As AFP tells us, the Institute for Science and International Security just published a report on Pakistan’s nuclear program that seems designed to pour gasoline on the “the Pakistani nuclear program is outta control” story.

And, when you look at the story, there isn’t a whole lot of there there.

The commercial [satellite] images reveal a major expansion of a chemical plant complex near Dera Ghazi Kahn that produces uranium hexalfuoride and uranium metal, materials used to produce nuclear weapons.

Big whoop, I must say. The Pakistanis love their nuclear weapons, and it’s not surprising—as a sovereign state outside the NPT—they might decide to make some more.

The only conceivable takeaway from this report is muddled alarmism, which ISIS obligingly provides.

Given turmoil in Pakistan with the army waging war against Taliban militants in the northwest, the ISIS said the “security of its nuclear assets remains in question.”

“An expansion in nuclear weapons production capabilities needlessly complicates efforts to improve the security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets,” it said.

I don’t get it. How are things suddenly more complicated by an expansion in capacity?

Washington, apparently believing that it doesn’t have enough on its plate with al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistan Taliban, is suddenly awash with dramatic plans to add a self-created problem to the mix: a quixotic effort to wrest Pakistan’s nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Army if the situation deteriorates.

And selling that idea seems to require fomenting an irrational panic concerning Pakistan’s nuclear program, as a metastasizing cancerous problem that’s getting BIGGER and BIGGER if we don’t DO SOMETHING.

You know what it smells like to me?

It smells like an effort by some to put a radical U.S. nuclear counterproliferation doctrine on the table now, so when it’s the end of the year and it’s time to deal with that other Muslim country with the destabilizing nuclear capability—you know, the one on the other side of Afghanistan, the one that the Israelis are so upset about—public opinion has been primed to accept the idea that some combination of air strikes, special ops, and insertion of U.S. forces is needed to save the world from an Islamic nuclear program that’s…outta control!

A crisis in Pakistan—and high-profile U.S. handwringing over those dangerous Muslim nukes—might be the best thing that happens to Benjamin Netanyahu this year.

We’ll see.

Anyway, I don’t think we have a Pakistan nukes problem.

We have a reckless and cynical fearmongering problem that should ring alarm bells for anybody who remembers the Iraq war.

In a small way, I think we also have a David Albright problem.

ISIS is run by David Albright.

Scott Ritter delivered a devastating rip job on Albright in Truthdig last year, entitled The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was.

He characterized Albright as a dilettante wannabe nuclear weapons guy, who has self-promoted himself, his honorary doctorate, and his institute using the flimsiest of pretexts.

More importantly, Ritter identifies Albright’s key credential as a willingness to offer up uninformed and tendentious alarmism when the situation demands it.

Ritter’s conclusion sums up his feelings about Albright’s role in the nuclear non-proliferation debate:

Albright, operating under the guise of his creation, ISIS, has a track record of inserting hype and speculation about matters of great sensitivity in a manner which skews the debate toward the worst-case scenario. Over time Albright often moderates his position, but the original sensationalism still remains, serving the purpose of imprinting a negative image in the psyche of public opinion. This must stop. It is high time the mainstream media began dealing with David Albright for what he is (a third-rate reporter and analyst), and what he isn’t (a former U.N. weapons inspector, doctor, nuclear physicist or nuclear expert). It is time for David Albright, the accidental inspector, to exit stage right. Issues pertaining to nuclear weapons and their potential proliferation are simply too serious to be handled by amateurs and dilettantes.

Amen to that.

Peter Lee is a business man who has spent thirty years observing, analyzing, and writing on Asian affairs. Lee can be reached at peterrlee-2000@yahoo.

“… designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime … we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places … At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan …”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda. “It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan.” I believe that this tactic was taken by the Obama team in order to placate the anti-Iraq contingent in the American electorate, while not leaving himself vulnerable to the “soft on defense” hawkish critics on the other side. As a campaign tactic, this approach proved to be successful. In reality, this may prove to be one of the greatest miscalculations President Obama could make.

After the historic election of President Obama, many historians and others placed this event in the context of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Dream.” Some mistakenly saw this election as the fulfillment of that “Dream”; others mistakenly compared candidate Obama’s “race neutral” approach with Dr. King’s vision. Some even likened Obama’s oratory skills with that of Dr. King’s.

Today, critics are asking the question, “Is the Obama administration’s approach to the problems in Afghanistan/Pakistan going to be their Vietnam?” As America faces its most difficult economic challenges in recent history, compare President Obama’s Afghanistan/Pakistan with President Johnson’s Vietnam. Is the Obama administration making the same mistakes based on arrogance, hubris and a misplaced sense of empire that led us into Vietnam? Here’s what the Reverend Dr. King had to say about US involvement in Vietnam in his speech “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence”:

“There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor – both black and white – through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.”

Today, President Obama is planning to send an additional 4,000 troops and other support personnel into Afghanistan. Like his predecessor, President Obama says, “If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists.” The additional 4,000 troops will bring the total US force up to 30,000 by the end of 2009.

President Obama is also ratcheting up the rhetoric and activity in Pakistan. There’s a significant increase in ground forces, Predator drones and air attacks. In his announcement on March 27th, President Obama referred to the border region of Afghanistan/Pakistan as, “the most dangerous place in the world….This is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al-Qaida and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.

President Obama and his advisors should learn from history, some ancient some modern, and not repeat it. This is a region of the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die. The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded.

Under the pretext of responding to the September 11, 2001 attacks in America, the United and States and Great Britain invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. They dubbed this invasion Operation Enduring Freedom. President Bush 41’ told the American people that the US strikes were,

“…designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places…At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan… ”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. “It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan.” I believe that this tactic was taken by the Obama team in order to placate the anti-Iraq contingent in the American electorate while not leaving himself vulnerable to the “soft on defense” hawkish critics on the other side. As a campaign tactic this approach proved to be successful. In reality, this may prove to be one of the greatest miscalculations President Obama could make.

After the historic election of President Obama, many historians and others placed this event in the context of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Dream”. Some mistakenly saw this election as the fulfillment of that Dream”; others mistakenly compared candidate Obama’s “race neutral” approach with Dr. King’s vision. Some even likened Obama’s oratory skills with that of Dr. King’s.

Today critics are asking the question “is the Obama administration’s approach to the problems in Afghanistan/Pakistan going to be their Vietnam?” As America faces its most difficult economic challenges in recent history, compare President Obama’s Afghanistan/Pakistan with President Johnson’s Vietnam. Is the Obama administration making the same mistakes based on arrogance, hubris, and a misplaced sense of empire that led us into Vietnam? Here’s what the Rev. Dr. King had to say about US involvement in Vietnam in his speech Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,

“There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor — both black and white — through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.”

Today, President Obama is planning to send an additional 4,000 troops and other support personnel into Afghanistan. Like his predecessor, President Obama says, “If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists.” The additional 4,000 troops will bring the total US force up to 30,000 by the end of 2009.

President Obama is also ratcheting up the rhetoric and activity in Pakistan. There’s a significant increase in ground forces, Predator drones and air attacks. In his announcement on March 27th, President Obama referred to the border region of Afghanistan/Pakistan as,

“the most dangerous place in the world….This is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al-Qaida and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.”

President Obama and his advisors should learn from history, some ancient some modern, and not repeat it. This is a region of the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die. The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded.

According to historians, Alexander the Great in 330 B.C. lost more men and more animals crossing the Hindu Kush than all his subsequent campaigns in central Asia. In 1839 the British invaded Afghanistan; in 1841 after an Afghan revolt, 4,500 British troops withdrew. According to a description published in the North American Review in 1842,

On the 6th of January, 1842, the Caboul forces commenced their retreat through the dismal pass, destined to be their grave. On the third day they were attacked by the mountaineers from all points, and a fearful slaughter ensued…

In most recent history, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. The initial deployment of the Soviet 40th Army began in Afghanistan on August 7, 1978. After nine years of fighting a US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistani backed mujahideen resistance, the Soviet troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988 and ended on February 15, 1989.

Since 2001, in spite of President Bush and now President Obama’s noble speeches and military tactics, the US and its allies have not “disrupt(ed) the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations”. The US has not been able to successfully “attack the military capability of the Taliban regime”.

What the US has done is lose 1147 coalition forces; US Air Force data shows that Munitions dropped in Afghanistan have risen 1,100 percent, from 2004 to 2007, tonnage figures jumped from 163 tons to 1,956 tons. According to the United Nations, bombs have killed over 2000 Afghan civilians in 2008, up 40% from 2007. The Associated Press reports the direct correlation between the rise in Afghan civilian deaths and anti-American sentiment.

In terms of dollars, according to recently released pentagon reports, the price tag for running the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan will outstrip the cost of the conflict in Iraq next year. America can not afford this folly. As the Rev. Dr. King would say; then came the buildup in Afghanistan/Pakistan and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war…

The US and its allies could “disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…” if more of this effort and money were spent on winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan and Pakistani people through real humanitarian assistance such as water, food, medicine, blankets, and building supplies.

The problem with this solution is that those who fuel and promote the military industrial complex in America do not profit from the sale of humanitarian assistance. They profit from war. This is why, if America is not smart, Afghanistan/Pakistan will once again be where empires go to die.

Citing U.S. and foreign officials, the Times reported the White House was unable to determine whether Israel had decided to carry out the strike before Washington objected or whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was trying to get Bush to act more decisively before he leaves office this month.

Israel’s request was for the specialized bunker-busting bombs that it wanted for the attack that tentatively involved flying over Iraq to reach Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz, where the country’s only known uranium enrichment plant is located, the newspaper said.  The White House spurned requests for the bombs and flyover but said it would improve intelligence-sharing with Israel on covert U.S.  efforts to sabotage Iran’s nuclear programne.

The United States did give Israel one item on its shopping list:

high-powered radar, called the X-Band, to detect any Iranian missile launchings.  It was the only element in the Israeli request that could be used solely for defence, not offense, the report said.

Israel, known to have the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East, bombed the site of a suspected atomic reactor site in Syria in 2007.

Details of the expanded U.S. covert programme and the Bush administration’s efforts to talk Israel out of attacking Iran emerged from 15 months of interviews with current and former U.S. officials, international nuclear inspectors, outside experts and European and Israeli officials, the Times said.

None of those interviewed would speak on the record, the paper said, adding it omitted many details of the covert efforts from its report at the request of senior U.S. intelligence and administration officials.

It said the interviews also suggested “that while Mr. Bush was extensively briefed on options for an overt American attack on Iran’s facilities, he never instructed the Pentagon to move beyond contingency planning, even during the final year of his presidency, contrary to what some critics have suggested.”

But aware that financial sanctions against Iran were inadequate, Bush turned to the CIA, according to people involved in the covert programme, authorizing a broader effort aimed at Iran’s industrial infrastructure supporting its nuclear programs, the Times said.

While the paper said details were closely held by U.S. officials, it quoted one as saying, “It was not until the last year that they got really imaginative about what one could do to screw up the system.”

But the official said “none of these are game-changers” in that the efforts would not necessarily cripple Iran’s programme.

Under Bush, whose term ends on January 20 when Barack Obama becomes president, the United States has sought tougher U.N.  sanctions against Iran to halt its nuclear programme, which Western nations believe is designed for making weapons.

Iran, which has no formal diplomatic relations with the United States, says its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, not weapon oriented.

The Times said some Bush administration officials remained skeptical of the covert programme’s chances of success given what one said was Iran’s proximity to achieving weapons capacity.

Others held that Israel would not have been dissuaded from attacking if they believed the U.S. effort was unlikely to prove effective, the paper said.

In its dealings with Israel, Washington was especially distressed by Israel’s request to fly over Iraq to reach Iran’s major nuclear complex at Natanz, a request the White House flatly denied, the paper reported.

But the exchanges and tension prompted Washington to step up its intelligence-sharing with Israel, including the new U.S.  efforts aimed at sabotaging Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The Times said its interviews indicated Bush was convinced by officials, led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, that an overt attack on Iran would likely be ineffective, bringing the expulsion of international inspectors and driving Iran’s nuclear effort further from view.

“Mr. Bush and his aides also discussed the possibility that an airstrike could ignite a broad Middle East war in which America’s 140,000 troops in Iraq would inevitably become involved,” the paper said.

Bush instead opted for more intensive covert action, it said, adding that those operations and the issue of whether Israel would agree to anything less than a conventional attack on Iran posed vexing problems for Obama.

“We, as a nation are confronted with many challenges of severe nature that demand from us observing complete unity in our ranks at every level and demonstrate responsible behaviour and restraint.

The internal conflicts, like the one we are facing in Hangu, are highly detrimental to our national cause and unity”, he added.  Indeed, the Governor said, it is the need of the hour that both the factions must lay down arms and let the normal administrative process work to restore peace and resolve the grievances of the respective people.

“Observing patience and accommodation is the best way to put the things on the right track”, he said.

The Governor also expressed grief and sorrow over the loss of precious lives and said that it is unfortunate that emotional and irresponsible actions led to such a big tragedy, although, on the government’s part every possible measure was taken to maintain peaceful and harmonious atmosphere on Aushura.  He assured that no effort will be spared to protect the life and property of the citizens.

Owais Ahmed Ghani expressed sympathies with the members of the bereaved families and prayed for courage on their part to bear the irreparable loss.  He also prayed for eternal peace of the departed souls and early recovery of the injured.

In an interaction with American and international experts at a Washington think tank, Stephen Hedley explained the U.S. foreign policy pursued under outgoing President George Bush and acknowledged Islamabad’s anti‑terrorism resolve as well as its critical counterterrorism role over the years since September 11, 2001.

Hadley, who spoke on the eve of Vice President‑elect Joseph Biden’s visit to the region as US senator for a first‑hand assessment for the new administration’s Southwest Asian policy, pointed out the importance that Pakistan’s stability holds for the United States in both bilateral and regional perspectives.

“I think that Pakistan is a victim of terror. And one of the things that people have focused on is, well, activities in certain of the border regions of Pakistan make more difficult achieving democratic stability in Afghanistan ‑‑‑ But I think one of the things we’ve also seen is that those—that terrorist presence—Taliban, al Qaeda, and other extremist groups—also are a threat to Pakistan.

“And I think the—this democratic government in Pakistan understands that. If you talk to President (Asif Ali) Zardari, he says, you don’t need to tell me that Pakistanis are victims of terror; the terrorists killed my wife (Benazir Bhutto),”he stated at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

In the speech one of the last by top officials of the Bush Administration that transfers power to Obama Administration on January 20 ‑ Hadley said the democratic government has brought with it an opportunity to confront the challenges of violent extremism more effectively. At the same time he recognized the toughness of the problem.

“So what you have is a democratic government in Pakistan, and we think that is a real opportunity, because we think that democratic government has the opportunity to rally the people of Pakistan in—behind what is going to be a very difficult fight.”
Defending Pakistan’s role in the fight against terrorism in the face of complex situation, he cited Islamabad’s success against al‑Qaeda in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 events and reminded that last year “Pakistan went into a very difficult political transition from which this new government has emerged.”

“And that’s where we are—a new government that I think is talking clearly that it wants to confront terror ‑‑‑ and has probably as difficult a challenge to deal with the various groups that it has of any nation.

“And that’s why I think it is going to be one of the key challenges, because success in Pakistan, overcoming this challenge, is important for stability in Pakistan, which is important to us in itself. 

But stability in Pakistan is also going to be important and success in the war on terror in Pakistan is also going to be important if we’re going to take care of the problem in Afghanistan and if we are going to get Pakistan and Indian relations to continue on a positive footing,” he said in disagreement with an Indian journalist who suggested Pakistan had not done enough despite getting U.S. assistance.

“So there is a lot at stake in Pakistan, and they have as daunting a task as any government today. And it is going to be very important for the new team to support their efforts, and I’m encouraged.  I think you’ve seen statements from President‑elect Obama, certainly from Vice President‑elect   Biden, that I think they understand the challenge that Pakistan faces, and that means the challenge we face.”

Comment: It is worth mentioning that Pakistan has done more in war against terror than any other country, even more so than United States has, considering the toll on Pakistan’s economy, human death toll, suicide bombings and over 120k soldiers deployed. Moreover, Pakistan is the lifeline to NATO and American forces who are fighting war on terror in Afghanistan. Pakistan paid with blood and has done enough for its “friends.”

The South Asian rivals, whose relations have been rocky since the deadly November attacks on India’s financial centre Mumbai, have exchanged the lists annually since 1992, under an agreement that came into force the previous year.

“The lists have been exchanged at the foreign ministries in New Delhi and Islamabad,” a spokesman for the foreign office in Islamabad, Mohammad Sadiq, told AFP.

Under the agreement, both sides are to refrain from attacking nuclear facilities in the event of a war. The neighbours have also set up a telephone hotline to prevent accidental nuclear conflict.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over the Himalayan region of Kashmir, which is divided between them but claimed in full by both.

The two countries came close to another war in 2002 after an attack on the Indian parliament that New Delhi blamed on the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba — the same group it blames for the carnage in Mumbai.

But after deploying hundreds of thousands of troops to the border, Islamabad and New Delhi retreated following intense international mediation. In 2004, they launched a peace process, but that is now on hold following the Mumbai attacks.

US President George W. Bush on Wednesday spoke with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. The White House said all had agreed on the need to avoid any increase in tensions.

Pakistan on Tuesday asked India to resume dialogue and urged New Delhi to de-activate its forward air bases and redeploy troops to peacetime locations, but India denied it had moved troops into offensive positions on the border.

India conducted nuclear weapons tests in May 1998. Pakistan, in a tit-for-tat response, detonated its own devices a few days later.

In October 2005, the two sides formalised an agreement on pre-notification of ballistic missile tests.

Rana Farooq Saeed Khan, Federal Minister for Textile Industry said this while  addressing a gathering of traders, businessmen, industrialists and textile exporters in Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FCCI) here Sunday.
He termed textile as backbone of national economy and said that textile and Faisalabad are interdependent on each other. “Textile Ministry has been given to me as I belong to the city of textile” he said and assured that

he would try his best to develop textile industry on modern scientific lines in consultation with all stakeholders.
He said that textile sector was contributing a major share in foreign exchange earnings. However, there was still room to further increase its share, he added.

About prevailing energy crisis, he said that government was fully alive to it and serous efforts are being made to resolve this issue at the earliest. He said that a high level meeting has been convened at Islamabad on January 06 to discuss and resolve the burning issue of gas and electricity. “We would take appropriate decisions”, he said and assured that these decisions would also be implemented in its total earnest.

He also quoted his meeting with textile owners on December 26 last and said that most of the issues were settled in it. But riots erupted in the absence of credible links between him and textile sector. “All this happened at a time when situation was witnessing a positive improvement”, he lamented.

He said that government believes that textile is the major sector that could give immediate support to the national economy. He said that government was going to donor agencies to get only 4‑5 billion dollars.

“I assure government that textile sector alone could generate an additional income of 10‑20 billion dollars if complete infrastructure facilities were provided to the textile sector”, he said and added that he is striving hard for the revival of textile sector and in this connection Nishatabad Powerhouse has been put into operation to end  unscheduled load shedding of electricity.

He said that meeting of January 06 is exclusively dedicated to the issue of gas and electricity. “We would not only take appropriate decisions but also ensure 100% implementation of these decisions”, he asserted.

Federal Minister for Textile Industry Rana Farooq said that issues relating to the resolution of R&D (Research and Development), decrease in Banks’ markup and access to various international markets for Pakistan textile products are also in the pipeline and would be resolved without any further delay. He said that a representative of the business community would also be inducted in the Body of Directors (BODs) of FESCO (Faisalabad Electric Supply Company) to streamline the issues pertaining to the load shedding of electricity.

He asked representative of textile related organizations to attend a high level meeting of January 06 and give their positive suggestions in resolving the prevailing issues.

Earlier Mian Hamid Javaid president FCCI in his address of welcome explained the problems being confronted by the textile industry and demanded additional quota of electricity and gas to cater to the needs of its industries.
Mian Javaid Iqbal former president FCCI also addressed the meeting while a memento of the chamber was presented to Rana Farooq Saeed to acknowledge his personal efforts to resolve the issues being faced by the textile industry.
Senior Punjab Minister Raja Riaz Ahmad, Mian Muhammad Latif former chairman FIEDMC , Mian Muhammad Yousuf chairman Pakistan Textile Exporters Association , Ch Salamat Ali vice chairman Pakistan Hosiery Manufacturers Association North Zone, Sh Ashfaq Ahmad chairman Faisalabad Dry Port Trust , Mukhtar Ahmad Sheikh chairman Faisalabad Garments City Company ,

Kh Shahid Razzak Sikka president Anjuman Tajran City Faisalabad , Azhar Majeed Sheikh chief Police Citizen Liaison Committee also attended the meeting besides leading industrialists Rana Mushtaq Khan, Mian Zahid Aslam, Rehan Naseem Bharara, Ch Muhammad Siddique, Mian Muhammad Idrees, Sh Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Ayub Sabir and Ch Maqsood Elahi.