The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 resulted in a historic partnership between the U.S. and Pakistan. Pakistan emerged as a key ally of the U.S. in the global war to counter terrorism. Though barely realized, in February 2008 this war entered a new phase. The U.S. had thus far fought the war against terrorism with the support of the dictatorial regime of the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. The parliamentary elections in Pakistan in February 2008 transferred political authority in favor of the democratically elected government.

The statement of a former Prime Minister of Pakistan on Dr A Q Khan, although created furor, largely welcomed by the advocates of nuclear non-proliferation. The exiled Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader, Benazir Bhutto categorically stated that she will permit the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to interview Dr AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, to determine the credibility of the allegation against him being solely involved in nuclear technology proliferation from Pakistan to other countries.

Remember Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s high profile meeting and the promises at Havana (Cuba), on the sidelines of NAM (Non-Alignment Movement) summit in mid September 2006. One year has been passed since both leaders agreed to have a joint anti-terror mechanism (ATM) to identify and implement counter-terrorism initiatives and investigations. It was considered significant then.

The declaration by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) that the presidential polls will be held on October 06 is of critical concern. It is imperative to point out that the ECP has played a very crucial role in facilitating the re-election bid of President Musharraf by declaring that he would be eligible to contest elections, despite a constitutional ban on government officials from standing for elections unless they retire two years prior to the polls.

The fall of Red Mosque (Lal Masjid) has certainly heralded a new era in Pakistan marked by conflict between moderate and fundamentalist forces.

Like in any nuclear weapon state, multiple vulnerabilities exist in a nuclear weapons complex. In the case of Pakistan, it is possible that groups or individuals may violate security rules for a variety of reasons, including profit making, settling a vendetta, or religious or ideological motives. Rogue elements may try to gain control over sensitive items for their own use or to transfer these items to another state or to other non-state actors for financial or ideological reasons.

After five long years of advent of suicide terrorism in Pakistan (a recent estimate indicated about around 30 suicide bombing incidents with well above 160 fatalities have taken place since 2002), suddenly the erstwhile supporters/believers (somehow tacitly) of suicide (Fidayeen) attacks voiced against this most lethal terror tactic. Although, the use of suicide bombings in Pakistan never caused a public backlash in general, some liberal and progressive Muslims do oppose the tactics irrespective of their targets, but their voice never posed a deterrent.

The suspension of Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP), on 9 March 2007, sparked a wave of protest from the legal community of Pakistan. The most recent wave of resignations included the Deputy Attorney General Nasir Saeed Sheikh and a senior civil judge Javed Memon. The issue at stake was the ability of the President to dismiss an acting Chief Justice, an act not without precedent in the political history of Pakistan.

Over the last couple of years, Islamic terror-related issues have been escalating in southern and western part of India. Terrorist outfits are not only targeting security forces and government establishments, but aiming vital economic and strategic assets.

There has been much ado over the neutral expert’s verdict on the Baglihar Hydel Project (BHP). For over sixteen years, the 450 Mega Watt (MW) BHP on the Chenab River in Doda district of Jammu and Kashmir has been the bone of contention between India and Pakistan. After holding five meetings – in Paris, Geneva, London, Paris & Washington; visiting the project site including its hydraulic model at Roorkee University and examining the written and oral submissions made by both parties, the final report of the neutral expert has given the BHP the ‘go ahead’.