THE Pentagon and our military came up with quick denials of the phoney firing on two US helicopters trying to land inside the tribal territory early Monday. A foreign wire agency quoted a security official as saying that the US-led coalition troops in choppers came close to the border and tried to enter Pakistani territory, but were forced to return to their base camp in Afghanistan after our troops fired on them. There were conflicting accounts of the incident. Another version: two Chinook helicopters dropped several American troops at 1 pm on the Afghan side of the border near the Saway Waray area of Angoor Adda. They then started moving towards the Pakistani border villages with a helicopter gunship flying over them apparently providing air cover. Major Murad of the ISPR confirmed that there had been shooting, but maintained neither US helicopters had crossed into our airspace nor Pakistani troops were involved in the firing. In Washington, US Defence officials rejected reports of the firing as "false". "I've checked into that and find it to be spurious," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told journalists.
These denials were however contradicted by Pakistani civilian officials and villagers in Angoor Adda, who have seen the US troops causing death and destruction in the area two weeks ago during the first known foreign ground assault in the tribal region. It was bound to deepen resentment among tribesmen. But the Bush administration does not seem to relent in its tyranny. Leader of the House in the Senate Raza Rabbani believes that the Americans are annoyed with the current democratic dispensation because of General Musharraf's ouster and are launching attacks in our territory to pressurize the government to deal with the issue of terrorism the way they want. Mr Rabbani went to the extent of saying that the day the government announced its plan to impeach Musharraf, it came under immense pressure from the then President's foreign backers. But it was good to hear from him that the democratic leadership would not let anyone violate Pakistan's territorial integrity.
This is what an elected government is expected to do. But then there should be some consistency in the ruling leadership's approach in meeting the challenges facing the country. President Zardari expressed his optimism while talking to reporters after his meeting with UK PM Gordon Brown on Tuesday that the United States would not launch attacks in our territory, whereas Prime Minister Gilani observed a few days ago that Pakistan could not go to war against the Americans. It was Army COAS Gen Ashfaq Kayani who was the first to reproach the Bush administration for violating Pakistan's sovereignty. It is time that those in authority devise a comprehensive strategy to tackle the growing threat of militancy, demonstrating a complete unity between the civilian and military leaderships about the goals to be achieved.

PML(Q) leader Ch Pervaiz Elahi, very much aware of the widening gulf between the PPP and the PML(N), said on Monday that his party could contribute to the ouster of the Punjab government. This indicates that his party is keen to play a role in upsetting the delicate balance of power in the province. To one's utter disappointment, Ch Pervez did not hesitate from saying that court decisions regarding Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif's disqualification might soon be announced.
Ch Pervez aired these views just a day after tendering his resignation as the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly amid reports that he was being offered an olive branch by the PPP in the form of some ministry at the Centre in return for his support. Now that Mr Zardari has become President, it is obvious that the PPP has emerged as the most powerful player in the political arena, but using that leverage to pull the rug from under the feet of its former coalition partner would not benefit anyone, let alone the poor masses waiting for their leaders to perform miracles. There are reports that party's bigwigs, especially the Punjab Governor, are willing to go the extra mile to topple the PML(N)'s set up. Recently Mr Taseer met Chaudhry brothers in an effort to cobble a relationship and direct that against the provincial government. The PPP cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the repercussions that would follow. In the past, both parties suffered heavy losses merely because of the zero-sum game they played against one another. No sooner had the government been formed after the elections, than the mutual rivalry had started to drive a wedge between the two. Yet in another way both the PML(N) and the PPP are in the same boat and must therefore avoid creating trouble for the other. Just as the former is the single largest party in Punjab but not the majority party, more or less same is the case with the latter at the Centre. On the other hand, one is also dismayed to see that the PML(N), in an effort to save its set-up, is resorting to measures, which go against its stated stance of practising the politics of principle. It too is trying to woo the forward bloc in an effort to strengthen its rule.
There is no disputing the fact that the PML(Q) owes its political resurrection to the mutual acrimony between the PPP and the PML(N). Their rigid positions and failure to reach a consensus on vexing issues confronting the nation has brought the former King's Party back to the limelight. The leadership should end the constant bickering that so far appears to be the hallmark of their political philosophy. Time is running out.


THE generic term for fuel in the local vernacular is "petrol". So when the government reduces the price of petrol by five rupees, it is to be met with relief by the general public. Only later do the plebeians realize that the fuel that affects them far more directly, diesel, has had a price hike of Rs. 3.50 per litre. It now stands at Rs 60 per litre. Diesel is the where-it's-at as far as fuel costs in the country are concerned. To put things in perspective: there is 1:8 ratio between usages of petrol and diesel.
This is going to have a direct bearing on the prices of a lot of commodities. First of all, diesel-fuelled freighting rates for commodities are going to go higher, resulting in price hikes in the goods market. Second, diesel-fuelled public transport fares are going to go higher. But dismissing the reduction in petrol prices as beneficial only to the elite would not be correct. Motorcycle and scooter owners, a larger, less affluent demographic than car owners in the urban centres, are definitely going to benefit from the decrease.
Criticizing the government at every opportunity one gets might not be in good taste. International fuel markets are, after all, in a state of madness. But it would be better, then, if our government were to have a method to its madness as far as pricing is concerned. We need to know with more clarity what the different factors are that go into OGRA recommendations and Finance Division approvals to the former. If a hike in the international prices of crude is used to justify price hikes, then why doesn't the argument hold, like it should now, when the price of Arabian light crude has fallen to $87 per barrel? The relation between crude prices and end-consumer prices are moderated by a number of variables. They all need to be brought to light. If the consumers cannot have cheap fuel, they at least deserve transparency.

source : http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...8/Another-blow

__________________
You are an eagle, flight is your vocation:
You have other skies stretching out before you.