Zardari, Haqqani wanted to create civil-military tensions: Ijaz

Key witness says he believes the president allowed US to raid OBL compound.


Qaiser Zulfiqar March 18, 2012
Zardari, Haqqani wanted to create civil-military tensions: Ijaz

ISLAMABAD:


Key witness in the memo scandal, Mansoor Ijaz, told the judicial commission investigating the matter that it was President Asif Ali Zardari and former ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani who were trying to create civil-military tensions, absolving himself of the charge.


He was responding to a question posed by Haqqani’s counsel Zahid Bukhari during the cross examination before a three judge commission tasked by the SC to probe the origin, authenticity and purpose of the memo.

Ijaz further said that President Zardari and Haqqani were trying to subjugate the army and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Haqqani was working for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and allowed intelligence, National Security (NS) and defense officials to be present in Pakistan to protect US interests, Ijaz added.

The Pakistani-American businessmen added that “I believe that President Zardari had given permission to the US president to raid a compound where Osama Bin Laden was hiding –consequently, the army was embarrassed which further created a conflict between them”.

Regarding Ijaz’s email to ex-General James Jones who allegedly delivered the memo to the then Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mike Mullen, Bukhari said that Ijaz mentioned high-ranking officials in his email but had not mentioned them in his hand-written notes.

Ijaz replied in the positive but said that the notes could not be read in isolation, as when he spoke to Haqqani on the phone a few points of the memo were noted down on his note pad while the rest were typed on his computer, which formed the basis of memo.

Bukhari asked whether Haqqani authorised him in writing to deliver the memo during their first phone call.

Ijaz replied that he asked Haqqani why he himself could not convey the message and Haqqani replied that he was under observation by the ISI, while Ijaz was a plausibly deniable channel.

When told that he was under surveillance by different intelligence agencies around the world and was therefore never a plausibly deniable channel, Ijaz replied that he was never under surveillance.

If somebody in the Pakistani establishment found out that Haqqani sent the memo through him (Ijaz) nobody would have believed it because of his political stance against Pakistan, Ijaz added in his defence.

To a question, Ijaz said that he met Haqqani dozens of times and said he changed his view about Haqqani when he told him that he was leaving job and would reach out to his friends in which he was also included to explore his options.

Ijaz added that Haqqani asked him to tell his connections in the US that if they want their problems solved in Pakistan, he (Haqqani) was their man.

Bukhari concluded his cross examination and Ijaz was then cross-examined by Attorney General of Pakistan Maulvi Anwarul Haq.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 18th, 2012.

COMMENTS (6)

Sameer | 12 years ago | Reply

Mansoor Ijaz, a person with big ego but hardly anything concrete to show for has taken the whole nation for a ride. And everyone has jumped on the bandwagon: including the judiciary and the mighty intelligence. This guy has no ‘real’ assets, has been too desperate to get himself in the power corridors, been spitting venom against army non-stop, has mountain of debts and court judgements against his bankrupted ventures and yet we all have fallen in – hook, liner and sinker..! When the dust settles, only 1 loser will emerge out of this – And that will be the Big man himself: Mansoor Ijaz.

Imran | 12 years ago | Reply

"President Zardari wanted to create civil-military divide"... May I asked this genius, Mansoor Ijaz, who is the civilian here? And why would this civilian want to create rift between himself and the military?

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ