ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 22, 2008
Pakistan Signs Truce With Militants
Peace Deal In Swat Valley Will See Islamic Law Introduced, Dozens Of Prisoners Freed
-
Ali Bakht Khan, an envoy for radical cleric Fazlullah, called on the government to release 202 of his associates from custody within the next two weeks, as he talks to reporters in Peshawar, Pakistan on Wednesday, May 21, 2008. (AP Photo/Muhammad Sajjad)
-
Fast Facts Pakistan Learn about the people, economy and history.
Pakistan's government on Wednesday signed a controversial peace agreement with hard-line Islamic militants in a picturesque northern valley, with the government accepting the introduction of Islamic "Shariah" law to the region and agreeing to free dozens of prisoners.
In return, militants loyal to Maulana Fazlullah, a powerful cleric in the Swat valley, agreed to stop attacks on government forces and installations in the area, to stop carrying weapons in public, and to let girls attend school.
Security officials say the government has agreed to free between 65 and 300 prisoners, mostly men loyal to Fazlullah, who have been cleared by national security agencies as posing little threat. Some of them are believed to be bystanders who were swept up during arrest raids.
Ali Bakht Khan, one of Fazlullah's representatives, spoke to reporters in the city of Peshawar on Wednesday. He called for the release of 202 prisoners within the next two weeks.
Conditions in Swat - once a haven for newly-wed Pakistani couples - have deteriorated over the past five years, since Fazlullah began a campaign for the imposition of traditional Islamic law.
That campaign coincided with the rapid growth of anti-Americanism in Pakistan after the government of President Pervez Musharraf joined the U.S.-led war on terror
To many, the worsening security conditions in Swat seemed to have few direct links to the situation in Afghanistan, where U.S. military officials worry about the growing influence of the Taliban, particularly along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
However, analysts warn that events in places like Swat indicate an overall trend in Pakistan whereby Islamic fundamentalists have increasingly challenged the authority of Musharraf's government.
In 2006, the Pakistani government signed an agreement with militants operating in Waziristan, a region along the Afghan border notorious for being a staging ground for cross-border attacks on U.S. and coalition troops.
Under the 2006 agreement, local tribal leaders promised to restrain militants from crossing into Afghanistan. However, that agreement eventually collapsed when the Taliban used the window of opportunity offered by the lull in fighting to rearm and reorganize themselves.
The group launched a bloody wave of attacks on Western and national security forces on both sides of the border.
On Sunday, Major General Athar Abbas, the chief spokesman of the Pakistani military, claimed the new peace agreements are different, primarily because they involve a much larger segment of the population from the border region. The new agreements are signed by militant leaders and non-militant community leaders.
According to General Abbas, the signatories to the peace agreement from the border areas are much more likely to fulfill their promises than those who are loyal to the militants.
The peace agreement with Swat is likely to stir anxieties among Western countries, most notably the United States, over Pakistan's direction in the war on terror. Many wonder if Pakistan's new coalition government has the power or political clout to adequately enforce law in the border regions.
Washington was officially reserving judgment on the deal. The Associated Press reported that State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, when pressed for comment Wednesday, said simply: "We'll see."
On Tuesday, John Negroponte, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, shared the Bush administration's misgivings on Pakistani peace deals with militants in the volatile border region.
"Are we concerned about the possibility of negotiations between the government, or elements of the government, and these extremist groups up there? Yes," Negroponte said.
A senior Western diplomat based in Islamabad, who spoke to CBS News on condition of anonymity, said "such peace agreements could well be a gamble. It's impossible to tell if the Pakistani position will be vindicated or the U.S. anxieties will be proven."
Farhan Bokhari has been covering Southeast Asia for several large European news organizations for 16 years. Based in Islamabad, he focuses his coverage on politics and security issues surrounding the war against terrorism.
By Farhan Bokhari
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
More From World
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 23 CommentsAppeasement of these women hating thugs in robes is not good. They are not peaceful people. Their nature is to control or kill, in the name of their anti modern, insane religion.
You know, it is always amazing to me that facts don''t make any difference to you reps!? I have long taken it a sign of surrender when the name Bill Clinton is brought up, because that is ALWAYS the response when there is NO FACT to refute anything I say.
Anyone looking at what I said could easily google ANYONE of the 10 items I listed and make the connections, IF THEY BOTHERED TO READ. But you reps can''t do that, either because you know I am right or because anything beyone elementary school is beyond your understanding.
You do not refute me by going through the items one by one to line up arguements against them. No, you grab some vague reference to BC and expect me to take you seriously!
Unless or until you do some research and pull up ACTUAL DATA about each or indeed, any of the points I made, don''t expect to take you seriously, because to me, you are a joke and not worth the effort to type a response. At least after this post.
Posted by ozilot at 01:05 PM : May 22, 2008
When you''re right, you''re right. And you''re right! Who was Carter''s guy with the vulcan eyebrows? He was Clinton''s boy for a while, too. WAREREN CHRISTOPHER!!! That''s who I was thinking of. An absolute waste of human flesh.
Posted by clestes
-
-------------------
Your childish knowledge of how the US government works would be funny except for your pathetic ignorance.
Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act
Iraq News, SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1998
By Laurie Mylroie
Yesterday, Clinton signed into law HR 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act
of 1998." In a presidential statement, issued by the White House, Clinton said, "This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers. . . .
. . . The president of the INC''s Executive Council "Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. . ."
---------------
clestes, your analysis is a total failure. The current situation was well defined and course charted by no other than the Congress and Clinton Administration.
Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, interim command of U.S. Central Command
Fox News - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357084,00.html
9. Turkish kurds make peace with Turkey, another excuse to blame Iran for whatever, down the drain.
10. And now, Pakistan seems to be settling down instead of giving shrub an excuse to invade and then move into Iran.
And this is only a partial list of flubbed excuses by the shrub admin to attack Iran. If the shrub admin wasn''t so pathetic and hopeless, it would be funny to see so many failures.
Maybe when I read about this time in history books it will seem funny. Today it is just a huge blot on US foreign policy and an embarressment to the US people.
5. shrub admin claim Iranian fighters are fueling the Sunni insurgancy, which makes no sense because Iran is a Shiite nation, but as he is ignorant of that fact, as are most Americans, no Iranians fighters are ever captured by US troops.
6. shrub retreats from fighters claim to now say Iran is sending arms to kill US troops and says it will be proved with data from the captured arms caches. The caches of arms, including the large one captured recently prove to have NO IRANIAN arms.7. shrub retreats from arms supply claim and is currently claiming Iran is disrupting progress in Iraq. Abamajhad personally negotiates the cease fire deal in the latest upsurge of violence in southern Iraq. Which was bordering on spreading all over Iraq and sending any hope of lessening US troop levels down the drain. Not that there is much hope there at all since troop withdrawals have been halted and we will STILL HAVE 140,000 troops in Iraq.
8. Israel starts negotiations with Syria instead of invading.
1. Shrub admin tries to force out ElBaradei from head position of IAEA because he keeps saying Iraq had no nuclear program and Iran has no nuclear program. He is confirmed for second term by ALL voting countries except the US. As IAEA head he starts negotiations with Iran to inspect its nuclear program.
2. Shrub officials claim "Iranian ships (in reality small speed boats) are deliberately harassing US navy". Adm Fallon ordered the US commander of the navy ship NOT to fire on the Iranian speedboats.
3. Shrub admin says "Iran has a nuclear weapon program and must be stopped at all costs." Dec NIE composed of 16 US intelligence agencies says Iran halted its nuclear weapon program in 2003 and currently do not have one. Iran allows IAEA inspectors in and continues to cooporate with IAEA on answering outstanding questions.
4. Israel attacks Hezbolla in summer of 2006 and neocons urge the US to get involved to "support our ally". Popular opinion does not support that idea and before it could be persuaded to, Israel gets its butt kicked by Hezbolla and retreats.
Yes they do. It''s called, here is money to buy all the weapons you need so you can attack whomever you feel in your little attacks on civilians. Just leave the pipeline alone.
Good for Chevron, now they can continue building their pipeline through Afghanistan, through Pakistan, to India, without it getting attacked by the militants. Condoleeza Rice must be happy.
Posted by singingrick at 09:17 AM : May 22, 2008,,,
It won''t last, the militants always want more! All the government needs to do now is sit back and wait, wait patiently and let the game come to them, because now if the militants break their word the government can go after them with the full backing of the people. This won''t last. Its called giving the militants enough rope to hang themselves and they will, they always do!
Where is McCain jumping all over this?
Where are all the neo con mouth pieces from these boards decrying this agreement that submits to Sharia Law?
The new and improved Taliban has just signed a deal with the neo con allies, and the neo con puppets have NOTHING to say about it?
Invading Iraq was a colossal mistake. Now Al Qaeda and the Taliban have re-established safe havens and training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by pokerman98 at 07:50 AM : May 22, 2008
+ report abuse
I think Obama is right... we should take our troops OUT of Iraq, send them into those Mountains and hunt down those who attacked us...bring them to justice and say to the rest of them, "Kill each other all you like, but you attack us and we WILL hunt you down". Worked for over 200 years. Sieg Heil Bush
You are thinking that Pakistan is "modern". It is much like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and the rest of the Islamic Middle East. It is intentionally kept backward, but evolving, by the Mullah(s)
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 23 Comments