Musharraf was guaranteed 'safe exit': Zardari

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari says foreign powers with "interest" in the region guaranteed a "safe exit" to his predecessor Pervez Musharraf.

Zardari did not name any country, but Pakistan's main opposition party PML-N says Musharraf was "guaranteed immunity by Saudi Arabia and the UK".

The party wants Mr Musharraf tried for treason and has accused the government of dragging its feet on the issue.

Zardari made the comments at an informal dinner meeting with reporters.

President Zardari said he had been party to negotiations that led to the guarantee of a safe exit for Mr Musharraf when he resigned as president last year.

"During those talks it was decided that after quitting power, Mr Musharraf will play golf, but now he is doing other things," Zardari said.

Police in Pakistan have filed at least two cases of murder and illegal conduct against Mr Musharraf, but court hearings have not yet begun in either case.

Musharraf has been living in London for more than four months and early this month he was invited by the Saudi king for an audience.

Last week, the Saudi king also met PML-N supreme leader, Nawaz Sharif, who was in Saudi Arabia on a pilgrimage.

These meetings are widely seen as part of Saudi efforts to prevent any developments that would upset Pakistan's fragile military-civilian balance and destabilise its political system.

In a television interview on Sunday, Musharraf said he had been assured by the Saudi king that Nawaz Sharif would not press for his trial.

Nawaz Sharif wants Musharraf tried in court "for violating the constitution and imposing emergency rule in the country in November 2007".

Relations between Mr Zardari's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the PML-N hit a low last month when the latter accused him of stalling legal action against Mr Musharraf.

PML-N leader, Ahsan Iqbal told journalists that in closed door negotiations Mr Zardari had "categorically told us that Saudi Arabia and the UK were guarantors" in a deal that provided Mr Musharraf with "safe exit" from power.

Musharraf has been commenting on Pakistani politics and economy lately, and many observers say he may have political ambitions.

US aid used to boost defence against India, reveals Musharraf

Confirming India’s fears, former President Pervez Musharraf has said that military aid provided by the US to Pakistan for the war against terrorism was used during his tenure to strengthen defences against New Delhi.

“The equipment (provided by the US) can be used wherever there is a threat to Pakistan. If the threat is from the Taliban or Al Qaida, it will be used there. If the threat is from India, we will definitely use it. Whatever we did was right. We have to ensure Pakistan’s security,” he said.

The US military assistance, including weapon systems, were deployed with units that are rotated to different areas, including Sindh, Balochistan, Waziristan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Musharraf said in an interview with a news channel.

The equipment was not kept in stores and it was used irrespective of where the military units were deployed. “The equipment could move from the tribal areas to the Indian border in Punjab. It cannot be limited to being used against the Taliban,” he said.

Making a tacit acknowledgement that he had violated rules governing the use of the military aid, Musharraf justified his actions by saying he had acted in the best interest of Pakistan.

He also said he did not care whether the US would be angered by his disclosure.

“It does not matter if the US is annoyed. The whole world and the US should know we will never compromise on our security. We will use the equipment wherever it is needed,” Musharraf said.

Musharraf, who resigned as President in August last year to avoid impeachment, said Pakistan’s nuclear programme was so advanced during his tenure that scientists had not only enriched uranium but were also working on plutonium-based weapons.

Asked if they had begun enriching plutonium, he said this was being done “to strengthen Pakistan’s security”.

The former military ruler accused India of starting a nuclear race in the region through the “drama” of a peaceful nuclear test in 1974.

India also started a missile race in the 1990s and Pakistan only responded due to security concerns, he said.
Asked about scientist A Q Khan’s claim that he had been forced to make a confession about running a nuclear proliferation network, Musharraf said Khan had done a lot but was lying that he was forced to apologise before the nation.

“Proliferation was there and it brought a bad name to Pakistan and everyone knows who was responsible,” he said.

Musharraf said if he had not supported the US in the war against terror after the 9/11 attacks, American forces could possibly have entered Pakistan to take over its nuclear assets. He said it was also possible that the US and India could have jointly attacked the country.

Should dictator Musharraf enjoy exile in the UK?

by Michael White (Guardian.co.uk)

Did you spot Declan Walsh's article in today's Guardian about Pervez Musharraf, the general who used to run Pakistan until 13 months ago? I hadn't realised he's living in a nice-but-modest flat off London's Edgware Road.

His presence here raises the familiar awkward question: should those described as dictators (Walsh, who knows Pakistan well, uses the word) be allowed to live in exile in Britain when some people at home want him back to face a treason trial?

There's no hard and fast answer here; every case is different, which is why it's interesting. A flick through an admittedly generous version of Musharraf's CV makes it clear that he was never a Saddam Hussein or an Idi Amin.

Indeed, he is probably a good deal cleaner by most tests than Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister whom Musharraf ousted in the 1999 coup – just a year or so after Sharif promoted him to army chief of staff. As Walsh dryly notes, Sharif has a much fancier pad just down the road from Edgware Road – on Park Lane.
So the individual's record in office is relevant. So are the quality of the accusations and the accusers. Musharraf is accused of treason – among other things – for suspending the constitution and sacking chief justice Chaudhry in November 2007. Reinstated, Chaudhry might eventually be the man to decide on his fate: treason means the death penalty.

It's complicated, and the Foreign Office is apparently keen to say that Musharraf is in Britain on a visitor's visa (no points system to tests his skills set for him then!) and probably won't stay long. His son lives in the US, but maybe Musharraf could settle somewhere in the Middle East closer to home. The 66-year-old retired soldier thinks he is not yet finished in politics – though he probably is.

There's a wider question: is it better to allow dictators, military or otherwise, to leave a country quietly for exile or does justice demand that they be brought to account?

I think it depends on the scale of the crimes of which they stand accused, who they committed them against and in whose name they are being sought? In former Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milosevic and his grisly Greater Serbia henchmen had a lot of blood on their hands (so did others, but they were the prime movers), yet the extradition to the Hague is still regarded as the justice of biased victors by many Serbs.

Some Germans and Japanese quietly think the same of their war trials in 1945-46, especially since the Russians were among their judges. Even Winston Churchill had qualms. But that was war; the treatment of expelled dictators is a more nuanced issue.

It seems to me that the crucial fact is not well-meaning but remote foreign notions of justice, but what is best for the country concerned, recovering as it usually is from an unpleasant experience. That's why I felt it was wrong for a Spanish judge (Spain having suppressed its own bloody recent history) to get Chile's General Pinochet arrested in London. It was a matter for the Chileans.

Ferdinand Marcos was smuggled out of Manila when he lost the plot and the Philippines election in 1986 and died in his bed in Hawaii. Imelda Marcos was later allowed home to make a nuisance of herself. I see she is now promoting the dynastic interests of her children. In Europe or the US, we cannot shake our heads and say: "It would never happen here."

But Indira Gandhi was punished by voters for her 1975-77 state of emergency, though she later regained power, both remarkable political facts – but India is unique and it doesn't help us much.
Amin was allowed to die in exile. Until hours before the first bombs fell on Baghdad, Saddam and his grim offspring were being offered plane tickets out to assured safety. Think how much grief could have been avoided if they accepted them.

I'm not competent to judge how good a ruler Musharraf was, nor his motives or achievements. In economic terms, on corruption and social modernisation (he is credited with easing restrictions on Pakistani women and freeing up the media to come after him) he is said to have done modest good.

In geo-political terms, Musharraf was clearly caught between a rock and a very hard place – Islamist fundamentalism, which his predecessors had exploited, and pressure from the US after 9/11 just as Washington was belatedly noticing India's emergence as a future superpower.

So with Sharif on his case, I'm inclined to say we should leave Musharraf alone to enjoy his musical evenings on the Edgware Road (he is apparently an accomplished singer), even if it divides the British-Pakistani community.

I should add that Labour peer, Rotherham's Nazir Ahmed, is on Musharraf's case, too, complaining about the cost of Scotland Yard protection (can't he pay for it all?) and claiming that he "stokes unrest" in Britain, according to today's Times. Slough Labour party invited the general to help celebrate Pakistan's independence day, which upset some people.

I don't know Ahmed but am told he has done good things for moderation in the British Muslim community. Tony Blair gave him the peerage in 1998 when he needed such people – Ahmed, a chip shop owner and greengrocer was just 40 at the time – and did so without consulting his party in Rotherham. "Naz is a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde," I'm told. He's certainly said some silly things, but haven't we all?

But in foreign affairs and the Lords, Ahmed is a one-issue man, born in Kashmir shortly before his family emigrated and obsessed with it. He's also a chum of Sharif and helped get him home from exile.
Did Ahmed complain when Sharif had British police protection – or Benazir Bhutto? Probably not. It's usually best to steer clear of other people's internal politics as we discover whenever we forget. Stick to Yorkshire, M'lord.