - during which no mention was made of Bhutto's scandalous personal and familial history.

Also absent from the debate was any discussion of the degree to which Siegel was shilling for Bhutto, having received from her government, according to the above noted Washington Post article, "$452,941 for his services for the year ending July 1995 according to his filing at the Justice Department as a registered foreign agent."

The media's role in granting Bhutto undeserved status pales in gravity however, as compared to the Bush administration's belief that she would be anything but a disaster if reintroduced into Pakistani politics.

That this administration orchestrated and facilitated that turn of events betrays a disregard for the dangers inherent in micromanaging the internal dynamics of a non-Western nation, especially one with such an explosive history. It also shows how easily calamity can result from an overemphasis on small "d" democratic forms in a nation so heavily in the spell of Islamism.

Noting that, we wrote on November 14

 [see, U.S. State Dept. Delusional If It Sees Bhutto As The Answer].

"Why the U.S. diplomatic establishment views the re-injection of Benazir Bhutto into Pakistani politics as anything but alarming is hard to fathom. In the current crisis, which finds Pak military strong-man/president Musharraf attempting to manage his country's seemingly headlong rush towards Islamist madness, Bhutto's presence is anything but helpful. Fact - The Bhutto family is the poster child for Pakistani corruption, so it's hardly surprising that Benazir Bhutto was in exile because of massive evidence of her participation in money laundering schemes [a charge which sent her husband Asif Ali Zardari to jail for 8 years] before the U.S. State Dept. started its campaign of ill-advised meddling, which resulted in her return..."

Bhutto's venal quest for personal enrichment and past support of the Taliban should have marked her as unsuitable for governance under any conceivable circumstances by State Dept. professionals. It should also have sent a strong message to network execs to moderate their efforts to sanctify Bhutto in the wake of her death.

No matter how flawed Pervez Musharraf's governance has been, his "anti-democratic" actions including the dismissal of Supreme Court Chief Justice Chaudry, his previous declaration of martial law and program of detentions and house arrests must now appear mild given the alternative - a former ally becoming a radical Muslim enclave with very large teeth.

It's hard to imagine a more succinct proof of policy failure by the very same State Department dolts who are in open rebellion against the administration, who probably still continue to believe against all available evidence that a "free" election in Pakistan would not quickly devolve into an Islamist theocracy with its finger on the triggers of as many as 80 nuclear weapons.

Notes:

1. Dan Burton [R - Ind, 5th Dist], a twelve term Congressman and as Chair of the House Government and Reform Committee was vocal critic of the scandal ridden Clinton administration and advocate for impeachment - famously calling Mr. Clinton a "scumbag" - who at the time of Siegel's charge was involved in an investigation of Clinton/Gore fundraising improprieties, during which over 100 witnesses either took the fifth amendment or fled the country. http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=bhutto12.28.07%2Ehtm

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

MIM: Excerpt from FPM article " Pakistan's Peril" on Bhutto's ties with the Taliban.

But Bhutto was not always what she appeared to be.

Under her leadership, Pakistan in the 1990s became one the leading patrons of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Even as she promised to take her country into the 21^st century, Bhutto secretly provided military and financial aid to Islamic guerillas whose ideology placed them closer to the middle ages. Publicly, she rejected any affiliation with the Taliban. Behind closed doors, she subscribed to the view that they were a pro-Pakistan force that could help stabilize Afghanistan.

Duped by Bhutto's act was the Clinton administration and prominent Democratic Congressmen like Texas Rep. Charlie Wilson. Even then, there were those who cautioned that Islamic militants, once empowered, would prove impossible to control. Either out of naiveté or political calculation, Bhutto didn't listen. Like her father before her, she failed to realize the fanatical force that she helped unleash.

The price for that terrible error in judgment, it now seems, was her life.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=0A9A3F55-517C-4190-AE12-90586DFF9B8F

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

MIM: Excerpt from William Darlrymple's article "Pakistan's flawed and feudel princess" depicts Bhutto's corruption and how she helped the rise of Islamism.

Today, Benazir is being hailed as a martyr for freedom and democracy, but far from being a natural democrat, in many ways, Benazir was the person who brought Pakistan's strange variety of democracy, really a form of 'elective feudalism', into disrepute and who helped fuel the current, apparently unstoppable, growth of the Islamists. For Bhutto was no Aung San Suu Kyi. During her first 20-month premiership, astonishingly, she failed to pass a single piece of major legislation. Amnesty International accused her government of having one of the world's worst records of custodial deaths, killings and torture.

Within her party, she declared herself the lifetime president of the PPP and refused to let her brother Murtaza challenge her. When he persisted in doing so, he ended up shot dead in highly suspicious circumstances outside the family home. Murtaza's wife Ghinwa and his daughter Fatima, as well as Benazir's mother, all firmly believed that Benazir gave the order to have him killed.

As recently as the autumn, Benazir did and said nothing to stop President Musharraf ordering the US and UK-brokered 'rendition' of her rival, Nawaz Sharif, to Saudi Arabia and so remove from the election her most formidable rival. Many of her supporters regarded her deal with Musharraf as a betrayal of all her party stood for.

Behind Pakistan's endless swings between military government and democracy lies a surprising continuity of elitist interests: to some extent, Pakistan's industrial, military and landowning classes are all interrelated and they look after each other. They do not, however, do much to look after the poor. The government education system barely functions in Pakistan and for the poor, justice is almost impossible to come by. According to political scientist Ayesha Siddiqa: 'Both the military and the political parties have all failed to create an environment where the poor can get what they need from the state. So the poor have begun to look to alternatives for justice. In the long term, flaws in the system will create more room for the fundamentalists.'

In the West, many right-wing commentators on the Islamic world tend to see the march of political Islam as the triumph of an anti-liberal and irrational 'Islamo-fascism'. Yet much of the success of the Islamists in countries such as Pakistan comes from the Islamists' ability to portray themselves as champions of social justice, fighting people such as Benazir Bhutto from the Islamic elite that rules most of the Muslim world from Karachi to Beirut, Ramallah and Cairo.

This elite the Islamists successfully depict as rich, corrupt, decadent and Westernised. Benazir had a reputation for massive corruption. During her government, the anti-corruption organisation Transparency International named Pakistan one of the three most corrupt countries in the world.

Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari, widely known as 'Mr 10 Per Cent', faced allegations of plundering the country. Charges were filed in Pakistan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States to investigate their various bank accounts.

When I interviewed Abdul Rashid Ghazi in the Islamabad Red Mosque shortly before his death in the storming of the complex in July, he kept returning to the issue of social justice: 'We want our rulers to be honest people,' he said. 'But now the rulers are living a life of luxury while thousands of innocent children have empty stomachs and can't even get basic necessities.' This is the reason for the rise of the Islamists in Pakistan and why so many people support them: they are the only force capable of taking on the country's landowners and their military cousins.

This is why in all recent elections; the Islamist parties have hugely increased their share of the vote, why they now already control both the North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan and why it is they who are most likely to gain from the current crisis.

Benazir Bhutto was a courageous, secular and liberal woman. But sadness at the demise of this courageous fighter should not mask the fact that as a pro-Western feudal leader who did little for the poor, she was as much a central part of Pakistan's problems as the solution to them.

 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2233261,00.html