Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

New cables profiling President Zardari have been leaked by Wikileaks giving an insight on American perception on Pakistani politics. Following are the salient points…

  1. Both Zardari and Sharif are in a race to show their loyalty to Americans.
  2. Our politicians/mullahs/army men think that it is absolutely necessary to get American nod to get power.
  3. Zardari has named the sister Faryal Talpur as president in the event of his assassination. This means the dynasty will continue..
  4. Nawaz Sharif thanked American ambassador for appointing Kiyani as the army chief.

These leaks also disclose how Pakistani power elite is keen to please the Americans, and what Americans think of them.

Pakistan’s president Asif Ali Zardari ‘prepared for assassination’
WikiLeaks cables profiling husband of late Benazir Bhutto say he has named his successor should he also be killed

Declan Walsh
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 November 2010 21.56 GMT
Article history

Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari, has arranged for his family to live in the UAE if he is assassinated, WikiLeaks cables say. Photograph: Ishara Kodikara/AFP/Getty Images
Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, whose wife, Benazir Bhutto, was killed in a suicide bombing, has made extensive preparations in case of his own assassination.

Last year Zardari told the US ambassador, Anne Patterson, that if he was assassinated, “he had instructed his son Bilawal to name his sister, Faryal Talpur, as president”.

This year Zardari requested the United Arab Emirates to allow his family to live there in the event of his death. His wife lived in self-imposed exile in the UAE for years before her ill-fated return to Pakistan in 2007.

The cables provide a changing portrait of Zardari, America’s key Pakistani ally along with the army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani. A sharp-edged 2008 description of Zardari notes that he hails from a tribe with “little social standing” in Sindh; “there is a story that as children, Sindhis were told ‘a Zardari stole it’ if something went missing”.

But later dispatches portray him as a more capable leader, with considerable political nous, although often burdened by his association with deep-seated corruption.

Zardari is frank about the strength of the Taliban – “I’m sorry to say this but we are not winning” the war against extremists he told the US vice-president, Joe Biden, in 2009 – and his own limitations.

“I am not Benazir, and I know it,” he told the US ambassador after his wife’s death.

And he fears a fresh army coup. Zardari said he was concerned that Kayani might “take me out”, Biden reported to Gordon Brown during a meeting in Chile in 2009. Brown said he thought it unlikely.

The observations on Pakistan’s often beleaguered president are part of several portraits about prominent Pakistani politicians that are dotted with insight, colour and some surprises.

In November 2007 Maulana Fazlur Rehman, leader of the country’s most fiercely pro-Taliban religious party, hosted a jovial dinner for Patterson at which he sought her backing to become prime minister and expressed a desire to visit America.

“All important parties in Pakistan had to get the approval” of the US, said his aide Abdul Ghafoor Haideri. After the meeting Patterson commented on the mullah’s famously wily political skills. “He has made it clear that … his still significant number of votes are up for sale.”

The cables also highlight the contradictions of other prominent Pakistanis. Officials noted that Amin Fahim, a Bhutto supporter hoping to become prime minister, led a religious Islamic group “while enjoying an occasional bloody mary”.

The opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif had a “notoriously difficult personality” while his family is noted to have “relied primarily on the army and intelligence agencies for political elevation”.

**America’s perceived influence on Pakistani power politics is a frequent theme. In a May 2008 meeting with a visiting American congressional delegation, Zardari said: “We won’t act without consulting with you.”

Sharif repeatedly told the US ambassador he was “pro-American”, despite his often critical public stance. He thanked the US for “arranging” to have Kayani appointed as army chief. “The best thing America has done recently,” he said.**

“The fact that a former prime minister believes the US could control the appointment of Pakistan’s chief of army staff speaks volumes about the myth of American influence here,” the ambassador noted tartly afterwards.But some dispatches make it clear that the Americans do wield great clout. After General Pervez Musharraf resigned as president in 2008, ambassador Patterson pressed Zardari to grant him immunity from prosecution. “We believed, as we had often said, that Musharraf should have a dignified retirement and not be hounded out of the country,” she said.

The US – and Kayani – worried that Zardari would renege on his word. “Zardari is walking tall these days, hopefully not too tall to forget his promise to Kayani and to us on an immunity deal,” wrote Patterson.

If Zardari didn’t protect Musharraf then it would make him look bad. “I have to bring the army along with me,” he said, also noting that the delay “does nothing for Zardari’s reputation for trustworthiness”.

The notable exception to that US influence, however, is the former cricketer Imran Khan, who delivered a long lecture to visiting US politicians about the iniquities of US policy.

Welcoming the group at his grand home outside Islamabad, Khan hosted an “hour-long, largely one-sided, and somewhat uncomfortable conversation”.

To defeat the Taliban the US had to understand the “tribal character” of the militants, he said, and described the Pakistani drive against the Taliban in 2009 as “stage-managed” for US consumption.

There are apercus in the cables into the often inscrutable military leaders. Kayani is “direct, frank, and thoughtful” and has “fond memories” of time spent on a military training course in the US. It is also noted that “he smokes heavily and can be difficult to understand as he tends to mumble.” The Inter-Services Intelligence chief, Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, was “usually more emotional” than Kayani.

US diplomats also have a ringside seat to civilian wrangles. In February 2009 Zardari aide Farahnaz Ispahani said the president was “very unhappy” with the way the prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, had “gone off the reservation”. In 2008 Zardari said Fahim “had spent most of the [election] campaign in Dubai (with his latest 22 year-old wife) and was simply too lazy to be prime minister”.

The cables also record embarrassing mistakes in the embassy’s efforts to manage its relationships with Pakistan’s power elite. Six months after his dinner with the ambassador, Rehman was less enamoured of US policy when the FBI issued a notice suggesting he had orchestrated a suicide bombing in Islamabad.

The embassy asked the FBI to urgently recall the notice – he had been confused with another man with a similar name. Rehman was a “frequent and co-operative interlocutor with post and professes his support for co-operation with the United States”, the request said.

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

Some of the documents leaked by wikileaks disclose how Kiyani came close to ask Zardari to resign. They show how Kiyani is the actual powerman in Pakistan… Americans perceive that army under the leadership of Kiyani still support certain group of militants. Also these leaks reveal that Kiyani perceives Sharif as more dangerous than Zardari..!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/world/asia/01wikileaks-pakistan.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&ref=world

Nuclear Fuel Memos Expose Wary Dance With Pakistan

One secret cable offers another glimpse into another element of the nuclear gamesmanship between the United States and its Pakistani allies: Even while American officials were trying to persuade Pakistani officials to give up nuclear material, they were quietly seeking to block Pakistan from trying to buy material that would help it produce tritium, the crucial ingredient needed to increase the power of nuclear weapons.
State’s Secrets

Day 3

Articles in this series will examine American diplomatic cables as a window on relations with the rest of the world in an age of war and terrorism.

The cables also reveal that the American Embassy had received credible reports of extrajudicial killings of prisoners by the Pakistani Army more than a year before the Obama administration publicly acknowledged the problem and before a video that is said to show such killings surfaced on the Internet.

The killings are another source of tension, complicated by American pressure on Pakistan to be more aggressive in confronting militants on its own soil.

In a Sept. 10, 2009, cable labeled “secret/noforn,” meaning that it was too delicate to be shared with foreign governments, the embassy confronted allegations of human rights abuses in the Swat Valley and the tribal areas since the Pakistani Army had begun fighting the Taliban a few months earlier.

While carefully worded, the cable left little doubt about what was going on. It spoke of a “growing body of evidence” that gave credence to the allegations.

“The crux of the problem appears to center on the treatment of terrorists detained in battlefield operations and have focused on the extrajudicial killing of some detainees,” the cable said. “The detainees involved were in the custody of Frontier Corps or Pakistan army units.” The Frontier Corps is a paramilitary force partly financed by the United States to fight the insurgents.

The Pakistani Army was holding as many as 5,000 “terrorist detainees,” the cable said, about twice as many as the army had acknowledged.

Concerned that the United States should not offend the Pakistani Army, the cable stressed that any talk of the killings must be kept out of the press.

“Post advises that we avoid comment on these incidents to the extent possible and that efforts remain focused on dialogue and the assistance strategy,” the ambassador wrote. This September, however, the issue exploded into public view when a video emerged showing Pakistani soldiers executing six unarmed young men in civilian clothes. In October, the Obama administration suspended financing to half a dozen Pakistani Army units believed to have killed civilians or unarmed prisoners.

The cables verge on gossipy, as diplomats strained to understand the personalities behind the fractious Pakistani government, and particularly two men: General Kayani and President Zardari.

Often, the United States finds that Mr. Zardari, the accidental leader after the assassination of his wife, Benazir Bhutto, is sympathetic to American goals — stiff sanctions on terrorist financing, the closing down of terrorist training camps — but lacks the power to fulfill his promises against resistance from the military and intelligence agencies.

Mr. Zardari’s chief antagonist, General Kayani, emerges as a stubborn guarantor of what he sees as Pakistan’s national interest, an army chief who meddles in civilian politics but stops short of overturning the elected order.

Early in the Obama administration, General Kayani made clear a condition for improved relations. As the director general of the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, from 2004 to 2007, he did not want a “reckoning with the past,” said a cable in 2009 introducing him to the new administration.

“Kayani will want to hear that the United States has turned the page on past ISI operations,” it said. General Kayani was probably referring to the peace accords with the Taliban from 2004 to 2007 that resulted in the strengthening of the militants.

If the general seems confidently in charge, the cables portray Mr. Zardari as a man not fully aware of his weakness.

At one point he said he would not object if Abdul Qadeer Khan, revered in Pakistan as the father of its nuclear weapons program, were interviewed by the International Atomic Energy Agency but tacitly acknowledged that he was powerless to make that happen.

Mr. Zardari, who spent 11 years in prison on ultimately unproved corruption charges, feared for his position and possibly — the wording is ambiguous — his life: the cables reveal that Vice President Biden told Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain in March 2009 that Mr. Zardari had told him that the “ISI director and Kayani will take me out.”

**\His suspicions were not groundless. In March 2009, a period of political turmoil, General Kayani told the ambassador that he “might, however reluctantly,” pressure Mr. Zardari to resign and, the cable added, presumably leave Pakistan. He mentioned the leader of a third political party, Asfandyar Wali Khan, as a possible replacement.

“Kayani made it clear regardless how much he disliked Zardari he distrusted Nawaz even more,” the ambassador wrote, a reference to Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister.**

By 2010, after many sessions with Mr. Zardari, Ms. Patterson had revised the guarded optimism that characterized her early cables about Mr. Zardari.

“Pakistan’s civilian government remains weak, ineffectual and corrupt,” she wrote on Feb. 22, 2010, the eve of a visit by the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III. “Domestic politics is dominated by uncertainty about the fate of President Zardari.”

That assessment holds more than eight months later, even as Mr. Obama in October extended an invitation to the Mr. Zardari leader to visit the White House next year, as the leader of a nation that holds a key to peace in Afghanistan but appears too divided and mistrustful to turn it for the Americans.

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

It is well known already that USA thinks (and implements the strategy) that controlling a few generals in Pakistan is much easier than controlling many many filthy politicians. Much easier to manipulate what goes on in the country.

Even when you do not agree with his stance, but Imran Khan seems to be the only politician without a dual (or triple) face.

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

Dog bites man is not news. I would have been surprised if was other way around. Most of these people have, homes, investments in the US or in west. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them?

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

what is new in that? Most of the Pakistani governments since partition were american allies except 5 years of Bhutto. He was killed by another loyal ally of america. It is not politicians who set this direction, it has always been set by generals. The direction set is extremely difficult if not impossible to change.

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

Looks like PPP will remain a party in search of leaders (non "king nominated") with some testosterones.

EDIT: They are actually not 'searching', they DON'T want a leader with T if he is not from Zordari/Bhutto clan.

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

All reports here and every thing told before that the most loyal persons to US are those who wear boots.

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

All those idiots who dismissed America's strangle hold and total control of the affairs of Pakistan as mere conspiracy theories, do report to this thread...

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

Wiki leaks 2010: World leaders are becoming 'laughing stocks'... :D

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

Wikileaks has also exposed the Saudi masters of Pakistan. Somehow it hasn’t gotten the attention.

	 					 				 			**WikiLeaks cables: Saudi Arabia wants military rule in Pakistan**

			 					King Abdullah and ruling princes distrust Asif Ali Zardari, the country's Shia president, and would prefer 'another Musharraf'

America is often portrayed as the big dog in [(US embassy cables: Turkey seen as answer to Saudis' influence in Pakistan | Saudi Arabia | The Guardian).
It was well positioned, she said, to “neutralise somewhat the more negative influence on Pakistan politics and society exercised by Saudi Arabia”.

](“Pakistan | The Guardian”)

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

Something the Pakistanis have known all the way that our rulers hire expensive lobbyist is USA, and believe that they can only come in power when they get the job from their foreign masters. Once in power they do nothing to safeguard the interest of Pakistan… rather they are always busy pleasing their foreign masters. Now with latest wikileaks this perception is getting strengthened…

You have very rightly pointed out that all these leaders have no stake in Pakistan. For them Pakistan is just a looting ground, and they give a damn about people of Pakistan or their welfare/interest. The power base of all these shameless corrupt people comes from their foreign masters.

You may criticize Imran Khan for a lot of things, you may differ with his way of thinking, but Khan has been pointing out exactly this for a very long time. The same fact is endorsed by latest wikileaks as Khan being the only politician who does not consider Americans as their masters. This may the biggest reason that he may never come in power or become successful in Pakistani political system.. these foreign powers operating in Pakistan are only looking for compromised, corrupt, and characterless people who are always willing to sell the motherland for personal gains..!!!

**Pakistan needs less foreign interference, not more. And that applies to Arab jihadi fanatics as much as it does to imperious Americans. **

WikiLeaks shows America’s imperious attitude to Pakistan
The WikiLeaks US embassy cables reveal just how dangerously involved the Americans are in every aspect of Pakistan’s affairs

Simon Tisdall
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 December 2010 14.38 GMT
Article history

Pakistan was already under the American hammer before the WikiLeaks crisis blew. But leaked US diplomatic cables published by the Guardian show the extraordinary extent to which Pakistan is in danger of becoming a mere satrapy of imperial Washington.

The US assault on Pakistani sovereignty, which is how these developments are widely viewed in the country, is multipronged. At one end of the spectrum, in the sphere of “hard power”, US special forces are increasingly involved, in one way or another, in covert military operations inside Pakistan.

These troops are being used to help hunt down Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in the tribal areas and co-ordinate drone attacks, as revealed by the Guardian’s Pakistan correspondent, Declan Walsh. Their activities come in addition to previous air and ground cross-border raids; and to the quasi-permanent basing of American technicians and other personnel at the Pakistani air force base from which drone attacks are launched.

The US hand can be seen at work in Pakistan’s complex politics, with the standing and competence of President Asif Ali Zardari seemingly constantly under harsh review. At one point, the military chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, reportedly consults the US ambassador about the possibility of a coup, designed in part to stop the advance of the opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif.

At the same time, Pakistani diplomats are convinced the Americans are somehow trying to commandeer the country’s nuclear deterrent, which they see as its only real defence against India. And all this importunity is underpinned by “soft power”, by a reverse cash tribute from Washington to Islamabad, approaching $2bn a year.** In a very real sense, the Americans buy their way in.**

This sort of helpful meddling, or shameless intrigue, or outrageous interference – decide yourself what you want to call it – in the internal affairs of a sovereign country is supposed to have gone out of fashion with the retreat of the British empire and the end of the Raj.

But that was never true in reality, of course. All great powers intrude in pursuit of their own interests; it’s what they do – and picking up where the British left off, the US is no different. It is a measure of the Pakistani state’s weakness that the Americans apparently have such scope and leeway to influence and direct its affairs.

What is equally remarkable, however, is how little the Americans appear able, ultimately, to control their satraps. Zardari talks a good game but achieves little. Millions of US taxpayer dollars earmarked for fighting Islamist extremists allegedly disappears into government coffers, never to be seen again. Washington’s staunch Pakistani allies in the “war on terror” play both sides, maintaining their ties to friendly Taliban and the Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group while simultaneously accepting America’s largesse. Being an imperialist is never easy.

So the Americans don’t get what they want. But neither do ordinary Pakistanis. The larger point is that Pakistan is suffering grievously, in terms of lives lost to terrorism; in soldiers and civilians killed and wounded in the campaigns against Pakistani Taliban in the tribal areas; in a ravaged economy, acute poverty and lack of education; and in the all but forgotten but still terrible aftermath of this year’s floods.

Pakistan needs less foreign interference, not more. And that applies to Arab jihadi fanatics as much as it does to imperious Americans. But on current trends the opposite is happening. The clear danger, highlighted by the leaked cables, is that the west’s unwinnable war in Afghanistan is spilling over into its weak, ill-led and much put-upon neighbour – and that Pakistan, too, could become a war zone.

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

^^^ True indeed, but what I find even more fascinating is that army chief asking the US ambassador for blessing to stage a military coup. I guess she must have said no or otherwise he would have kicked out Zardari by now. We knew who the politicians were working for & now we know who army is working for, and its not Pakistan.

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-cables-stirrup-zardari-pakistan
](Pakistan | The Guardian)
Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, is “clearly a numbskull”, Sir Jock Stirrup, Britain’s then chief of defence staff, told visiting US officials.

Other British officials echoed the line, with Peter Ricketts, the Foreign Office’s permanent undersecretary, characterising the Pakistani leader as having “not much sense of how to govern a country … I fear he talks and talks but not much happens.”


even the non muslim know zardari is a fool and has no clue what he is saying or doing.

How people can give this man blind support even when the world knows he is a corrupt fool is amazing.

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

why everyone surprising and activiting in leaks!!!! especially about Pakistani Polidirtians!! they all have double three faces always... are u guys just noticed it by LEAKS now??

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

Some of the leaks are conflicting. On the one hand they say that both Zardari and NS are pro-US (nothing new in that) reporting that NS even thanked the US ambassador for arranging to have Kayani as army chief. But on the otherhand they are also saying that Kayani consulted with the US ambassador at one point to stop NS from coming to power!!

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

Not exactly. On contrary it proves the level of influence USA has in Pakistani politics. Every party involved would do anything to keep USA on its back. USA knows that and uses other parties (NS, PPP, Army etc) as leverage to get what USA wants.

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

This the best thing ever happened to Pakistan, now i don't think any doubt is left in the minds of the people that these filthy leadership is going to actually resolve our problems and/or they are actually going to work to bring the nation out of its misery... even if they want to... US Envoy may not allow that to happen... I red in one of the leaks that, Zardari wanted to change the governor of KP.. US Ambassador never allowed him to do so... wow... great going Zardari...

2ndly there is no doubt left that this ruling elite is actually viceroy of western goras... they are here to protect the interest of the west.. to them the whole nation and country can go to hell... we have seen example in 1971, when all the ruling elite i.e. Yehya Khan, Bhutto, Mujeeb etc did played their in the tragedy of Pakistan... now it is Zardari, NS and Kiyani combo who are ready to deliver the same...

I don't know what to call these politicians.. a traitor word is to small to describe them... they were sent into power by the vote of the people ( or at least that is what we think) and they lick the A$$es of western diplomat... to the hell with them... i don't know if Zardari/NS has any hint of ghairat left ( i would be surprised if there is any to start with) but i am sure that now their blind followers would stop supporting them...

As somebody mentioned above, none of the leaks were secret, it was known by the common Pakistanies, it has been directly or indirectly discussed here... but every time it was called conspiracy theory... now that it is obvious ( as none of the govt have denied any of the report...infact Brits have called them correct) from the leaks... i wonder who would be supporting these bag of filth???

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

Is it any surprise though? i.e. Saudi Kings (dictators to be precise) supporting dictatorship or military rule else-where in the muslim world

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

I am a sunni muslim myself but I absolutely detest Wahabism because it is a backward, intolerant and narrow-minded version of Islam. I used to think it was an extreme form of sunnyism until someone educated me recently that Wahabism is an entity distinct from Sunni islam although it may appear very similar to the latter. All the Al-Qaeda and Taliban beheaders and suicide bombers are brainwashed wahabis. I prefer the more tolerant and peaceful form of sunnyism or sufi islam. That is the only way forward for muslim societies.

Infact I believe that too much Saudi influence is bad for Pakistan. We have already seen the immense carnage and damage to Pakistani society in recent times in the form of export of Saudi Wahabism and rising extremism in parts of Pakistan esp. Southern Punjab and Northern areas. Next time the Saudis offer us any aid we should politely say Thanks but No Thanks

Re: Wikileaks: Sharif and Zardari show their loyalty to Americans

I am really surprised that you are still talking about leadership. These Viki-Leaks have repeated what I am trying to tell you in my poor English during last two years.
The people and their elected leaders are forced to do all because our establishment is at his least to please US. They get training and their degrees from USA, Their children are getting education there. There are only two type pf leaders only.Touts of establishment or … little free . Second type is target by media and everyone like … Please read these Viki-Leaks again with open eyes.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs590.ash2/154240_1587631504208_1638425565_1336254_3952273_n.jpg