Tuesday, November 8, 2011 - 12:41 PM

On Oct. 10, Pakistani-American businessman Mansoor Ijaz dropped a bombshell: Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, he alleged, had offered to replace Pakistan's military and intelligence leadership and cut ties with militant groups in the wake of Osama bin Laden's killing in Abbottabad.
Ijaz also alleged in his op-ed in the Financial Times that Zardari communicated this offer by sending a top secret memo on May 10 through Ijaz himself, to be hand-delivered to Adm. Michael Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a key official managing the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. The details of the memo and the machinations Ijaz describes paint a picture of a Zardari government scrambling to save itself from an impending military coup following the raid on bin Laden's compound, and asking for U.S. support to prevent that coup before it started.
Mullen, now retired, denied this week having ever dealt with Ijaz in comments given to The Cable through his spokesman at the time, Capt. John Kirby.
"Adm. Mullen does not know Mr. Ijaz and has no recollection of receiving any correspondence from him," Kirby told The Cable. "I cannot say definitively that correspondence did not come from him -- the admiral received many missives as chairman from many people every day, some official, some not. But he does not recall one from this individual. And in any case, he did not take any action with respect to our relationship with Pakistan based on any such correspondence ... preferring to work at the relationship directly through [Pakistani Army Chief of Staff] Gen. [Ashfaq Parvez] Kayani and inside the interagency process."
Mullen's denial represents the first official U.S. comment on the Ijaz memo, which since Oct. 10 has mushroomed into a huge controversy in Pakistan. Several parts of Pakistan's civilian government denied that Ijaz's memorandum ever existed. On Oct. 30, Zardari spokesman Farhatullah Babar called Ijaz's op-ed a "fantasy article" and criticized the FT for running it in the first place.
"Mansoor Ijaz's allegation is nothing more than a desperate bid by an individual, whom recognition and credibility has eluded, to seek media attention through concocted stories," Babar said. "Why would the president of Pakistan choose a private person of questionable credentials to carry a letter to U.S. officials? Since when Mansoor has become a courier of messages of the president of Pakistan?"
On Oct. 31, Ijaz issued a long statement doubling down on his claims and threatened to reveal the "senior Pakistani official" that purportedly sent him on his mission. Ijaz quoted Gordon Gekko from the movie Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, telling Zardari and his staff, "If you stop telling lies about me, I might just stop telling the truth about you."
The Pakistani press has given credence to Ijaz's story because it was published in the Financial Times. "The FT is not likely to publish something which it cannot substantiate if it was so required, so any number of denials and clarifications by our diplomats or the presidency will only be for domestic consumption and would mean nothing," wrote one prominent Pakistani commentator.
This is only the latest time that Ijaz has raised controversy concerning his alleged role as a secret international diplomat. In 1996, he was accused of trying to extort money from the Pakistani government in exchange for delivering votes in the U.S. House of Representatives on a Pakistan-related trade provision.
Ijaz, who runs the firm Crescent Investment Management LLC in New York, has been an interlocutor between U.S. officials and foreign government for years, amid constant accusations of financial conflicts of interest. He reportedly arranged meetings between U.S. officials and former Pakistani Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.
He also reportedly gave over $1 million to Democratic politicians in the 1990s and attended Christmas events at former President Bill Clinton's White House. Ijaz has ties to former CIA Director James Woolsey and his investment firm partner is Reagan administration official James Alan Abrahamson.
In the mid-1990s, Ijaz traveled to Sudan several times and claimed to be relaying messages from the Sudanese regime to the Clinton administration regarding intelligence on bin Laden, who was living there at the time. Ijaz has claimed that his work gave the United States a chance to kill the al Qaeda leader but that the Clinton administration dropped the ball. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who served under Clinton, has called Ijaz's allegations "ludicrous and irresponsible."
Then Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice, now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has previously acknowledged that Ijaz brought the Clinton administration offers of counterterrorism cooperation from Sudan but said that actual cooperation never materialized.
So why is Ijaz's story so popular in Pakistan, despite his long history of antagonizing the Pakistani government with such claims? According to Mehreen Zahra-Malik, who wrote about the Ijaz scandal on Oct. 29 in Pakistan's The News, it's all part of the culture of secrecy and conspiracy in Pakistani politics that the current civilian and military leadership in Islamabad has only continued to foster.
"When secrecy and conspiracy are part of the very system of government, a vicious cycle develops. Because truth is abhorrent, it must be concealed, and because it is concealed, it becomes ever more abhorrent. Having power then becomes about the very concealment of truth, and covering up the truth becomes the very imperative of power -- and the powerful," she wrote. "The end result: a population raised on a diet of conspiracy."
Attempts to reach Ijaz for comment were unsuccessful.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
EXPLORE:THUMBS, ARAB WORLD, DIPLOMACY, INTELLIGENCE, MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, PAKISTAN, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
I'm surprised the Pakistanis would take it seriously. There was a brief attempt by the civilian government to bring the ISI under their control a few years ago. It collapsed in about a day or two. Zardari might very well be terrified of another military coup (the nation is prone to them) but even if he did make the offer he couldn't have actually done it.
Zardari can't tie his own shoelaces without permission from the army and the ISI. He (and Gilani) have been forced to backtrack on public utterances following pressure from the "establishment" (Paki speak for the ISI and the army who run the place behind a facade of democracy) on multiple occasions.
He has a far better shot at changing the US head of state and CIA director than have a prayer at shutting down the terrorist infrastructure (run by the establishment) and change the heads of the Pakistani army and the ISI.
All those Pakistanis who have been keeping track of Mansoor Ijaz''s adventures they are not prepared to believe the story written by him in FT. He had issued a very strong rejoinder to Zardari's spokesman but that also failed to create any impact on the popular opinion in Pakistan. Even otherwise one does see any reason for Zardari to adopt such an approach particularly when there was no such threat from the Army at that time. After the Abbottabad raid the Pakistan Army had to face severe public criticism and it was forced to be on the defensive. In spite of these denials if Mansoor Ijaz is still confident about his claim then he should better come out with the actual proof otherwise he will be labelled as a liar for all times to come.
Pakistan, the blackmailer and U. S., the blackmailee
Everybody in the know, knows that Pakistani Army owns the Pakistani State. Not only that, Pakistan’s civilian governments gladly yield to Pakistani Army’s diktats under all circumstances. That has been the case ever since Pakistani Army under Ayub Khan first took over Pakistan in 1958.
US-Pakistani relationship is that of a blackmailer and a blackmailee.
Duplicitous Pakistan has U. S. under the barrel of a gun - US can NOT use its aid leverage to force Pakistan to stop supporting terrorist groups who have been killing US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out since 2001 because US needs Pakistan’s help in ferrying supplies to those very US/NATO troops.
U. S. has deliberately deluded itself about Afghan Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.
With an ally like Pakistan U. S. does NOT need another enemy.
Wouldn't be a first in recent history
Emma Walsh of New Yorker magazine outed the back channel set up by the strikingly incompetent FBI director Louis Freeh, whose madness about president Clinton led him to enlist George H W Bush and Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia to set up such a channel with Arab nations after terrorist attacks on US installations and vessels in that part of the world. Then as now, such contacts were a State reponsability. The retired president was happy t oblige, probably illegally, and the Prince earned bigtime kissylove from the former president's son a few years later.
So far as I'm aware, nothing much resulted from this masterpuiece of behind-the-arras diplomacy other than massive travel and accommodation bills for FBI agents sent to that world. Agents in those foreign nations, as we all know, proved unable to look into clear signs that foreigners were in the United States at the time, training for what turned out to be 9/11.
Duplicitous Pakistan has U. S. under the barrel of a gun - US can NOT use its aid leverage to force Pakistan to stop supporting terrorist groups who have been killing US/NATO troops in Afghanistan day in and day out since 2001 because US needs James Stone Pakistan’s help in ferrying supplies to those very US/NATO troops.
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE