In the last few weeks, the Pakistan Army has been conducting major military operations in Bajaur and Swat, causing widespread death, destruction and suffering; hundreds of thousands have been internally displaced. Despite this, the United States and NATO continue to push Pakistan to ‘do more’.
Heavy reliance on the use of force is the primary American policy for this region. They fail to understand that the Pashtun tribes have to be dealt with different to bring about change that leads to enduring peace and stability. They fail to learn either from British and Soviet experience in the region, or even their own experience in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There are other genuine limitations that prevent us from winning this war at the military level. Clearly, the army has to train a lot more to fight insurgencies; it is trained and prepared to fight conventional wars while the threat in the tribal belt and the NWFP is very different and militants respond asymmetrically.
This is not unique to Pakistan. The Soviets faced huge setbacks fighting the Afghans. The British army, despite its professionalism, was unable to defeat the Irish insurgency or, in the colonial period, the Pashtun uprisings. The Americans’ overwhelming military power has yet to register any significant success in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, the Americans’ record in Afghanistan is even less impressive in the face of the resurgent and tenacious Taliban.
Moreover, it is not easy for the Pakistan army to fight its own people. There is a significant number of Pashtuns serving in the three services, whose families are being directly affected by this war.
A fundamental question needs to be answered: As Pakistanis are we ready to fight when the enemy is not clearly defined and fights from the shadows? Also, do we have the will power as a nation and as a military to stand up and fight to preserve a value system that our leaders, civilian or military, seldom adhere to? No doubt, the militants in FATA and Swat have no respect for human life, commit atrocities and do not understand the language of peace. However, at the same time, can the state fight a war where casualties suffered from collateral damage reach unacceptable levels?
American incursions into the tribal areas, in violation of our sovereignty, add to the complexity. A war that needs to the support of the people is being undermined by the US’ gross interference.
For several months, the Pentagon, State Department, Congress, American think tanks and the media have been directing criticism and allegations that Pakistan is responsible for the losing war in Afghanistan. Given the media power of the US and its global influence, it is no wonder that the most of the world readily accepts such allegations as facts. Further, Pakistan’s record, especially its support to militants for advancing foreign policy objectives or matters related to nuclear proliferation, has not been helpful in improving its image.
However, a dispassionate analysis of the realities that are fuelling the insurgency will show that US expansion of the zone of conflict into the tribal belt would have the opposite effect to the professed goals. There is no doubt that support for the Taliban insurgency from elements within Pakistan is a factor, but it is minimal, and is the effect, not the cause. It is somewhat similar to the Vietnamese grossing over to Cambodia to ward off US aggression.
But if the Americans think that shifting the onus on Pakistan and using that as a pretext to conduct direct military operations in its territory is going to win the war, they are mistaken. Such moves will inflame the whole region, with dire consequences for the security not just of the region but the world.
The presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan is the driving force for Pashtun tribes in FATA to cross the border. When they find US troops operating in their area, the motivation will be even greater and the borders will become meaningless. Even the tribes and groups opposed to the Taliban will join the resistance; Pan-Islamic forces that have been gaining ground in Pakistan will get a further boost. The prevailing impression that America is Pakistan’s enemy will be reinforced, marginalising moderate and secular voices. And the battle for the soul of Pakistan will tilt heavily in favour of the obscurantists.
Repeated accusations by the US that safe havens in Pakistan are being used as training camps and bases for the Taliban and Al Qaeda need to be scrutinised. In Afghanistan’s southern provinces, the Karzai government hardly exercises any control; it would not be very difficult for the Taliban to operate
The US keeps a close watch over Pakistan’s tribal belt by flying predator drones and satellite reconnaissance. Currently, Pakistan relies on human intelligence and communication eavesdropping, which are slow and not very effecting against fleeting targets. The Pentagon and the CIA should share relevant intelligence or provide predators/UAVs to Pakistan. If it is lack of trust that is preventing cooperation, then there is a need to address the reasons for it. If there are elements within our intelligence establishment that are supporting the militants, as the US alleges, then the best way to confront the problem is at the government level, especially with a civilian government keen to cooperate in the war on terror.
There are other issues that need serious consideration as well. Insurgency in Afghanistan is on the rise in several provinces that do not share any border with Pakistan, belying the assumption that it is attributable to the ISI’s complicity. Ironically, critical factors — especially poppy cultivation, rise of warlords and absence of state structures — that are fuelling insurgency in Afghanistan seldom figure in the discourse on the war on terror.
The US should cease looking at Pakistan through Afghanistan’s prism. For the US to pursue a policy that destabilises a nuclear-armed country of nearly 170 million to supposedly stabilise Afghanistan, which has rarely been a functional state, is simply beyond comprehension.
What the US and Pakistan need to understand is that as of now, inadvertently or otherwise, both have become a part of the problem and only a joint effort will move us toward a solution. Any unilateral strategy will be disastrous for all parties.
Showing posts with label Talat Masood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Talat Masood. Show all posts
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Fighting for the future
Pakistan faces grave challenges today: terrorism, economic downslide and political instability being the top three. A joint session of parliament is debating these issues and while one hopes for a consensus on how to tackle the situation, it will not be easy.
The degree of difficulty is increased because our economic woes are unfolding in the midst of a global meltdown; on the terrorism front, in addition to handling the situation at home, we are also faced with exogenous factors and actors that influence our decisions and performance.
It’s a tall order. But nations have faced challenges and seen convulsions. The determined have also come out on top.
In 1966, I witnessed China in the throes of a cultural revolution that had turned the country upside down. No one could have dreamt that four decades later the same country could by all standards be a potential rival to the United States. Vietnam, devastated and reduced to the stone-age by the US, has literally risen from the ashes and looks set to stride ahead.
However it is important to consider the objective conditions in each country before drawing parallels. Without the proper context, analyses can be misleading. For instance, Japan and Germany were able to recover with the help of their strong social cohesiveness, highly educated scientific and engineering base, able leadership and sound policies. China’s revolutionary spirit had taken a destructive path during the Cultural Revolution but the brilliant Deng Xiaoping helped put the country back on track.
Given the way democracy has been throttled in Pakistan for all these years, there are serious problems with the quality of our leadership. But no country can import leaders. The best way of compensating for this deficiency is to develop institutional strength within the existing socio-political and economic framework. It is in this context that the parliament session is so important.
The PMLN was being unfair to the nation and itself when it refrained from questioning why the briefing given by DGMO/DG ISI to the parliament was so elementary and did not cover policy issues. Is it right to expect the military to give policy briefings?
Politicking has no place in a serious national crisis. There are of course occasions when politicians around the world use politicking to present their competing visions and gain advantage but not when there is an unmistakable crisis threatening the state.
The PMLN leadership has justifiable reasons to be angry with former General-President Pervez Musharraf but that anger should not be misdirected towards the military. If the briefing to the parliament was too basic then clarifications should have been sought.
The army briefing covered only the security aspect. There are several other dimensions to the war on terror that need to be covered by the Ministry of Interior and the Foreign Office. It is a contradiction for parties like the PMLN to vocally object to the army’s role in policymaking, which is the correct approach, and then turn around and ask the army to formulate policies. The current army leadership is genuinely supporting the transition to democracy but the political parties, by showing lack of interest in national issues are discrediting democracy and lowering their stature.
The attitude of the opposition parties, notwithstanding, it is crucial for the government to bring the PMLN and the JUIF on board as that would alter the balance of psychological and political power against the militants. Moreover, it will help the government deal with American pressure and Washington’s highly controversial policy of air and ground incursions.
Without the support of political parties the country would remain polarised and deeply confused about the nature of conflict. Further, the army and other security forces would be deprived of support from the people, which is vital for their morale and motivation. A divided nation would only benefit the militants and make us more vulnerable to external pressure.
The task of developing a national consensus on combating terrorism would require deft handling by our leadership. Currently there is a wide divergence in the viewpoints of the PMLN, the JUIF, the PMLQ and the secular collection represented by the PPP, the ANP and the MQM.
The JUIF and the PMLN attribute the rise of militancy to the US and NATO presence in Afghanistan and insist that Pakistan review its relationship with the US. They also insist that the army stop all military operations and engage in a dialogue to bring an end to militancy. But the government is of the view that peace agreements have only strengthened the Taliban hold in North and South Waziristan in the past. And for that reason, selective use of force is necessary to make any dialogue with the militants meaningful. Negotiate the government would, but from a position of strength.
It is also felt that the militants, being very powerful, are pursuing an independent agenda and will not surrender to government authority. The multiple incidences of insurgencies in different units of FATA are evidence of this.
To co-opt the PMLN and other parties on these vital issues, the PPP should demonstrate greater sensitivity in their overall attitude towards them. The widespread belief that the PPP leadership wants to destabilise the PMLN government in the Punjab still persists. The PPP must erase this impression by genuinely pursuing a mature policy of political tolerance and fair play. Political parties need to gain each other’s trust so they can develop a non-partisan approach to handling national threats.
Moreover, as a nation we need to get rid of the martyr syndrome and persecution complex from which we are suffering. It gives rise to absurd conspiracy theories. Pakistan is a pivotal country which can be a source of great strength to the region and the world. Equally it can be the most dangerous country. It is for us to decide what we want it to be.
Source l Daily Times
The degree of difficulty is increased because our economic woes are unfolding in the midst of a global meltdown; on the terrorism front, in addition to handling the situation at home, we are also faced with exogenous factors and actors that influence our decisions and performance.
It’s a tall order. But nations have faced challenges and seen convulsions. The determined have also come out on top.
In 1966, I witnessed China in the throes of a cultural revolution that had turned the country upside down. No one could have dreamt that four decades later the same country could by all standards be a potential rival to the United States. Vietnam, devastated and reduced to the stone-age by the US, has literally risen from the ashes and looks set to stride ahead.
However it is important to consider the objective conditions in each country before drawing parallels. Without the proper context, analyses can be misleading. For instance, Japan and Germany were able to recover with the help of their strong social cohesiveness, highly educated scientific and engineering base, able leadership and sound policies. China’s revolutionary spirit had taken a destructive path during the Cultural Revolution but the brilliant Deng Xiaoping helped put the country back on track.
Given the way democracy has been throttled in Pakistan for all these years, there are serious problems with the quality of our leadership. But no country can import leaders. The best way of compensating for this deficiency is to develop institutional strength within the existing socio-political and economic framework. It is in this context that the parliament session is so important.
The PMLN was being unfair to the nation and itself when it refrained from questioning why the briefing given by DGMO/DG ISI to the parliament was so elementary and did not cover policy issues. Is it right to expect the military to give policy briefings?
Politicking has no place in a serious national crisis. There are of course occasions when politicians around the world use politicking to present their competing visions and gain advantage but not when there is an unmistakable crisis threatening the state.
The PMLN leadership has justifiable reasons to be angry with former General-President Pervez Musharraf but that anger should not be misdirected towards the military. If the briefing to the parliament was too basic then clarifications should have been sought.
The army briefing covered only the security aspect. There are several other dimensions to the war on terror that need to be covered by the Ministry of Interior and the Foreign Office. It is a contradiction for parties like the PMLN to vocally object to the army’s role in policymaking, which is the correct approach, and then turn around and ask the army to formulate policies. The current army leadership is genuinely supporting the transition to democracy but the political parties, by showing lack of interest in national issues are discrediting democracy and lowering their stature.
The attitude of the opposition parties, notwithstanding, it is crucial for the government to bring the PMLN and the JUIF on board as that would alter the balance of psychological and political power against the militants. Moreover, it will help the government deal with American pressure and Washington’s highly controversial policy of air and ground incursions.
Without the support of political parties the country would remain polarised and deeply confused about the nature of conflict. Further, the army and other security forces would be deprived of support from the people, which is vital for their morale and motivation. A divided nation would only benefit the militants and make us more vulnerable to external pressure.
The task of developing a national consensus on combating terrorism would require deft handling by our leadership. Currently there is a wide divergence in the viewpoints of the PMLN, the JUIF, the PMLQ and the secular collection represented by the PPP, the ANP and the MQM.
The JUIF and the PMLN attribute the rise of militancy to the US and NATO presence in Afghanistan and insist that Pakistan review its relationship with the US. They also insist that the army stop all military operations and engage in a dialogue to bring an end to militancy. But the government is of the view that peace agreements have only strengthened the Taliban hold in North and South Waziristan in the past. And for that reason, selective use of force is necessary to make any dialogue with the militants meaningful. Negotiate the government would, but from a position of strength.
It is also felt that the militants, being very powerful, are pursuing an independent agenda and will not surrender to government authority. The multiple incidences of insurgencies in different units of FATA are evidence of this.
To co-opt the PMLN and other parties on these vital issues, the PPP should demonstrate greater sensitivity in their overall attitude towards them. The widespread belief that the PPP leadership wants to destabilise the PMLN government in the Punjab still persists. The PPP must erase this impression by genuinely pursuing a mature policy of political tolerance and fair play. Political parties need to gain each other’s trust so they can develop a non-partisan approach to handling national threats.
Moreover, as a nation we need to get rid of the martyr syndrome and persecution complex from which we are suffering. It gives rise to absurd conspiracy theories. Pakistan is a pivotal country which can be a source of great strength to the region and the world. Equally it can be the most dangerous country. It is for us to decide what we want it to be.
Source l Daily Times
Redirecting the war on terror
The war on terror during President Bush’s office has taken menacing overtones — as though it is directed against Islam and is a clash of civilisations. Both candidates, especially Obama, are credited with strong intellectual capability and may revise this policy to win back the confidence of Muslims
Presidential elections in the United States in November 2008 will bring in new leadership and administration to power in Washington. Irrespective of the winner — Barack Obama or John McCain — it is clear that the global war on terror will remain among the highest priorities for the US. Other areas, like the economic crisis, a resurgent Russia, an ascending China and a defiant Iran, are also pertinent and will need to be addressed.
From the presidential debates, there appears to be a bipartisan consensus on the war on terror, and no radical change in direction and policy is expected, at least initially. There could be stylistic and nuanced changes in approach, and a possible rearrangement of priorities. Al Qaeda and the growing network of radical Islamist organisations, whose capabilities and support is increasing in soft Muslim states, would be the prime focus.
The current administration and both presidential candidates claim that Pakistan’s tribal belt poses the greatest threat to the US and the world. They have repeatedly expressed fears that militants operating autonomously in the tribal belt are capable of launching terrorist attacks. Obama has been more explicit in stating that he will attack hideouts in Pakistan if there is actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government is incapable or unwilling to act. McCain, however, has been more discreet and diplomatic, but his policy is no different.
They will continue to pressurise Pakistan to be more aggressive towards the militants and deny them safe haven. The military and the ISI will remain under pressure to not protect militant organisations; the perception being that some of these radical groups are protégés of Pakistani intelligence agencies.
The fast growing influence of the Taliban and affiliated groups in Pakistan is a source of great concern for the incoming American leadership. Americans perceive Pakistan as a major Muslim country that is densely populated, strategically located and is a nuclear power. If Pakistan fails to stabilise and the Pak-Afghan border turns into a protracted battle zone, there will be an immediate and adverse impact on South and Central Asia as well as the Middle East.
Policies adopted by the next American president on major issues affected the Muslim world will be crucial in reducing terrorism. These issues include: settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; US attitude towards Iran, Syria and Lebanon; and American insensitivities towards Islamic culture.
Obama has gone out of his way to please the Jewish community by reassuring them of full political support to protect Israel’s security. In his choice of Senator Joe Biden as vice president, apart from other considerations, Biden’s proximity to Israel and the Jewish community was probably a major factor. Obama has assured the Jews that Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel eternally, a very strong commitment even by American standards, going beyond what any US president or official has ever stated.
The genesis of terrorism in Muslim countries finds its roots in the injustices committed against the Palestinians. The equitable resolution of this conflict is the only way of countering terrorism. From the statements of the presidential candidates, that does not seem to be the objective.
Arab and Muslim countries empathise with the sufferings and aspirations of the Palestinians. The US identifies itself completely with Israel. It is doubtful if the new occupant of the White House would bring about any fundamental shift in this one-sided policy.
To seriously address the Palestinian problem, the next US president will have to take it up within a few months of assuming office. Deferring it to the end of the term will invariably make the task of effective American involvement impossible due to the Jewish factor in US elections.
Peaceful resolution of the current US-Iran impasse over nuclear weapons would be another significant breakthrough. With respect to Iran and Pakistan, the US applies different standards as compared to Israel and India.
Obama has said that he will engage Iran, but is likely to take a less aggressive attitude towards the issue. There is a better appreciation in the Obama camp of the role Iran can play in the region, especially in the context of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. McCain, however, is taking a more hawkish stand on Iran.
Similarly, the highly exceptional US policy towards India is likely to continue. The US-India nuclear deal and a host of strategic and defence agreements will be implemented faithfully, given bipartisan support for India.
On the other hand, the policy of denial of civil nuclear energy to Pakistan is also likely to continue. Strict scrutiny on proliferation issues will remain in place.
Obama’s current statements notwithstanding, his main election plank has been his push for ‘change’. Globally, too, there is yearning for new leadership that can work together on a host of serious security and non-security global threats. If Obama is able to bring about a change in the grand American strategy from unilateralism to multilateralism, it would help win back the confidence of the international community. Just as individual countries need public support to win a national war, cooperation and support is necessary to fight militancy at the global level as well.
Irrespective of any change in the grand strategy, it can be safely assumed that both McCain and Obama will pursue a more cooperative and multilateral approach in fighting the war on terror.
They may refurbish America’s image in the Muslim world by decommissioning the Guantanamo facility. It is possible that the entire semantics of the situation may change, with the terms ‘war on terror’ and ‘axis of evil’ replaced with others. Already, Britain and other countries have dropped this terminology.
The war on terror, as run by the Bush administration, has taken menacing overtones, as if it is directed against Islam and is based on a clash of civilisations. Both candidates, especially Obama, are credited with strong intellectual capability and may revise this policy to win back the confidence of Muslims.
In the event that the winner of the November 4 polls continues with the current policy in Afghanistan with minor variations, then the possibility of withdrawal of US and NATO forces would only arise in the face of a serious military and political setback.
Notwithstanding America’s current decline, it is the one nation with comprehensive power. So if it were to have a leader who is prepared to work with its allies and most of the world, it is possible that the war on terror may be revised, with stability brought back to the world order.
Presidential elections in the United States in November 2008 will bring in new leadership and administration to power in Washington. Irrespective of the winner — Barack Obama or John McCain — it is clear that the global war on terror will remain among the highest priorities for the US. Other areas, like the economic crisis, a resurgent Russia, an ascending China and a defiant Iran, are also pertinent and will need to be addressed.
From the presidential debates, there appears to be a bipartisan consensus on the war on terror, and no radical change in direction and policy is expected, at least initially. There could be stylistic and nuanced changes in approach, and a possible rearrangement of priorities. Al Qaeda and the growing network of radical Islamist organisations, whose capabilities and support is increasing in soft Muslim states, would be the prime focus.
The current administration and both presidential candidates claim that Pakistan’s tribal belt poses the greatest threat to the US and the world. They have repeatedly expressed fears that militants operating autonomously in the tribal belt are capable of launching terrorist attacks. Obama has been more explicit in stating that he will attack hideouts in Pakistan if there is actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government is incapable or unwilling to act. McCain, however, has been more discreet and diplomatic, but his policy is no different.
They will continue to pressurise Pakistan to be more aggressive towards the militants and deny them safe haven. The military and the ISI will remain under pressure to not protect militant organisations; the perception being that some of these radical groups are protégés of Pakistani intelligence agencies.
The fast growing influence of the Taliban and affiliated groups in Pakistan is a source of great concern for the incoming American leadership. Americans perceive Pakistan as a major Muslim country that is densely populated, strategically located and is a nuclear power. If Pakistan fails to stabilise and the Pak-Afghan border turns into a protracted battle zone, there will be an immediate and adverse impact on South and Central Asia as well as the Middle East.
Policies adopted by the next American president on major issues affected the Muslim world will be crucial in reducing terrorism. These issues include: settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; US attitude towards Iran, Syria and Lebanon; and American insensitivities towards Islamic culture.
Obama has gone out of his way to please the Jewish community by reassuring them of full political support to protect Israel’s security. In his choice of Senator Joe Biden as vice president, apart from other considerations, Biden’s proximity to Israel and the Jewish community was probably a major factor. Obama has assured the Jews that Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel eternally, a very strong commitment even by American standards, going beyond what any US president or official has ever stated.
The genesis of terrorism in Muslim countries finds its roots in the injustices committed against the Palestinians. The equitable resolution of this conflict is the only way of countering terrorism. From the statements of the presidential candidates, that does not seem to be the objective.
Arab and Muslim countries empathise with the sufferings and aspirations of the Palestinians. The US identifies itself completely with Israel. It is doubtful if the new occupant of the White House would bring about any fundamental shift in this one-sided policy.
To seriously address the Palestinian problem, the next US president will have to take it up within a few months of assuming office. Deferring it to the end of the term will invariably make the task of effective American involvement impossible due to the Jewish factor in US elections.
Peaceful resolution of the current US-Iran impasse over nuclear weapons would be another significant breakthrough. With respect to Iran and Pakistan, the US applies different standards as compared to Israel and India.
Obama has said that he will engage Iran, but is likely to take a less aggressive attitude towards the issue. There is a better appreciation in the Obama camp of the role Iran can play in the region, especially in the context of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. McCain, however, is taking a more hawkish stand on Iran.
Similarly, the highly exceptional US policy towards India is likely to continue. The US-India nuclear deal and a host of strategic and defence agreements will be implemented faithfully, given bipartisan support for India.
On the other hand, the policy of denial of civil nuclear energy to Pakistan is also likely to continue. Strict scrutiny on proliferation issues will remain in place.
Obama’s current statements notwithstanding, his main election plank has been his push for ‘change’. Globally, too, there is yearning for new leadership that can work together on a host of serious security and non-security global threats. If Obama is able to bring about a change in the grand American strategy from unilateralism to multilateralism, it would help win back the confidence of the international community. Just as individual countries need public support to win a national war, cooperation and support is necessary to fight militancy at the global level as well.
Irrespective of any change in the grand strategy, it can be safely assumed that both McCain and Obama will pursue a more cooperative and multilateral approach in fighting the war on terror.
They may refurbish America’s image in the Muslim world by decommissioning the Guantanamo facility. It is possible that the entire semantics of the situation may change, with the terms ‘war on terror’ and ‘axis of evil’ replaced with others. Already, Britain and other countries have dropped this terminology.
The war on terror, as run by the Bush administration, has taken menacing overtones, as if it is directed against Islam and is based on a clash of civilisations. Both candidates, especially Obama, are credited with strong intellectual capability and may revise this policy to win back the confidence of Muslims.
In the event that the winner of the November 4 polls continues with the current policy in Afghanistan with minor variations, then the possibility of withdrawal of US and NATO forces would only arise in the face of a serious military and political setback.
Notwithstanding America’s current decline, it is the one nation with comprehensive power. So if it were to have a leader who is prepared to work with its allies and most of the world, it is possible that the war on terror may be revised, with stability brought back to the world order.
Reviewing Pakistan- Afghanistan policy
The US being a super power enjoys a unique status around the world and cannot be treated as any other country. For Pakistan US means even more, as no other country exercises as much influence, for good or for bad, over Pakistan’s foreign and domestic policy as US does. Ever since Pakistan’s inception it has been closely aligned with United States. First, during the Cold War as an ally in SEATO and CENTO, then during Soviet occupation as front line state in support of Afghan Jihad and since 2001 in the war on terror. The relationship has had its troughs and peaks and expectations run high but have suffered many disappointments. Pakistan presents a paradox as well for it is among the top countries where anti- Americanism is at its peak. It is also true that Pakistan is heavily dependent on the US for economic assistance, military hardware and as a countervailing power against India, notwithstanding Washington’s close and expanding ties with New Delhi.
With the change in US administration the Afghan and Pakistan policy is under major review. Obama’s administration and Pentagon realize that Afghanistan and Pakistan are closely interlinked and Afghanistan’s stability is vital otherwise it would continue to have a destabilizing influence on its nuclear neighbor. President Obama in his recent interview with NBC News stated that Afghanistan has to be stabilized for ensuring the stability of Pakistan. This thinking indicates that Washington is fully conscious of the ramifications of a weak Pakistan. Moreover, it also confirms Pakistan’s viewpoint that the primary source of the problem rests in Afghanistan and unless conditions improve there it may not be possible to stabilize the tribal belt and Pakistan itself. In a way the new administration is taking a broader and a longer view in which the solutions are to be found in a regional context. This aspect was reflected when President Obama referred to the need for the resolution of the Kashmir problem. India should have taken these remarks positively instead its nervous reaction to the proposal made US realize that best way of going about it would be quiet diplomacy and that too after the Indian national elections. The seasoned US diplomat Mr Richard Holbrooke who has been appointed as special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan was initially tasked to address the Kashmir issue also but had to be taken off in deference to Indian sensitivities.
Washington has come to the conclusion that extensive reliance on military force will not resolve Afghanistan’s complex problems and political solution though not easy will have to be found. Washington is also lowering its sights in Afghanistan and the report prepared by Joint Chiefs of Staff recommends de-emphasizing longer term goals of promoting democracy. Forthcoming presidential elections in Afghanistan will be a major event and it is not clear if Karzai would win, or even enjoy American support. In the event that another candidate emerges than what will be the prospects of his turning Afghanistan around.
United States’ plan about Pakistan seems to be work in progress. Mr. Richard Holbrooke is expected to come out with a plan for Pakistan in the regional context. On the military side, General Petraus will be finalizing his strategic direction and the two plans will have to weld together.
The relationship between the US and Pakistan military high commands is now relatively well defined and mutual confidence is gradually growing. Relations of US administration with the civilian government too are good. But long term relations will depend on how the government internally consolidates its position and manages issues of governance, economy and militancy.
Obama’s administration is looking for political investment in Pakistan so that there is greater space for politics to function. Washington has been fully supportive of the PPP led government and especially of President Zardari. In assisting Pakistan build its institutions it is aiming at a long term relationship. United States has a serious interest in Pakistan’s security. The proposed assistance package which is likely to be revived as Kerry- Lugar bill aims at providing Pakistan 15 billion dollar assistance spread over 10 years to build and strengthen its civilian institutions. There appears to be bi-partisan support for it in Congress. But the success of the program will depend on how the program is implemented.
In the immediate term the security of supply lines to US and NATO forces, management of the border and securing it so that Taliban and Al-Qaeda do not kill or harm US forces would remain the main focus.
President Zardari had remarked that with the change in US administration in January 2009 the missile strikes by un-manned drone aircraft in Pakistan’s tribal belt will come to an end. Was it mere wishful thinking or based on some assurance given to him by members of the new power structure is a matter of conjecture. That aside, it has revived a raging controversy within Pakistan and aggravated anti-American sentiment and placed the civilian government in an embarrassing situation. It is diverting attention from the war on terror and is an impediment in mobilizing public support for counterinsurgency. Missile strikes in FATA demonstrate lack of trust between US and Pakistan as CIA is not prepared to share either the intelligence or sophisticated equipment of drones with Pakistan military. There is another major implication of US strikes. Other countries using this as a precedent can also strike at Pakistan as was being threatened by India after the Mumbai attack.
From the US perspective, the missile strikes are an extension of the Bush doctrine of preemption, enunciated in 2002, according to which US can take unilateral action if its security is threatened. CIA operatives are of the view that top leadership of Al-Qaeda is hiding in sanctuaries created in the tribal belt and pose a great threat to US and NATO forces. They also claim that several high value targets have been hit and Al- Qaeda is on the defensive. In any case from America’s perspective Pakistan has lost control over its territory in FATA and by implication its sovereignty over the area and is incapable of coping with the problem. Loss of internal sovereignty has given rise to loss of external sovereignty. Perhaps, Mr. Holbrooke in his current mandate could also find ways of reconciling these diverging perceptions.
With the change in US administration the Afghan and Pakistan policy is under major review. Obama’s administration and Pentagon realize that Afghanistan and Pakistan are closely interlinked and Afghanistan’s stability is vital otherwise it would continue to have a destabilizing influence on its nuclear neighbor. President Obama in his recent interview with NBC News stated that Afghanistan has to be stabilized for ensuring the stability of Pakistan. This thinking indicates that Washington is fully conscious of the ramifications of a weak Pakistan. Moreover, it also confirms Pakistan’s viewpoint that the primary source of the problem rests in Afghanistan and unless conditions improve there it may not be possible to stabilize the tribal belt and Pakistan itself. In a way the new administration is taking a broader and a longer view in which the solutions are to be found in a regional context. This aspect was reflected when President Obama referred to the need for the resolution of the Kashmir problem. India should have taken these remarks positively instead its nervous reaction to the proposal made US realize that best way of going about it would be quiet diplomacy and that too after the Indian national elections. The seasoned US diplomat Mr Richard Holbrooke who has been appointed as special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan was initially tasked to address the Kashmir issue also but had to be taken off in deference to Indian sensitivities.
Washington has come to the conclusion that extensive reliance on military force will not resolve Afghanistan’s complex problems and political solution though not easy will have to be found. Washington is also lowering its sights in Afghanistan and the report prepared by Joint Chiefs of Staff recommends de-emphasizing longer term goals of promoting democracy. Forthcoming presidential elections in Afghanistan will be a major event and it is not clear if Karzai would win, or even enjoy American support. In the event that another candidate emerges than what will be the prospects of his turning Afghanistan around.
United States’ plan about Pakistan seems to be work in progress. Mr. Richard Holbrooke is expected to come out with a plan for Pakistan in the regional context. On the military side, General Petraus will be finalizing his strategic direction and the two plans will have to weld together.
The relationship between the US and Pakistan military high commands is now relatively well defined and mutual confidence is gradually growing. Relations of US administration with the civilian government too are good. But long term relations will depend on how the government internally consolidates its position and manages issues of governance, economy and militancy.
Obama’s administration is looking for political investment in Pakistan so that there is greater space for politics to function. Washington has been fully supportive of the PPP led government and especially of President Zardari. In assisting Pakistan build its institutions it is aiming at a long term relationship. United States has a serious interest in Pakistan’s security. The proposed assistance package which is likely to be revived as Kerry- Lugar bill aims at providing Pakistan 15 billion dollar assistance spread over 10 years to build and strengthen its civilian institutions. There appears to be bi-partisan support for it in Congress. But the success of the program will depend on how the program is implemented.
In the immediate term the security of supply lines to US and NATO forces, management of the border and securing it so that Taliban and Al-Qaeda do not kill or harm US forces would remain the main focus.
President Zardari had remarked that with the change in US administration in January 2009 the missile strikes by un-manned drone aircraft in Pakistan’s tribal belt will come to an end. Was it mere wishful thinking or based on some assurance given to him by members of the new power structure is a matter of conjecture. That aside, it has revived a raging controversy within Pakistan and aggravated anti-American sentiment and placed the civilian government in an embarrassing situation. It is diverting attention from the war on terror and is an impediment in mobilizing public support for counterinsurgency. Missile strikes in FATA demonstrate lack of trust between US and Pakistan as CIA is not prepared to share either the intelligence or sophisticated equipment of drones with Pakistan military. There is another major implication of US strikes. Other countries using this as a precedent can also strike at Pakistan as was being threatened by India after the Mumbai attack.
From the US perspective, the missile strikes are an extension of the Bush doctrine of preemption, enunciated in 2002, according to which US can take unilateral action if its security is threatened. CIA operatives are of the view that top leadership of Al-Qaeda is hiding in sanctuaries created in the tribal belt and pose a great threat to US and NATO forces. They also claim that several high value targets have been hit and Al- Qaeda is on the defensive. In any case from America’s perspective Pakistan has lost control over its territory in FATA and by implication its sovereignty over the area and is incapable of coping with the problem. Loss of internal sovereignty has given rise to loss of external sovereignty. Perhaps, Mr. Holbrooke in his current mandate could also find ways of reconciling these diverging perceptions.
Relations with China
President Zardari’s official visit to China once again brings into focus the importance of this relationship for Pakistan. China’s contribution has been significant in Pakistan’s defence and industrial capability. Most of the major weapon systems are of Chinese origin and these include armoured fighting vehicles, fighter aircraft, artillery guns, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles. Several factories and production lines in the Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF), the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex and Heavy Industries, Taxila, have been built with Chinese collaboration. Admittedly, Chinese military hardware is not cutting-edge and is generally one or two generations behind US and western sources. However, China is fast making inroads into new technologies and upgrading its military equipment and software.
During the period of US sanctions Pakistan’s defence industrial development got a boost and the military came to appreciate the importance of indigenous development. China’s assistance, undoubtedly, acted as a catalyst in the process and brought the two nations close to each other.
Among the current joint projects the JS-17 Thunder multi-role aircraft is under development and will be the PAF’s main line of defence. The PAF, along with the Defence Production Division, has been closely associated with CATIC, the Chinese aerospace company, and the Chinese air force through all stages. The project is the finest example of the deep and enduring relationship of our two countries.
In the civil sector, the Chinese had set up the Heavy Mechanical Complex and Heavy Forge and Foundry, strengthening our industrial base. Chinese companies are engaged in several projects throughout the country ranging from telecommunications, oil exploration and mining to cement factories and power generation.
Chinese assistance in infrastructural projects has been of immense value. The two most significant projects are the Karakoram Highway and the Gwadar deepwater port. The Karakoram Highway is indeed a marvel of civil engineering and a tribute to the hard work and determination of the peoples of China and Pakistan.
The Gwadar port came as a result of an agreement signed between the two governments in March 2002. The Chinese government gave a loan of 198 million dollars and Pakistan contributed fifty million dollars for the first phase, which has since been successfully completed and berths capable of handling vessels over 30,000 DWT are functional. The second phase of construction is in progress.
Gwadar port by virtue of its excellent location is visualised as a regional hub serving commercial traffic of Middle Eastern and Gulf countries, Xinjiang province of China, Iran in the west and Sri Lanka in the south. Its strategic importance is enhanced due to its location at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and at the opposite end of the strategic choke points of the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman.
The full development of Gwadar could favourably influence the geo-strategic, politico-military and economic environment of the region. It can also unlock the development potential of the hinterland and be a great boon for the people of Balochistan. Unfortunately, the previous government mishandled its dealings with the Baloch that has given rise to unnecessary misgivings.
China’s major involvement in Gwadar is essentially motivated by commercial considerations, but there are distinct advantages accruing to the Pakistani Navy and to the Chinese Navy for having a friendly port of call. And China being a heavy importer of oil from the Persian Gulf has natural interest in secure and uninterrupted flow of oil.
China’s growing economic ties with India and its mature relationship with United States has a stabilising influence in the region and is in the interest of Pakistan.
There is no doubt that China has been deeply concerned about the growing radicalism in Pakistan. The abduction and killing of some of its nationals has further exacerbated its fears. Moreover, China apprehends that expanding frontiers of militancy may spill over in its adjoining provinces and negatively influence the Uighurs. Pakistan must ensure the safety of Chinese nationals and fully cooperate in areas of anti-terrorism and intelligence-sharing.
The two countries substantively cooperate in a wide range of activities–economic, defence, foreign policy and in the cultural fields. Their relationship has transcended change in governments and the people have demonstrated a sustained pro-China sentiment that further reinforces this bond. Islamabad considers China as a strategic partner and Beijing reciprocates this relationship. Despite the current financial crisis that has engulfed the world and is also affecting China it has shown its willingness to cooperate and assist Pakistan in several areas, including agriculture, power generation, telecommunication and mining.
For Pakistan to have a close relationship with an ascending power capable of countervailing India’s propensity for hegemony always appeals to policymakers across the political spectrum in Pakistan. On the other hand, China recognises Pakistan as an important regional player, its position among the Muslim countries and as a useful ally at international forums.
During the period of US sanctions Pakistan’s defence industrial development got a boost and the military came to appreciate the importance of indigenous development. China’s assistance, undoubtedly, acted as a catalyst in the process and brought the two nations close to each other.
Among the current joint projects the JS-17 Thunder multi-role aircraft is under development and will be the PAF’s main line of defence. The PAF, along with the Defence Production Division, has been closely associated with CATIC, the Chinese aerospace company, and the Chinese air force through all stages. The project is the finest example of the deep and enduring relationship of our two countries.
In the civil sector, the Chinese had set up the Heavy Mechanical Complex and Heavy Forge and Foundry, strengthening our industrial base. Chinese companies are engaged in several projects throughout the country ranging from telecommunications, oil exploration and mining to cement factories and power generation.
Chinese assistance in infrastructural projects has been of immense value. The two most significant projects are the Karakoram Highway and the Gwadar deepwater port. The Karakoram Highway is indeed a marvel of civil engineering and a tribute to the hard work and determination of the peoples of China and Pakistan.
The Gwadar port came as a result of an agreement signed between the two governments in March 2002. The Chinese government gave a loan of 198 million dollars and Pakistan contributed fifty million dollars for the first phase, which has since been successfully completed and berths capable of handling vessels over 30,000 DWT are functional. The second phase of construction is in progress.
Gwadar port by virtue of its excellent location is visualised as a regional hub serving commercial traffic of Middle Eastern and Gulf countries, Xinjiang province of China, Iran in the west and Sri Lanka in the south. Its strategic importance is enhanced due to its location at the mouth of the Persian Gulf and at the opposite end of the strategic choke points of the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman.
The full development of Gwadar could favourably influence the geo-strategic, politico-military and economic environment of the region. It can also unlock the development potential of the hinterland and be a great boon for the people of Balochistan. Unfortunately, the previous government mishandled its dealings with the Baloch that has given rise to unnecessary misgivings.
China’s major involvement in Gwadar is essentially motivated by commercial considerations, but there are distinct advantages accruing to the Pakistani Navy and to the Chinese Navy for having a friendly port of call. And China being a heavy importer of oil from the Persian Gulf has natural interest in secure and uninterrupted flow of oil.
China’s growing economic ties with India and its mature relationship with United States has a stabilising influence in the region and is in the interest of Pakistan.
There is no doubt that China has been deeply concerned about the growing radicalism in Pakistan. The abduction and killing of some of its nationals has further exacerbated its fears. Moreover, China apprehends that expanding frontiers of militancy may spill over in its adjoining provinces and negatively influence the Uighurs. Pakistan must ensure the safety of Chinese nationals and fully cooperate in areas of anti-terrorism and intelligence-sharing.
The two countries substantively cooperate in a wide range of activities–economic, defence, foreign policy and in the cultural fields. Their relationship has transcended change in governments and the people have demonstrated a sustained pro-China sentiment that further reinforces this bond. Islamabad considers China as a strategic partner and Beijing reciprocates this relationship. Despite the current financial crisis that has engulfed the world and is also affecting China it has shown its willingness to cooperate and assist Pakistan in several areas, including agriculture, power generation, telecommunication and mining.
For Pakistan to have a close relationship with an ascending power capable of countervailing India’s propensity for hegemony always appeals to policymakers across the political spectrum in Pakistan. On the other hand, China recognises Pakistan as an important regional player, its position among the Muslim countries and as a useful ally at international forums.
Fallout of the Verdict
The way events are unfolding in Pakistan it appears our national failure has been programmed and the political software written by our leaders, whether it was the erstwhile military regime or the current civilian leadership, leaves little scope for recovery. In the face of multiple challenges that the country is confronted with, the need is to develop a broad consensus. Instead President Zardari regrettably is pursuing, the politics of “winner takes all” and Nawaz Sharif is taking his fight to the streets. When the country is facing an expanding insurgency in FATA and parts of NWFP, a nationalist uprising in Baluchistan, an economy in deep distress, increasing tensions with India and acute problems of governance it is mind boggling why any leader should try to destabilize Punjab.
The implications of the court decision are going to be far reaching on the body politic and economy of the country. First, in the short term it would deflect the attention of the government from combating insurgency and counter terrorism. For the government to place reliance on the recent peace deals in Swat and elsewhere would be premature and misleading, as the situation is still tenuous and uncertainClearly, PML-N is the most important political force in Punjab and the second largest national party and it is imprudent to antagonize them at this juncture, when owning the fight against insurgents and mobilizing public opinion against them is crucial. Moreover, PML-N has been taking a moderate and balanced approach toward fighting insurgency in FATA and advocating a firm policy of controlling militants that are destabilizing Pakistan and creating serious problems with India.
It is likely that political expediency may push PML-N in a close alliance with rightist and hard line parties and fight against militancy will weaken. The opposition cannot be expected to remain silent in the face of President Zardari’s effort to impose PPP rule throughout the country. What is more politically significant is that PML-N joining the lawyers’ movement will give a new momentum to it! And as other opposition elements join the band wagon it may result in building a critical mass sufficient to unhinge the government that already is so weak.
PPP regrettably, ever since the tragic death of Benazir Bhutto has been factionalized, its democratic character marred by the authoritarian style of its new leadership and is unlikely to provide the motivation to resist the emerging countervailing political forces. The opposition parties may also succeed in driving a wedge between Prime Minister Gilani and President Zardari. Their relationship is already under stress as most of the government powers rest with the prime minister but are being exercised by President Zardari.
Lack of credibility and popular perception about the legitimacy of the higher courts and of President Zardari, makes the court’s decision to disqualify the Sharif brothers and the imposition of governor’s rule difficult to stick. In any case disqualification of Sharif brothers has been a great setback to democracy and pluralism.
If confrontation is not avoided soon the economic problems will get compounded and political instability will increase. Domestic and external investments will further dry up and overall productivity will fall. Our dependence on IMF, international donor agencies and US assistance which is already high will increase. US influence which is pervasive could become overwhelming. Poverty levels will rise, causing hardship to large cross sections of people. It has been experienced that financially and bureaucratically weak governments create an environment that favours militant recruitment and poorer countries suffer longer insurgencies.
For democracy to endure in a poor country as ours, economic growth is essential. Economic development allows middle class to gain economic and political power as private business and civil society gains strength. All these possibilities would be lost if the political foes do not reconcile their differences.
India will take full advantage of Pakistan’s internal dissensions and will step up its diplomatic pressure.
Military leadership so far has been trying to stay away from politics, but may be constrained to intervene if conditions deteriorate to prevent country’s slide into chaos. And politicians have to remind themselves that every military intervention has been berthed in gratitude albeit the honeymoon has been short lived as they too have failed miserably in solving the country’s myriad problems.
The way to prevent the country from a downward spiral is for President Zardari and Nawaz Sharif to move from confrontation to reconciliation and develop a framework for coexistence and tolerance for each other. Punjab must return to PML-N, just as the PPP government at the centre should be allowed to complete its full term. Any unjust dispensation of political power will accelerate the downslide. We have the experience of 90’s in front of us and President Musharraf’s blunders fresh in our memory. His lack of understanding of the value of institutions be it judiciary, parliament, political parties or bureaucracy brought the country to the brink of a chasm.
Similarly, PPP and PML leaders in the 90’s tried to undermine each other and weakened democratic institutions. It seems they have not learnt from their past mistakes despite the assurances they were giving to the electorate before the elections. It is time that the political leaders diverted their energies toward building the country and wrapping up their convoluted ambitions. They have to draw strength from the people and be accountable to them if they have to stay in power and ensure an enduring democracy.
The implications of the court decision are going to be far reaching on the body politic and economy of the country. First, in the short term it would deflect the attention of the government from combating insurgency and counter terrorism. For the government to place reliance on the recent peace deals in Swat and elsewhere would be premature and misleading, as the situation is still tenuous and uncertainClearly, PML-N is the most important political force in Punjab and the second largest national party and it is imprudent to antagonize them at this juncture, when owning the fight against insurgents and mobilizing public opinion against them is crucial. Moreover, PML-N has been taking a moderate and balanced approach toward fighting insurgency in FATA and advocating a firm policy of controlling militants that are destabilizing Pakistan and creating serious problems with India.
It is likely that political expediency may push PML-N in a close alliance with rightist and hard line parties and fight against militancy will weaken. The opposition cannot be expected to remain silent in the face of President Zardari’s effort to impose PPP rule throughout the country. What is more politically significant is that PML-N joining the lawyers’ movement will give a new momentum to it! And as other opposition elements join the band wagon it may result in building a critical mass sufficient to unhinge the government that already is so weak.
PPP regrettably, ever since the tragic death of Benazir Bhutto has been factionalized, its democratic character marred by the authoritarian style of its new leadership and is unlikely to provide the motivation to resist the emerging countervailing political forces. The opposition parties may also succeed in driving a wedge between Prime Minister Gilani and President Zardari. Their relationship is already under stress as most of the government powers rest with the prime minister but are being exercised by President Zardari.
Lack of credibility and popular perception about the legitimacy of the higher courts and of President Zardari, makes the court’s decision to disqualify the Sharif brothers and the imposition of governor’s rule difficult to stick. In any case disqualification of Sharif brothers has been a great setback to democracy and pluralism.
If confrontation is not avoided soon the economic problems will get compounded and political instability will increase. Domestic and external investments will further dry up and overall productivity will fall. Our dependence on IMF, international donor agencies and US assistance which is already high will increase. US influence which is pervasive could become overwhelming. Poverty levels will rise, causing hardship to large cross sections of people. It has been experienced that financially and bureaucratically weak governments create an environment that favours militant recruitment and poorer countries suffer longer insurgencies.
For democracy to endure in a poor country as ours, economic growth is essential. Economic development allows middle class to gain economic and political power as private business and civil society gains strength. All these possibilities would be lost if the political foes do not reconcile their differences.
India will take full advantage of Pakistan’s internal dissensions and will step up its diplomatic pressure.
Military leadership so far has been trying to stay away from politics, but may be constrained to intervene if conditions deteriorate to prevent country’s slide into chaos. And politicians have to remind themselves that every military intervention has been berthed in gratitude albeit the honeymoon has been short lived as they too have failed miserably in solving the country’s myriad problems.
The way to prevent the country from a downward spiral is for President Zardari and Nawaz Sharif to move from confrontation to reconciliation and develop a framework for coexistence and tolerance for each other. Punjab must return to PML-N, just as the PPP government at the centre should be allowed to complete its full term. Any unjust dispensation of political power will accelerate the downslide. We have the experience of 90’s in front of us and President Musharraf’s blunders fresh in our memory. His lack of understanding of the value of institutions be it judiciary, parliament, political parties or bureaucracy brought the country to the brink of a chasm.
Similarly, PPP and PML leaders in the 90’s tried to undermine each other and weakened democratic institutions. It seems they have not learnt from their past mistakes despite the assurances they were giving to the electorate before the elections. It is time that the political leaders diverted their energies toward building the country and wrapping up their convoluted ambitions. They have to draw strength from the people and be accountable to them if they have to stay in power and ensure an enduring democracy.
Reviving the Peace Process
Every major terrorist attack whether it was 9/11 or those that occurred subsequently in South Asia have triggered a chain of events that have resulted in putting Pakistan under great pressure. The Mumbai terrorist attack in November 2008 resulted in freezing the Indo- Pakistan peace process and revived the Cold War mentality and jargon between the two countries. India since then has been saying that it will keep all options open implying even a limited military action against Pakistan. It, however, eventually opted for a full blown diplomatic and media offensive. Fortunately, tensions have since come down and rhetoric from New Delhi is more tempered after Pakistan took certain specific actions against the alleged perpetrators of the crime but relations remain fragile.
India’s initial anguish and outrage was understandable but, as experience of US has shown, military action and aggressive policies are highly counterproductive and in fact lead to a situation that favours the militants. The events of 9/11 trigged the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and destabilized Pakistan. The Indian government’s restraint therefore has been as much in its own interest as for the region.
Meanwhile, the terrorist attack in Lahore on the Sri Lankan team once again exposed the weakness of the Pakistani state. The ease with which the terrorists committed the crime and melted away in the population reaffirms the international concern that Pakistan is a safe haven and a victim of terrorism. It is apparent that terrorist network and infrastructure has expanded in every province and that these elements have evolved over time in shifting political environments. It is not only confined to FATA, NWFP and Baluchistan but has crept into Punjab and other parts of the country.
The Lahore incident also demonstrates that radicalism is moving eastward at a fast space. There was a wide spread belief that the Taliban movement or militancy will not be able to cross the Indus due to Punjab being relatively more progressive and developed and its higher representation in the military.
The premise has proven to be wrong. All this further justifies the need for improved relations between India and Pakistan.
What exactly were the motives or strategic objectives of the Mumbai and Lahore terrorist attacks may be difficult to asses at this stage. And were these independent of each other or is there a common thread that runs through both these events? Nonetheless, it is clear that both have contributed to destabilizing our government and deflecting attention from the western border and addressing the real problems facing the country.
Understandably there was considerable anguish and frustration in India when the Mumbai incident occurred. Pakistan’s initial response of failing to acknowledge Kasab as its citizen soured relations with India. New Delhi viewed the denial as a course that Pakistan was adopting, which was unacceptable. Islamabad wisely took a U- turn and shifted from its position of total denial to full acknowledgement that was made at the highest level by the adviser to the prime minister Mr Rehman Malik, and went further by registering FIR against specific individuals and arrested several militant leaders. In addition, Pakistan went out of its way to over comply with UNSC resolution 1267, while imposing sanctions against Jamaat-ud Daawa.
This point should not be lost in India and it should reciprocate and extend maximum cooperation in the investigation. Moreover, due to lack of trust it is being overlooked by New Delhi that there are genuine legal issues that need to be sorted out with prosecutors and lawyers of both sides. Cooperation and greater level of trust is therefore crucial at this juncture. For fighting terrorism Pakistan, too, has to introduce additional legislation for prosecuting terrorists. And more importantly, there has to be change of mindset. Our leaders have failed to impress upon the people that on issues of terrorism there is a larger challenge of meeting international obligations.
Prior to the Mumbai incident the composite dialogue was moving forward, albeit slowly, toward normalizing relations. Many useful civil and military CBMs had opened avenues for trade, commerce and travel. The cease fire on the line of control was holding; missile notification and nuclear risk reduction measures were adopted. Back channel was in progress. India had refrained from passing any adverse remarks on Pakistan’s internal situation which was passing through a very difficult period from the middle of 2006 onwards. Islamabad too stayed away from any interference during elections in J&K and took deliberate measures to prevent cross border infiltration. All that was shattered by the Mumbai terrorist act!
It is time the leaders of the two countries review their policy toward each other. The composite dialogue has to commence at the earliest. A realistic assessment however, is to expect that India would resume the process only after the national elections in mid 2009. Pakistan is currently burdened with serious internal dissensions. Until the PPP and PML-N do not resolve their differences on major domestic issues relations with India will remain on the back burner and preclude any serious efforts at resumption. Regrettably, the terrorists are going to take full advantage of this hiatus.
Meanwhile, it is important that both countries continue to faithfully implement the agreed CBMs and keep expanding their economic and cultural ties, where possible. In the absence of formal government contacts the civil society link is vital. Track-2 should be revived and strengthened and its efforts could then be fed into Track-1 one at an opportune time.
The possibility of a more dramatic move after elections in form of a visit by the Pakistani prime minister to India or India’s prime minister to Pakistan could give a huge impetus to unfreezing the relationship.
War on terror climate has given terrorists an unwanted leverage. No time should be lost by the governments in taking the initiative back in their hands.
India’s initial anguish and outrage was understandable but, as experience of US has shown, military action and aggressive policies are highly counterproductive and in fact lead to a situation that favours the militants. The events of 9/11 trigged the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and destabilized Pakistan. The Indian government’s restraint therefore has been as much in its own interest as for the region.
Meanwhile, the terrorist attack in Lahore on the Sri Lankan team once again exposed the weakness of the Pakistani state. The ease with which the terrorists committed the crime and melted away in the population reaffirms the international concern that Pakistan is a safe haven and a victim of terrorism. It is apparent that terrorist network and infrastructure has expanded in every province and that these elements have evolved over time in shifting political environments. It is not only confined to FATA, NWFP and Baluchistan but has crept into Punjab and other parts of the country.
The Lahore incident also demonstrates that radicalism is moving eastward at a fast space. There was a wide spread belief that the Taliban movement or militancy will not be able to cross the Indus due to Punjab being relatively more progressive and developed and its higher representation in the military.
The premise has proven to be wrong. All this further justifies the need for improved relations between India and Pakistan.
What exactly were the motives or strategic objectives of the Mumbai and Lahore terrorist attacks may be difficult to asses at this stage. And were these independent of each other or is there a common thread that runs through both these events? Nonetheless, it is clear that both have contributed to destabilizing our government and deflecting attention from the western border and addressing the real problems facing the country.
Understandably there was considerable anguish and frustration in India when the Mumbai incident occurred. Pakistan’s initial response of failing to acknowledge Kasab as its citizen soured relations with India. New Delhi viewed the denial as a course that Pakistan was adopting, which was unacceptable. Islamabad wisely took a U- turn and shifted from its position of total denial to full acknowledgement that was made at the highest level by the adviser to the prime minister Mr Rehman Malik, and went further by registering FIR against specific individuals and arrested several militant leaders. In addition, Pakistan went out of its way to over comply with UNSC resolution 1267, while imposing sanctions against Jamaat-ud Daawa.
This point should not be lost in India and it should reciprocate and extend maximum cooperation in the investigation. Moreover, due to lack of trust it is being overlooked by New Delhi that there are genuine legal issues that need to be sorted out with prosecutors and lawyers of both sides. Cooperation and greater level of trust is therefore crucial at this juncture. For fighting terrorism Pakistan, too, has to introduce additional legislation for prosecuting terrorists. And more importantly, there has to be change of mindset. Our leaders have failed to impress upon the people that on issues of terrorism there is a larger challenge of meeting international obligations.
Prior to the Mumbai incident the composite dialogue was moving forward, albeit slowly, toward normalizing relations. Many useful civil and military CBMs had opened avenues for trade, commerce and travel. The cease fire on the line of control was holding; missile notification and nuclear risk reduction measures were adopted. Back channel was in progress. India had refrained from passing any adverse remarks on Pakistan’s internal situation which was passing through a very difficult period from the middle of 2006 onwards. Islamabad too stayed away from any interference during elections in J&K and took deliberate measures to prevent cross border infiltration. All that was shattered by the Mumbai terrorist act!
It is time the leaders of the two countries review their policy toward each other. The composite dialogue has to commence at the earliest. A realistic assessment however, is to expect that India would resume the process only after the national elections in mid 2009. Pakistan is currently burdened with serious internal dissensions. Until the PPP and PML-N do not resolve their differences on major domestic issues relations with India will remain on the back burner and preclude any serious efforts at resumption. Regrettably, the terrorists are going to take full advantage of this hiatus.
Meanwhile, it is important that both countries continue to faithfully implement the agreed CBMs and keep expanding their economic and cultural ties, where possible. In the absence of formal government contacts the civil society link is vital. Track-2 should be revived and strengthened and its efforts could then be fed into Track-1 one at an opportune time.
The possibility of a more dramatic move after elections in form of a visit by the Pakistani prime minister to India or India’s prime minister to Pakistan could give a huge impetus to unfreezing the relationship.
War on terror climate has given terrorists an unwanted leverage. No time should be lost by the governments in taking the initiative back in their hands.
The crisis and the army
The role of military in the event of a political deadlock and serious confrontation between political parties has always been crucial and continues to remain so. General Kayani during the last few days in his frequent meetings with the top political leadership must be expressing his deep concern about the unfolding events and remains a sobering influence. The army chief’s current role indicates that he genuinely believes that answer to the current crisis does not lie in army’s direct intervention.
The military is engaged in counterinsurgency operations in FATA and Swat. External factors also do not favour army’s direct involvement in governance. In addition there is the continued hostility with India.
The reputation of General Kayani is very high in sharp contrast to the low image and unpopularity of his predecessor. His nuanced and calibrated approach in the present crisis could influence the political outcome and yet not involve the army in a direct political role. Success of democracy would be in the interest of the nation and the institutional interest of the army.
President Zardari’s arbitrary and authoritarian method of governance is untenable. The decision to dismiss the Punjab government was ill conceived, badly timed and has acted as a trigger for the present upheaval. It may well turn out to be President Zardari’s political waterloo. President Zardari has yet to demonstrate if he is capable of running the affairs of the state. Regrettably, he has surrounded himself with people who have limited political base, are essentially self-seekers who lack the acumen to provide institutional support and guidance in major national decision making.
The president is expected to be a unifying force instead he has become a divisive and polarised institutional head. His initial decision to hold the dual hats of the august position of president and the chairman of the PPP party is a major contradiction in terms and a clear case of conflict of interest. President Zardari also has to allow the parliament and the cabinet to assert their constitutional authority. The fault of our leaders is their authoritarian attitude and absence of political culture.
The media revolution, process of globalisation and especially lawyers’ movement has brought an extraordinary awareness in the people of Pakistan. Pakistan’s steep political degeneration, lack of political culture and economic decline has given rise to serious doubts about our leaders’ capacity to govern.
United States and the rest of the world are greatly concerned about the situation in Pakistan and are pressing both PPP and PML (N) to reach a compromise. For them the stakes in Pakistan’s stability are very high. The current confrontation is a huge distraction and is taking away the focus from insurgencies and from keeping pressure on militants. As a consequence Washington perceives that its interests in the region are being compromised and alarm bells are being raised. Even UN secretary general has lent his voice advising the political parties to find a way out of this impasse through dialogue. United States realises that promotion of democracy and building institutions in Pakistan would be in its long term interest as no democratic country has been its enemy or of the West. But in the short term, security interests dominate its policy towards Pakistan. The end game of the war against radical Islam is being fought in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The current crisis is a serious threat to Pakistan’s stability that allows Taliban and Al-Qaeda to expand their influence in our tribal belt and in Afghanistan, and the war against them drags on.
Experience has shown that democracy has been the best weapon against neutralising radicalism. US efforts should be aimed at consolidating democracy and not that much reliance on supporting individuals. In the final analysis if the lawyers/civil society movement were to succeed it could be a potential countervailing force against radical groups as well.
The military is engaged in counterinsurgency operations in FATA and Swat. External factors also do not favour army’s direct involvement in governance. In addition there is the continued hostility with India.
The reputation of General Kayani is very high in sharp contrast to the low image and unpopularity of his predecessor. His nuanced and calibrated approach in the present crisis could influence the political outcome and yet not involve the army in a direct political role. Success of democracy would be in the interest of the nation and the institutional interest of the army.
President Zardari’s arbitrary and authoritarian method of governance is untenable. The decision to dismiss the Punjab government was ill conceived, badly timed and has acted as a trigger for the present upheaval. It may well turn out to be President Zardari’s political waterloo. President Zardari has yet to demonstrate if he is capable of running the affairs of the state. Regrettably, he has surrounded himself with people who have limited political base, are essentially self-seekers who lack the acumen to provide institutional support and guidance in major national decision making.
The president is expected to be a unifying force instead he has become a divisive and polarised institutional head. His initial decision to hold the dual hats of the august position of president and the chairman of the PPP party is a major contradiction in terms and a clear case of conflict of interest. President Zardari also has to allow the parliament and the cabinet to assert their constitutional authority. The fault of our leaders is their authoritarian attitude and absence of political culture.
The media revolution, process of globalisation and especially lawyers’ movement has brought an extraordinary awareness in the people of Pakistan. Pakistan’s steep political degeneration, lack of political culture and economic decline has given rise to serious doubts about our leaders’ capacity to govern.
United States and the rest of the world are greatly concerned about the situation in Pakistan and are pressing both PPP and PML (N) to reach a compromise. For them the stakes in Pakistan’s stability are very high. The current confrontation is a huge distraction and is taking away the focus from insurgencies and from keeping pressure on militants. As a consequence Washington perceives that its interests in the region are being compromised and alarm bells are being raised. Even UN secretary general has lent his voice advising the political parties to find a way out of this impasse through dialogue. United States realises that promotion of democracy and building institutions in Pakistan would be in its long term interest as no democratic country has been its enemy or of the West. But in the short term, security interests dominate its policy towards Pakistan. The end game of the war against radical Islam is being fought in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The current crisis is a serious threat to Pakistan’s stability that allows Taliban and Al-Qaeda to expand their influence in our tribal belt and in Afghanistan, and the war against them drags on.
Experience has shown that democracy has been the best weapon against neutralising radicalism. US efforts should be aimed at consolidating democracy and not that much reliance on supporting individuals. In the final analysis if the lawyers/civil society movement were to succeed it could be a potential countervailing force against radical groups as well.
Revisiting the Swat deal
The Swat peace agreement, signed between the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat Mohammadi (TNSM) and the ANP-led government of the NWFP, seems to be running in serious difficulties. Broadly, the agreement aims at imposing Sharia law in Swat and Malakand division.
Regrettably, the agreement was signed from a position of weakness. The army was hesitant to undertake another major counter-insurgency operation in Swat, when two earlier ones had failed to dislodge the militants from their hideouts. Moreover, the ANP having given a commitment that it would seek a negotiated settlement, and the army not in favour of a military operation, preferred a negotiated settlement.
The government and militant leader Sufi Mohammed offer different interpretations to the agreement, and differences have surfaced on the question of the formation of the courts. Sufi Mohammed, who refuses to accept the present panel of judges for presiding over Qazi courts, has announced the formation of Qazi courts, appointed his nominees as Qazis and is establishing appellate courts. In reality, the Taliban are aiming to transform the entire legal and administrative system and are not prepared to integrate the Sharia in the existing judicial and bureaucratic structure.
The TNSM in all probability will apply a harsher code of conduct. During the Wali’s times the ruler was in full control of the state and it was his appointed courts that were functioning. And the state’s administration was the implementing authority. Mullah Fazalullah is now calling the shots and the state has buckled in.
The Taliban of Swat have tasted power and will not be content with the adoption of Sharia. Mullah Fazalullah and his father-in-law of Sufi Mohammed practically rule Swat. The civil administration cannot go against their wishes and even the army at places has to move with their concurrence. No NGO’s are allowed to function without their approval. The close linkage between Mullah Fazalullah and Baithullah Mehsud is another source of serious concern.
Lack of clarity in policy formulation, poor coordination and weak resolve on the part of the provincial and federal governments and ambivalent attitude of the army in fighting counter-insurgency operations has emboldened the Taliban.
It is evident that the army that has proven itself in conventional wars has been less than effective while fighting insurgents in FATA and Swat. This phenomenon is not peculiar to Pakistan. Great Britain had won World War 1 with its allies but was forced to negotiate a treaty with IRA leaders.
The clamour for Sharia and the support of Sufi Mohammad and Mullah Fazalullah is essentially a demand for justice and good governance that the people have been denied. The fairness and quick implementation of justice was the key to its acceptability. Whether the same standard of fairness and quick disposal of justice prevalent in the 1960’s will be maintained by the newly appointed Sharia courts is questionable.
People are also deeply worried about their personal security. Many people in Swat have been compelled to provide at least one member of the family to the TNSM. In the current circumstances, when the government’s writ is virtually absent, ordinary people consider associating with Taliban a means of providing security to themselves and their families. In this way they associate with the system where maximum power resides.
If the Sharia demand increases in the entire NWFP and is ultimately adopted then there would be two legal systems in Pakistan. Sharia operating in the west and the Pakistan penal code in the east! It is possible that in future militant groups in Punjab may make similar demands in their area of influence.
On the other hand, if the government is able to use the peace deal to get a foothold in Swat and establish its writ by placing a strong administrative structure that can provide a reasonable level of governance then it could be justified. But the converse seems to be happening. Mullah Fazalullah by putting Sufi Mohammed in front has very cleverly outsmarted both the ANP government and the military and consolidated the Taliban position. The growing demands of Sufi Mohammed on the government are a clear indication of their motives.
Regrettably, the agreement was signed from a position of weakness. The army was hesitant to undertake another major counter-insurgency operation in Swat, when two earlier ones had failed to dislodge the militants from their hideouts. Moreover, the ANP having given a commitment that it would seek a negotiated settlement, and the army not in favour of a military operation, preferred a negotiated settlement.
The government and militant leader Sufi Mohammed offer different interpretations to the agreement, and differences have surfaced on the question of the formation of the courts. Sufi Mohammed, who refuses to accept the present panel of judges for presiding over Qazi courts, has announced the formation of Qazi courts, appointed his nominees as Qazis and is establishing appellate courts. In reality, the Taliban are aiming to transform the entire legal and administrative system and are not prepared to integrate the Sharia in the existing judicial and bureaucratic structure.
The TNSM in all probability will apply a harsher code of conduct. During the Wali’s times the ruler was in full control of the state and it was his appointed courts that were functioning. And the state’s administration was the implementing authority. Mullah Fazalullah is now calling the shots and the state has buckled in.
The Taliban of Swat have tasted power and will not be content with the adoption of Sharia. Mullah Fazalullah and his father-in-law of Sufi Mohammed practically rule Swat. The civil administration cannot go against their wishes and even the army at places has to move with their concurrence. No NGO’s are allowed to function without their approval. The close linkage between Mullah Fazalullah and Baithullah Mehsud is another source of serious concern.
Lack of clarity in policy formulation, poor coordination and weak resolve on the part of the provincial and federal governments and ambivalent attitude of the army in fighting counter-insurgency operations has emboldened the Taliban.
It is evident that the army that has proven itself in conventional wars has been less than effective while fighting insurgents in FATA and Swat. This phenomenon is not peculiar to Pakistan. Great Britain had won World War 1 with its allies but was forced to negotiate a treaty with IRA leaders.
The clamour for Sharia and the support of Sufi Mohammad and Mullah Fazalullah is essentially a demand for justice and good governance that the people have been denied. The fairness and quick implementation of justice was the key to its acceptability. Whether the same standard of fairness and quick disposal of justice prevalent in the 1960’s will be maintained by the newly appointed Sharia courts is questionable.
People are also deeply worried about their personal security. Many people in Swat have been compelled to provide at least one member of the family to the TNSM. In the current circumstances, when the government’s writ is virtually absent, ordinary people consider associating with Taliban a means of providing security to themselves and their families. In this way they associate with the system where maximum power resides.
If the Sharia demand increases in the entire NWFP and is ultimately adopted then there would be two legal systems in Pakistan. Sharia operating in the west and the Pakistan penal code in the east! It is possible that in future militant groups in Punjab may make similar demands in their area of influence.
On the other hand, if the government is able to use the peace deal to get a foothold in Swat and establish its writ by placing a strong administrative structure that can provide a reasonable level of governance then it could be justified. But the converse seems to be happening. Mullah Fazalullah by putting Sufi Mohammed in front has very cleverly outsmarted both the ANP government and the military and consolidated the Taliban position. The growing demands of Sufi Mohammed on the government are a clear indication of their motives.
Relation with the US
Managing relations with a superpower for any country, or foe, is always problematic. In case of Pakistan it is more so, as its vital security interests are closely intertwined with US and on many issues there are serious differences. Pakistan and the region are currently facing a grave security challenge due to major policy failures on the part of Washington and Islamabad. With the change in leadership in US, expectations were high that ObamaÕs administration will apply American power more gently and demonstrate greater understanding and sensitivity to the complex Pakistani situation. And formulate a policy that also accommodates PakistanÕs genuine security interests. It was equally expected from the PPP led coalition civilian government that it will be fully committed in fighting expanding militancy and terror and will take concrete measures to protect the lives of people and restore confidence both domestically and of the international community.
Instead what we are witnessing is that there is a deficit of trust and US is making repeated allegations that Pakistani intelligence services are assisting Taliban forces and likewise assisting Al-Qaeda.
The primary US objective of the Obama Af-Pak policy is to optimise PakistanÕs support in their fight against Taliban and Al-Qaeda. In the process they are leaning heavily on Pakistan and want quick results that are not possible. Besides, undertaking military operations Pakistan justifiably feels that it has to undertake measures that will address the basic reasons that have given rise to militancy.
Moreover, misunderstanding has arisen due to differences in perception about the nature of threat with Pentagon having its own set of priorities and the GHQ insisting on its own. Washington wants the Pakistan army to be fully focused on the western border and robustly engaged in counterinsurgency operations.
The there are differences about ISI maintaining links with militant groups in the tribal belt and in Afghanistan. These links of ISI are not meant to support these groups but to obtain information about their activities and using its influence to weaken one group against the other. For instance, at one time Mullah Nazir was being supported by Pakistan to counter Baithullah Mehsud. This was resented by the US military as Mullah Nazir has been active in its support of Afghan insurgency. In fact all major intelligence agencies, CIA, RAW, etc., have their own connections in regions of their interest and is nothing unique. The CIA to cover its own failings scapegoats PakistanÕs intelligence agencies. Furthermore, Washington in order to pressurise Pakistan also orchestrates a vilification campaign against ISI and the army. One thing is however clear that despite United States pervasive influence over Pakistan it will not be possible for it to act and political leaders and no amount of US pressure will compel it to sever relations with them. This by no means implies that Pakistan is helping the Taliban or any other militant group to undermine its allies but merely protecting its interests. The broader question that by maintaining links with Taliban Pakistan indirectly strengthens the Talibanization process within the country is a major issue and has to be addressed at the policy level.
Interestingly, Washington is supposedly engaged with moderate Taliban elements and Saudi help is being sought. They are not inclined to talk to Haqqani and Hikmatyar but the question is what would be the incentive for Taliban to talk. Maybe a Loya Jirga would help in promoting reconciliation of opposing forces and facilitate presidential elections in Afghanistan.
On the issue of drones US policy continues to create serious political problems in Pakistan as it fuels anti-Americanism and gives a big handle to Taliban to win support. President Zardari may not be in a position to take a firm stand on drones but in this way his position is being undermined and raising the profile of the militants. The drone attacks are pushing the militants into urban populated areas making the task of defeating them more difficult. Drones however are extremely accurate and their precision strikes could be very useful if these were given to Pakistan. In case drones cannot be supplied, being cutting-edge technologies then these should be given on lease to Pakistan for five to ten years. The argument that these cause collateral damage is not convincing as those people who are hosting foreigners in their homes are accomplices and cannot be considered as innocent victims. Failure of the government to highlight this point has resulted in further maligning the use of drones.
Pakistan should also bring to US and NATOÕs attention how it is being adversely affected by the conditions in Afghanistan. Corruption is so rife in Afghanistan that it has totally destroyed AfghansÕ faith in government. This coupled with absence of security further strengthens the hands of Taliban. In all these years there has been no serious attempt at reducing opium production by US. To expect our tribal belt to stabilise with Afghanistan in such dire straits would be very difficult. A more holistic policy is necessary to stabilise the region.
Instead what we are witnessing is that there is a deficit of trust and US is making repeated allegations that Pakistani intelligence services are assisting Taliban forces and likewise assisting Al-Qaeda.
The primary US objective of the Obama Af-Pak policy is to optimise PakistanÕs support in their fight against Taliban and Al-Qaeda. In the process they are leaning heavily on Pakistan and want quick results that are not possible. Besides, undertaking military operations Pakistan justifiably feels that it has to undertake measures that will address the basic reasons that have given rise to militancy.
Moreover, misunderstanding has arisen due to differences in perception about the nature of threat with Pentagon having its own set of priorities and the GHQ insisting on its own. Washington wants the Pakistan army to be fully focused on the western border and robustly engaged in counterinsurgency operations.
The there are differences about ISI maintaining links with militant groups in the tribal belt and in Afghanistan. These links of ISI are not meant to support these groups but to obtain information about their activities and using its influence to weaken one group against the other. For instance, at one time Mullah Nazir was being supported by Pakistan to counter Baithullah Mehsud. This was resented by the US military as Mullah Nazir has been active in its support of Afghan insurgency. In fact all major intelligence agencies, CIA, RAW, etc., have their own connections in regions of their interest and is nothing unique. The CIA to cover its own failings scapegoats PakistanÕs intelligence agencies. Furthermore, Washington in order to pressurise Pakistan also orchestrates a vilification campaign against ISI and the army. One thing is however clear that despite United States pervasive influence over Pakistan it will not be possible for it to act and political leaders and no amount of US pressure will compel it to sever relations with them. This by no means implies that Pakistan is helping the Taliban or any other militant group to undermine its allies but merely protecting its interests. The broader question that by maintaining links with Taliban Pakistan indirectly strengthens the Talibanization process within the country is a major issue and has to be addressed at the policy level.
Interestingly, Washington is supposedly engaged with moderate Taliban elements and Saudi help is being sought. They are not inclined to talk to Haqqani and Hikmatyar but the question is what would be the incentive for Taliban to talk. Maybe a Loya Jirga would help in promoting reconciliation of opposing forces and facilitate presidential elections in Afghanistan.
On the issue of drones US policy continues to create serious political problems in Pakistan as it fuels anti-Americanism and gives a big handle to Taliban to win support. President Zardari may not be in a position to take a firm stand on drones but in this way his position is being undermined and raising the profile of the militants. The drone attacks are pushing the militants into urban populated areas making the task of defeating them more difficult. Drones however are extremely accurate and their precision strikes could be very useful if these were given to Pakistan. In case drones cannot be supplied, being cutting-edge technologies then these should be given on lease to Pakistan for five to ten years. The argument that these cause collateral damage is not convincing as those people who are hosting foreigners in their homes are accomplices and cannot be considered as innocent victims. Failure of the government to highlight this point has resulted in further maligning the use of drones.
Pakistan should also bring to US and NATOÕs attention how it is being adversely affected by the conditions in Afghanistan. Corruption is so rife in Afghanistan that it has totally destroyed AfghansÕ faith in government. This coupled with absence of security further strengthens the hands of Taliban. In all these years there has been no serious attempt at reducing opium production by US. To expect our tribal belt to stabilise with Afghanistan in such dire straits would be very difficult. A more holistic policy is necessary to stabilise the region.
Implications of the deal
The passage of the controversial Sharia regulation for Malakand division once again brought global and national attention on how this would impact on Pakistan’s future. Swat has been caught in violence for more than two years. The people were desperate for peace as they were caught between the militants and the military. Rough estimates indicate that more than 1,500 were killed, thousands injured and 250,000 were displaced in the previous two operations that were launched by the military against the Taliban.
The Swat deal was based on political expediency and appeasement but the people wanted to give peace a chance and the secular ANP was fully behind it. Then, as neither the ANP government nor the military was willing to stand up for another round, this was the way out. In any case this is a war involving hearts and minds. People for their own reasons took a sigh of relief that the peace deal may at least provide them security and a modicum of justice even if that is medieval. Clearly, there was a popular demand for the promulgation of Nizam-e-Adl in Swat and this goes back to the 1990s when Mohtarmma Benazir Bhutto had agreed to it.
In these circumstances, on the surface the passage of Nizam-e-Adl bill by the parliament and its assent by the president should be considered a welcome development. The context of the current deal is however more complex and problematic. The government has yielded under compulsion at a time when Talibanisation is sweeping the country and overwhelming the state. Fazlullah and Sufi Mohammad have exploited this genuine grievance and has used it brilliantly to expand their growing power. It is for this reason that it would have grave implications if their ambitions are not contained and a comprehensive policy is not devised and put into operation to reverse the tide.
Seeing an opportunity the extreme fringe led by Baitullah Mehsud, Mullah Fazlullah, and others who are spearheading Talibinasation in Pakistan are likely to press on. And if Muslim Khan, the spokesperson of the TNSM, is to be believed jihad in perpetuity is their motto.
This is so obvious from the way they are going about the question of appointing Qazis and addressing administrative and legal issues. The operational part of the Sharia would be the most difficult part of the agreement. It is amply clear that Sufi Mohammed wants to retain the powers of having the final say in the interpretation of Sharia and appointments of Qazis and the final arbiter on all matters of Swat and perhaps of Malakand.
The spread of Taliban phenomena, albeit yet in pockets, is transforming the politico-social dynamic of Pakistan. Democracy and human rights will be the first casualties of Talibanisation.
If however peace was to prevail in due course as a result of the deal and the government regains control over the situation, then every effort must be made to integrate the militants into the political system so that there is a sense of ownership. In parallel, a major effort should be launched to assimilate the cadres into the economic and social mainstream. All this is only attainable if productive skills are developed and employment opportunities are created in these less developed areas. The key question is, does the government have the vision and the capacity to put this plan into operation?
It would depend on what stakes Fazlullah has in maintaining peace. If his agenda is to harbour the militant force, continue to expand his power base and spread radical Islam then obviously the peace deal is a sham and merely a ruse to consolidate and keep marching ahead. Frankly, this seems the most likely scenario. But if he is half as genuine and loyal a Pakistani that some of his apologists would want us to believe it provides him a unique opportunity to redeem himself and Swat could one day return to its original calm and serene beauty for everyone to enjoy.
There are profound social implications of this deal as well, notwithstanding the claims being made by the provincial government. With cinema, TV, art, music all banned the place is already becoming a cultural wasteland. If sports activity is all banned and even cricket considered taboo, the youth would channel their energies into destructive and militant activities. For women even visiting bazaars and going out unaccompanied is considered a sin. The most damaging aspect of Taliban ethos is the opposition to education, and especially of girls. If allowed to continue this would compromise the future of the younger generation and cannot be accepted under any circumstances. Bowing to such retrogressive forces would be an invitation to the dark ages.
A major contributor to Swat’s economy has been tourism that has virtually come to a standstill. No tourist would enter Swat if such stringent interpretation of Sharia bordering on draconian laws prevails.
How will Washington and New Delhi perceive our approach of pacifying the Taliban? Already the US has expressed its reservations and they are closely monitoring the situation. US view has always been that peace deals are counter-productive and end up strengthening the militants by allowing them to consolidate and expand their influence. They could be talked into it that unless there is massive military intervention with huge adverse consequences it was not possible to have handled the situation in any other way. Nonetheless, economic assistance, foreign investment and political support will only keep coming if the international community is convinced that Pakistan is committed in turning the corner and not willing to hand over the country to the Taliban.
Let us also keep reminding ourselves that nuclear power and Talibanisation are a dangerous mix that not even the best of our friends will tolerate.
The Swat deal was based on political expediency and appeasement but the people wanted to give peace a chance and the secular ANP was fully behind it. Then, as neither the ANP government nor the military was willing to stand up for another round, this was the way out. In any case this is a war involving hearts and minds. People for their own reasons took a sigh of relief that the peace deal may at least provide them security and a modicum of justice even if that is medieval. Clearly, there was a popular demand for the promulgation of Nizam-e-Adl in Swat and this goes back to the 1990s when Mohtarmma Benazir Bhutto had agreed to it.
In these circumstances, on the surface the passage of Nizam-e-Adl bill by the parliament and its assent by the president should be considered a welcome development. The context of the current deal is however more complex and problematic. The government has yielded under compulsion at a time when Talibanisation is sweeping the country and overwhelming the state. Fazlullah and Sufi Mohammad have exploited this genuine grievance and has used it brilliantly to expand their growing power. It is for this reason that it would have grave implications if their ambitions are not contained and a comprehensive policy is not devised and put into operation to reverse the tide.
Seeing an opportunity the extreme fringe led by Baitullah Mehsud, Mullah Fazlullah, and others who are spearheading Talibinasation in Pakistan are likely to press on. And if Muslim Khan, the spokesperson of the TNSM, is to be believed jihad in perpetuity is their motto.
This is so obvious from the way they are going about the question of appointing Qazis and addressing administrative and legal issues. The operational part of the Sharia would be the most difficult part of the agreement. It is amply clear that Sufi Mohammed wants to retain the powers of having the final say in the interpretation of Sharia and appointments of Qazis and the final arbiter on all matters of Swat and perhaps of Malakand.
The spread of Taliban phenomena, albeit yet in pockets, is transforming the politico-social dynamic of Pakistan. Democracy and human rights will be the first casualties of Talibanisation.
If however peace was to prevail in due course as a result of the deal and the government regains control over the situation, then every effort must be made to integrate the militants into the political system so that there is a sense of ownership. In parallel, a major effort should be launched to assimilate the cadres into the economic and social mainstream. All this is only attainable if productive skills are developed and employment opportunities are created in these less developed areas. The key question is, does the government have the vision and the capacity to put this plan into operation?
It would depend on what stakes Fazlullah has in maintaining peace. If his agenda is to harbour the militant force, continue to expand his power base and spread radical Islam then obviously the peace deal is a sham and merely a ruse to consolidate and keep marching ahead. Frankly, this seems the most likely scenario. But if he is half as genuine and loyal a Pakistani that some of his apologists would want us to believe it provides him a unique opportunity to redeem himself and Swat could one day return to its original calm and serene beauty for everyone to enjoy.
There are profound social implications of this deal as well, notwithstanding the claims being made by the provincial government. With cinema, TV, art, music all banned the place is already becoming a cultural wasteland. If sports activity is all banned and even cricket considered taboo, the youth would channel their energies into destructive and militant activities. For women even visiting bazaars and going out unaccompanied is considered a sin. The most damaging aspect of Taliban ethos is the opposition to education, and especially of girls. If allowed to continue this would compromise the future of the younger generation and cannot be accepted under any circumstances. Bowing to such retrogressive forces would be an invitation to the dark ages.
A major contributor to Swat’s economy has been tourism that has virtually come to a standstill. No tourist would enter Swat if such stringent interpretation of Sharia bordering on draconian laws prevails.
How will Washington and New Delhi perceive our approach of pacifying the Taliban? Already the US has expressed its reservations and they are closely monitoring the situation. US view has always been that peace deals are counter-productive and end up strengthening the militants by allowing them to consolidate and expand their influence. They could be talked into it that unless there is massive military intervention with huge adverse consequences it was not possible to have handled the situation in any other way. Nonetheless, economic assistance, foreign investment and political support will only keep coming if the international community is convinced that Pakistan is committed in turning the corner and not willing to hand over the country to the Taliban.
Let us also keep reminding ourselves that nuclear power and Talibanisation are a dangerous mix that not even the best of our friends will tolerate.
Reviving talks with India
With Pakistan engaged in a death dance with home grown Taliban its relations with India acquire greater strategic and political significance. It has to focus on the internal threat and adjust its national priorities accordingly. Do our security managers see the internal danger or are still fixated on India as being the real enemy? Similarly, is India prepared to take a long term view of its relations with Pakistan? India cannot remain isolated from the rising tide of militancy that is sweeping the region.
Relations between India and Pakistan are at their lowest as a fallout of Mumbai. The reaction of India to suspend the composite dialogue was reflective of the old mood and there are inherent dangers in maintaining the stalemate. India and Pakistan are nuclear states. They cannot go to war as it would be suicidal. So the sooner they lift this self-imposed restriction the better it would be for resolving the major issues and facing the common challenge of terrorism.
It is expected that the phase of dominating the region by regional powers has passed. For the “new India” that is on a sharp upward economic curve stability of the region should be the goal rather than its dominance. A cooperative relationship with India can vastly contribute to Pakistan’s political stability and economic progress. It will allow Pakistan to fully focus on internal issues of governance and divert resources toward social uplift and productive avenues.
Pakistan allied with the US to obtain weapons and economic assistance to strengthen itself. The decision to support Afghan Taliban too was a part of balancing New Delhi’s influence in Afghanistan. None of those policies have worked. Serious strains have developed with US on Pakistan’s efforts in fighting the ongoing insurgency. US has de-hyphenated India and Pakistan and bracketed it with Afghanistan. The support of Taliban instead of giving us the strategic depth has brought about a reverse indoctrination of Talibanisation that is sweeping across Pakistan.
Our establishment under external and internal pressures has been adjusting to the new realities and bringing a shift in its policies, but it needs to do more. From 2004 onwards it has withdrawn its support of militant organizations and especially after Mumbai incident has taken action to close jihadi camps and we are in a state of transition. India’s diplomatic, media and political offensive against Pakistan after the Mumbai incident also has made difficult for our leadership to convince its people that New Delhi has benign motives. India’s initial anguish and reaction was understandable but its subsequent policy of pushing Pakistan to the wall made little sense. Nonetheless, the militants have succeeded in their mission of driving a wedge between nuclear neighbours and holding the peace process hostage. Although prudence demands that India and Pakistan should cooperate against the common threat of terrorism and expanding insurgencies. Pakistan has gone a long way in cooperating with India in investigating and taking action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai crime. India should realise that criminal trial has its own dynamic as the case has to be legally full proof and this takes time.
It is possible that the Indo-Pakistan composite dialogue may be revived once elections are completed in India and the new government is formed.
Clearly, it is going to be a coalition government led by Congress or BJP, depending on which side the regional parties swing. As there are no hard ideological positions taken by any political party, coalitions will be dictated by political expediency.
Irrespective of which party comes into power relations with Pakistan will remain fragile and prone to crisis unless the composite dialogue addresses all major aspects of our relationship.
There are genuine reasons for Pakistan’s security concerns that need to be allayed. India may use the potential threat of China to justify its fast growing military power but the hard reality is that more than 70 percent of its forces are facing Pakistan. The doctrine of “Cold Start,” the concept of using highly mobile integrated force as strike elements is Pakistan specific. Moreover, Islamabad has genuine reasons to complain of India’s meddling in Balochistan. It is well known that Baloch nationalists find sympathy and support from India and many are living there or in Afghanistan, under its patronage. India’s expanding influence in Afghanistan is equally unsettling for us. As a front line state Pakistan has experienced the worst fallout from Afghanistan’s instability in terms of influx of refugees, spread of militant groups and on its social and political fabric. It fails to receive any recognition on these counts and its security interests are not protected. Clearly, United States is developing a strong strategic, military and economic relationship with India. As a consequence of this convergence United States and NATO are giving all the space to India in Afghanistan. Mr Holbrooke on his last visit to the region clearly stated that US expects India to be a key player in Afghanistan.
With Pakistan the US is providing economic assistance to strengthen its institutions and promote stability primarily to combat radicalisation. The relationship of the US with India and Pakistan is on different levels and Pakistan finds it difficult to reconcile to this situation due to its adverse relationship with India. The revival of formal dialogue process covering all outstanding issues including Kashmir, coupled with expanded political contacts and increased economic interaction, however, can gradually bring the two countries closer and the region more stable.
Relations between India and Pakistan are at their lowest as a fallout of Mumbai. The reaction of India to suspend the composite dialogue was reflective of the old mood and there are inherent dangers in maintaining the stalemate. India and Pakistan are nuclear states. They cannot go to war as it would be suicidal. So the sooner they lift this self-imposed restriction the better it would be for resolving the major issues and facing the common challenge of terrorism.
It is expected that the phase of dominating the region by regional powers has passed. For the “new India” that is on a sharp upward economic curve stability of the region should be the goal rather than its dominance. A cooperative relationship with India can vastly contribute to Pakistan’s political stability and economic progress. It will allow Pakistan to fully focus on internal issues of governance and divert resources toward social uplift and productive avenues.
Pakistan allied with the US to obtain weapons and economic assistance to strengthen itself. The decision to support Afghan Taliban too was a part of balancing New Delhi’s influence in Afghanistan. None of those policies have worked. Serious strains have developed with US on Pakistan’s efforts in fighting the ongoing insurgency. US has de-hyphenated India and Pakistan and bracketed it with Afghanistan. The support of Taliban instead of giving us the strategic depth has brought about a reverse indoctrination of Talibanisation that is sweeping across Pakistan.
Our establishment under external and internal pressures has been adjusting to the new realities and bringing a shift in its policies, but it needs to do more. From 2004 onwards it has withdrawn its support of militant organizations and especially after Mumbai incident has taken action to close jihadi camps and we are in a state of transition. India’s diplomatic, media and political offensive against Pakistan after the Mumbai incident also has made difficult for our leadership to convince its people that New Delhi has benign motives. India’s initial anguish and reaction was understandable but its subsequent policy of pushing Pakistan to the wall made little sense. Nonetheless, the militants have succeeded in their mission of driving a wedge between nuclear neighbours and holding the peace process hostage. Although prudence demands that India and Pakistan should cooperate against the common threat of terrorism and expanding insurgencies. Pakistan has gone a long way in cooperating with India in investigating and taking action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai crime. India should realise that criminal trial has its own dynamic as the case has to be legally full proof and this takes time.
It is possible that the Indo-Pakistan composite dialogue may be revived once elections are completed in India and the new government is formed.
Clearly, it is going to be a coalition government led by Congress or BJP, depending on which side the regional parties swing. As there are no hard ideological positions taken by any political party, coalitions will be dictated by political expediency.
Irrespective of which party comes into power relations with Pakistan will remain fragile and prone to crisis unless the composite dialogue addresses all major aspects of our relationship.
There are genuine reasons for Pakistan’s security concerns that need to be allayed. India may use the potential threat of China to justify its fast growing military power but the hard reality is that more than 70 percent of its forces are facing Pakistan. The doctrine of “Cold Start,” the concept of using highly mobile integrated force as strike elements is Pakistan specific. Moreover, Islamabad has genuine reasons to complain of India’s meddling in Balochistan. It is well known that Baloch nationalists find sympathy and support from India and many are living there or in Afghanistan, under its patronage. India’s expanding influence in Afghanistan is equally unsettling for us. As a front line state Pakistan has experienced the worst fallout from Afghanistan’s instability in terms of influx of refugees, spread of militant groups and on its social and political fabric. It fails to receive any recognition on these counts and its security interests are not protected. Clearly, United States is developing a strong strategic, military and economic relationship with India. As a consequence of this convergence United States and NATO are giving all the space to India in Afghanistan. Mr Holbrooke on his last visit to the region clearly stated that US expects India to be a key player in Afghanistan.
With Pakistan the US is providing economic assistance to strengthen its institutions and promote stability primarily to combat radicalisation. The relationship of the US with India and Pakistan is on different levels and Pakistan finds it difficult to reconcile to this situation due to its adverse relationship with India. The revival of formal dialogue process covering all outstanding issues including Kashmir, coupled with expanded political contacts and increased economic interaction, however, can gradually bring the two countries closer and the region more stable.
Our response to US frenzy
As Pakistan struggles to cope with its multiple challenges of fighting militants in Swat and in the tribal belt and taking care of millions of internally displaced persons it is subjected to enormous pressure from one of its closest allies, the United States. A stream of statements keeps pouring in from the US president, secretary of state, defence secretary, military commanders, the CIA, think tanks and the media on a daily basis on Pakistan’s internal matters. Doubts are cast on the safety and security of our nuclear weapons, concern is expressed over the fast pace of fissile production and weapons programme and lately even the diversion of US military assistance in the nuclear build-up. In parallel, the Pakistan military, and especially the ISI, has been subjected to intense pressure, making it a convenient international scapegoat. Misgivings have been expressed about the genuineness of the security organisation’s efforts, thereby implying duplicity of intentions — although of late there has been somewhat of a let-up.
What is driving the US to this verbal frenzy and how should Pakistan react to it? The reasons are manifold. First, President Obama has declared that the Afghan-Pakistan region, especially our tribal belt, to be the most dangerous place and the greatest security threat to world peace. The government’s writ being non-existent the assumption is that the top Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership is residing in the region. Obviously, if America’s security is interlinked to Pakistan then the media, think tanks and Congressional hearings will focus on all related aspects of Pakistan. Second, the US is tripling economic assistance and nearly doubling military assistance to Pakistan, totalling $1.5 billion a year for the next five years. With the economic recession in the US there is greater pressure for better distribution of resources and higher level of accountability, hence all those questions and conditionalities. Third, the Obama administration has been trying to project that the nuclear-armed Pakistan is facing an existential threat and has to be stabilised in the interest of US security. And by repeating the mantra of the fragility of Pakistan’s institutions and the dangers that could befall if the Taliban were to capture power it pressurises the Congress to provide economic and military assistance.
Fourth, Indian, Israeli and non-proliferation lobbies are also active in demonising Pakistan and trying to block, delay and reduce US assistance. And these detractors work overtime to keep reminding the Obama administration about Pakistan’s history of proliferation and its support of the Taliban and jihadi groups. Not realising that all these policies were adopted in a certain historical and geo-strategic context. The situation now is indeed very different, as Pakistan is locked in a survival struggle fighting the Taliban and militants on a broad front and needs all the support and understanding from the US and the international community.
The US itself was the greatest supporter of Afghan jihad in the 1980s and as Hillary Clinton admitted that “it is fair to say that our policy towards Pakistan over thirty years has been incoherent” and hence it shares the responsibility for the current failures in the region. This is a positive development because Washington in the past to cover its failures in Afghanistan has been placing all blame at Pakistan’s door.
It is perfectly understandable that the US or for that matter the world cannot overlook the current crisis in Pakistan, especially after experiencing 9/11. But US power centres at times tend to become paranoid about the security situation in Pakistan and all sorts of doomsday scenarios are projected, which in turn generate a reverse paranoia here. It then fuels a strong anti-American sentiment, giving rise to a host of wild conspiracy theories such as that the US primary aim in the region is to denuclearise Pakistan and weaken its security institutions. Besides, frequent violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty by drone strikes further reinforces this belief, acting as a constant irritant in bilateral relationship. The only gainers in all this are the militants.
Pakistan’s international image and credibility today is at its lowest. A nuclear power with rampant poverty and large pockets of militancy that until recently were growing unchecked, the world will always consider Pakistan to be the epicentre of problems. Also the perception that militants have links with the military and intelligence agencies has to be shed. This will only be possible if Pakistan truly abandons its policy of relying on non-state actors to achieve its policy objectives.
The outcome of the operation in Swat and other districts of the Malakand division is going to determine the future course of events. What is most crucial is the way Pakistan handles the massive refugee crisis. Initially, they have to be provided with the basic needs within the camps and on return they should be given full support to rebuild their homes, schools, hospitals, roads and everything that a normal community aspires for.
What is driving the US to this verbal frenzy and how should Pakistan react to it? The reasons are manifold. First, President Obama has declared that the Afghan-Pakistan region, especially our tribal belt, to be the most dangerous place and the greatest security threat to world peace. The government’s writ being non-existent the assumption is that the top Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership is residing in the region. Obviously, if America’s security is interlinked to Pakistan then the media, think tanks and Congressional hearings will focus on all related aspects of Pakistan. Second, the US is tripling economic assistance and nearly doubling military assistance to Pakistan, totalling $1.5 billion a year for the next five years. With the economic recession in the US there is greater pressure for better distribution of resources and higher level of accountability, hence all those questions and conditionalities. Third, the Obama administration has been trying to project that the nuclear-armed Pakistan is facing an existential threat and has to be stabilised in the interest of US security. And by repeating the mantra of the fragility of Pakistan’s institutions and the dangers that could befall if the Taliban were to capture power it pressurises the Congress to provide economic and military assistance.
Fourth, Indian, Israeli and non-proliferation lobbies are also active in demonising Pakistan and trying to block, delay and reduce US assistance. And these detractors work overtime to keep reminding the Obama administration about Pakistan’s history of proliferation and its support of the Taliban and jihadi groups. Not realising that all these policies were adopted in a certain historical and geo-strategic context. The situation now is indeed very different, as Pakistan is locked in a survival struggle fighting the Taliban and militants on a broad front and needs all the support and understanding from the US and the international community.
The US itself was the greatest supporter of Afghan jihad in the 1980s and as Hillary Clinton admitted that “it is fair to say that our policy towards Pakistan over thirty years has been incoherent” and hence it shares the responsibility for the current failures in the region. This is a positive development because Washington in the past to cover its failures in Afghanistan has been placing all blame at Pakistan’s door.
It is perfectly understandable that the US or for that matter the world cannot overlook the current crisis in Pakistan, especially after experiencing 9/11. But US power centres at times tend to become paranoid about the security situation in Pakistan and all sorts of doomsday scenarios are projected, which in turn generate a reverse paranoia here. It then fuels a strong anti-American sentiment, giving rise to a host of wild conspiracy theories such as that the US primary aim in the region is to denuclearise Pakistan and weaken its security institutions. Besides, frequent violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty by drone strikes further reinforces this belief, acting as a constant irritant in bilateral relationship. The only gainers in all this are the militants.
Pakistan’s international image and credibility today is at its lowest. A nuclear power with rampant poverty and large pockets of militancy that until recently were growing unchecked, the world will always consider Pakistan to be the epicentre of problems. Also the perception that militants have links with the military and intelligence agencies has to be shed. This will only be possible if Pakistan truly abandons its policy of relying on non-state actors to achieve its policy objectives.
The outcome of the operation in Swat and other districts of the Malakand division is going to determine the future course of events. What is most crucial is the way Pakistan handles the massive refugee crisis. Initially, they have to be provided with the basic needs within the camps and on return they should be given full support to rebuild their homes, schools, hospitals, roads and everything that a normal community aspires for.
Resolving our crises
Decades of military rule, lack of democratic culture within political parties, feudal and tribal character of the society, weak institutions and a highly disturbed neighbourhood has created a serious leadership deficit in Pakistan at a time when the country faces massive challenges. The crisis in leadership is pervasive and extends beyond politicians to practically every facet of our national life- education, industry, business, trade unions, religion, sports, etc. The reason is the same for society has decayed to a stage where patronage and self-interest has taken precedence over meritocracy and personal loyalties to competence. As a consequence there are hardly any leaders who have a vision and intellectual calibre to face the gathering storm.
What matters most however is the ability and competence of our political leaders! The dilemma being that we have an all powerful but inexperienced president who by sheer twist of history has been jettisoned into this position. No doubt, President Zardari is working hard and putting in long hours, despite the impression to the contrary. He has made earnest efforts at improving relations with Afghanistan, Iran, India and the Gulf states, and in addition is trying to consolidate and expand our relationship with China, US, UK, France and other European and Muslim countries. His clear and unequivocal stand against militants, emphasis on economic development and building ties through trade and investment with countries surely reflect his positive side.
On the contrary his handling of the lawyer’s movement and the unfair treatment meted out to PML-N was a disaster that nearly pushed his party and himself out of power. His choice of prime minister has been good. Mr Gillani may not be charismatic or articulate but is a respected politician and a consensus builder. His problem however is that he has to look over the shoulder of the president and army chief for all major policy matters. But there are serious problems with President Zardari’s reputation both at home and abroad. Besides, he lacks the intellectual and moral fibre that is needed at this time to handle the affairs of a state that is virtually at war with itself. Due to his soiled reputation, poor communication skills in English and Urdu and absence of a coherent vision even his good side remains hidden.
He is shy of facing the masses in person or on screen which is a basic prerequisite of being an effective leader and made a huge mistake by remaining out of country when the counter-insurgency operations in Swat and other areas was taking place. In normal circumstances one could have overlooked these shortcomings and waited for the democratic transition to take its course and throw up a new crop of leadership that can lead the nation on the right course. The magnitude of crisis is such that we do not have the luxury of too much time and results have to be achieved to prevent the country from going into a sharp downward spiral. If the answer to this dilemma has to found from within the system then President Zardari will have to bring about radical changes in the way he is exercising power.
Clearly, running the government falls in the domain of the prime minister, but in view of the fact that real power rests with President Zardari he has to ensure that all financial transactions of the government are fully transparent and aboveboard. He can redeem himself by launching a genuine campaign against corruption and leaning heavily on the federal and provincial governments to bring about marked improvement in governance. If he wants to launder his past reputation he has to be scrupulously honest and perceived to be as such and support the prime minister in his efforts at bringing qualitative improvements in all areas of governance by supporting bureaucracy and strengthening administrative structures.
As a first step to improve performance of the government President Zardari should induct in the cabinet Aitzaz Ehsan, Raza Rabbani and Sherry Rehman and bring in a new crop of at least six to seven bright and promising young politicians from among PPP and coalition partners across the country. This will inject dynamism and will also help in throwing up future leadership. Merely relying on dynastic leadership for a country of 170 million people would be unfair to the party and the country.
The prime minister has been very regular in attending the Parliament sessions, but the record of legislation which is their main function has been so far disappointing and needs to be stepped up. Parliamentary committees apart from the PAC are dormant and should be energised to provide leadership in their respective fields.
The intellectual and vision deficit of our contemporary leadership could be partly offset if the president was to seriously consider developing a pool of Pakistani experts on non-partisan basis on economy, finance, energy, agriculture, industry, transport, business, IT, media and other major areas. There are several examples in history when mediocre heads of governments or state by collecting able persons around them leveraged the performance of the government. President Truman and Reagan were among those who were otherwise mediocre but collected around them people of intellect, integrity and expertise as advisors and are judged by posterity as successful presidents.
There are other serious problems that need urgent attention of our leaders as well. The government must jump start the Balochistan peace negotiations, find long-term solutions to rehabilitating and bringing the jihadi elements of south and central Punjab in mainstream politics and take comprehensive measures to resettle the people of Swat and tribal belt as soon as peace returns. If the leadership rises to address these problems people will respond positively. This may appear as a tall order but if the democratic government shows resolve there is no reason why we cannot succeed.
What matters most however is the ability and competence of our political leaders! The dilemma being that we have an all powerful but inexperienced president who by sheer twist of history has been jettisoned into this position. No doubt, President Zardari is working hard and putting in long hours, despite the impression to the contrary. He has made earnest efforts at improving relations with Afghanistan, Iran, India and the Gulf states, and in addition is trying to consolidate and expand our relationship with China, US, UK, France and other European and Muslim countries. His clear and unequivocal stand against militants, emphasis on economic development and building ties through trade and investment with countries surely reflect his positive side.
On the contrary his handling of the lawyer’s movement and the unfair treatment meted out to PML-N was a disaster that nearly pushed his party and himself out of power. His choice of prime minister has been good. Mr Gillani may not be charismatic or articulate but is a respected politician and a consensus builder. His problem however is that he has to look over the shoulder of the president and army chief for all major policy matters. But there are serious problems with President Zardari’s reputation both at home and abroad. Besides, he lacks the intellectual and moral fibre that is needed at this time to handle the affairs of a state that is virtually at war with itself. Due to his soiled reputation, poor communication skills in English and Urdu and absence of a coherent vision even his good side remains hidden.
He is shy of facing the masses in person or on screen which is a basic prerequisite of being an effective leader and made a huge mistake by remaining out of country when the counter-insurgency operations in Swat and other areas was taking place. In normal circumstances one could have overlooked these shortcomings and waited for the democratic transition to take its course and throw up a new crop of leadership that can lead the nation on the right course. The magnitude of crisis is such that we do not have the luxury of too much time and results have to be achieved to prevent the country from going into a sharp downward spiral. If the answer to this dilemma has to found from within the system then President Zardari will have to bring about radical changes in the way he is exercising power.
Clearly, running the government falls in the domain of the prime minister, but in view of the fact that real power rests with President Zardari he has to ensure that all financial transactions of the government are fully transparent and aboveboard. He can redeem himself by launching a genuine campaign against corruption and leaning heavily on the federal and provincial governments to bring about marked improvement in governance. If he wants to launder his past reputation he has to be scrupulously honest and perceived to be as such and support the prime minister in his efforts at bringing qualitative improvements in all areas of governance by supporting bureaucracy and strengthening administrative structures.
As a first step to improve performance of the government President Zardari should induct in the cabinet Aitzaz Ehsan, Raza Rabbani and Sherry Rehman and bring in a new crop of at least six to seven bright and promising young politicians from among PPP and coalition partners across the country. This will inject dynamism and will also help in throwing up future leadership. Merely relying on dynastic leadership for a country of 170 million people would be unfair to the party and the country.
The prime minister has been very regular in attending the Parliament sessions, but the record of legislation which is their main function has been so far disappointing and needs to be stepped up. Parliamentary committees apart from the PAC are dormant and should be energised to provide leadership in their respective fields.
The intellectual and vision deficit of our contemporary leadership could be partly offset if the president was to seriously consider developing a pool of Pakistani experts on non-partisan basis on economy, finance, energy, agriculture, industry, transport, business, IT, media and other major areas. There are several examples in history when mediocre heads of governments or state by collecting able persons around them leveraged the performance of the government. President Truman and Reagan were among those who were otherwise mediocre but collected around them people of intellect, integrity and expertise as advisors and are judged by posterity as successful presidents.
There are other serious problems that need urgent attention of our leaders as well. The government must jump start the Balochistan peace negotiations, find long-term solutions to rehabilitating and bringing the jihadi elements of south and central Punjab in mainstream politics and take comprehensive measures to resettle the people of Swat and tribal belt as soon as peace returns. If the leadership rises to address these problems people will respond positively. This may appear as a tall order but if the democratic government shows resolve there is no reason why we cannot succeed.
Obama’s new approach
After the events of 9/11, relations between the US and the Islamic world suffered a serious setback when the neo-cons prevailed on the Bush administration to pursue a policy that was justifiably perceived by the Muslims as highly aggressive, prejudiced and unilateral. America’s invasion of Afghanistan to punish Al Qaeda and Taliban, followed by the “war of choice” against Iraq and blind support of Israel widened the cleavage. Moreover, Bush administration’s hostile policy towards the Islamic regime of Iran and the treatment of Muslim prisoners further heightened the discord. From the American perspective attacks of Sept 11, 2001, and subsequent acts of violence by radical Islamic militants on civilians in other parts of the world reinforced the belief among many Americans and the West that Islam was a religion that was hostile towards them.
President Obama wants to radically transform this relationship and develop a better understanding with the Muslim world. Having been born to a Muslim father and lived in Muslim countries and the goodwill he enjoys among them he clearly considers himself better equipped to open a new chapter in their relationship. The speech in Cairo was a deliberate attempt and an initiation of a process of reconciliation. His clear differentiation that US is not at war with Islam but is fighting the militants who are killing innocent civilians was meant to give clarity to the new policy and to gain confidence of the Muslims. And his reiteration that force alone is not the answer was a reference to the dialogue he was initiating with the Muslim world and with certain groups and countries hostile to US.
President Obama’s categorical support for democracy must have gone extremely well with the people as was obvious by the response of the audience but would have made the rulers especially of Arab countries somewhat uneasy. He did qualify his remarks to mollify the rulers that US has no intentions of imposing democracy on any country and it is for the people to decide what type of system they want to adapt. Nonetheless, he gave a clear message that rulers of Muslim world should promote policies that should give a voice and dignity to the people and move away from authoritarianism and repression. There appeared a definite effort at building a relationship not only with the regimes but as much with the people of Muslim countries so as to counter America’s negative image. The other striking feature of his address was its focus on the younger generation and on women’s rights.
As expected, he also extended his hand of friendship to Iran and was willing to accept its right to acquire civil nuclear power, provided it does not proceed with the weapons programme. Although Iran has courageously withstood sanctions and attempts at isolation but in the process its economy has been badly hurt. Moreover, its nuclear programme raises paranoia not just in Israel but as much in the Arab world. For these reasons Iran is likely to reciprocate to Obama’s overtures. US administration too needs support of Iran to stabilise Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Once relations are normalised, United States is likely to resume interest in Iran’s oil and gas market. As both countries need each other it is possible that they may move at a faster pace to resolve their differences after Iranian elections are over.
On issues of nuclear disarmament and arms control President Obama was forthright and encouraging. The United States and Russia have already started negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament to reduce nuclear weapons below levels set in the START treaty of 1991. His endorsement of a world free of nuclear weapons and the inequitable nature of the NPT were indeed heartening. But one has see, how the US and Russian talks on disarmament progress and the ideal goal of Global Zero is realised.
Most significant was his policy statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which he categorically supported establishment of a two-nation state and strong opposition to Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. He made no mention of the status of Jerusalem but said that it was a holy and revered place for the three Abrahamic religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims, indicating that Israel will have to accept and accommodate this reality. If President Obama is really able to convince Israel to accept a two-state solution, withdraw to 1967 borders and stop building settlements then it would dramatically transform the relationship between US and the Islamic world and weaken Al Qaeda’s ability to capitalise on the injustices that the people of Palestine continue to suffer.
President Obama’s acknowledgement of Hamas being representative of a section of Palestinian people was a major departure from the Bush administration policy of branding them as terrorist. There were clear indications that his administration would be more equitable and retain a balance in its relations between Israel and Palestinians. Doubts however linger in the minds of many if Obama would be able to implement this new policy on Middle East in view of the hard line attitude adopted by Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and the strong pro-Israeli lobby that exists in the United States.
President Obama wants to radically transform this relationship and develop a better understanding with the Muslim world. Having been born to a Muslim father and lived in Muslim countries and the goodwill he enjoys among them he clearly considers himself better equipped to open a new chapter in their relationship. The speech in Cairo was a deliberate attempt and an initiation of a process of reconciliation. His clear differentiation that US is not at war with Islam but is fighting the militants who are killing innocent civilians was meant to give clarity to the new policy and to gain confidence of the Muslims. And his reiteration that force alone is not the answer was a reference to the dialogue he was initiating with the Muslim world and with certain groups and countries hostile to US.
President Obama’s categorical support for democracy must have gone extremely well with the people as was obvious by the response of the audience but would have made the rulers especially of Arab countries somewhat uneasy. He did qualify his remarks to mollify the rulers that US has no intentions of imposing democracy on any country and it is for the people to decide what type of system they want to adapt. Nonetheless, he gave a clear message that rulers of Muslim world should promote policies that should give a voice and dignity to the people and move away from authoritarianism and repression. There appeared a definite effort at building a relationship not only with the regimes but as much with the people of Muslim countries so as to counter America’s negative image. The other striking feature of his address was its focus on the younger generation and on women’s rights.
As expected, he also extended his hand of friendship to Iran and was willing to accept its right to acquire civil nuclear power, provided it does not proceed with the weapons programme. Although Iran has courageously withstood sanctions and attempts at isolation but in the process its economy has been badly hurt. Moreover, its nuclear programme raises paranoia not just in Israel but as much in the Arab world. For these reasons Iran is likely to reciprocate to Obama’s overtures. US administration too needs support of Iran to stabilise Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Once relations are normalised, United States is likely to resume interest in Iran’s oil and gas market. As both countries need each other it is possible that they may move at a faster pace to resolve their differences after Iranian elections are over.
On issues of nuclear disarmament and arms control President Obama was forthright and encouraging. The United States and Russia have already started negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament to reduce nuclear weapons below levels set in the START treaty of 1991. His endorsement of a world free of nuclear weapons and the inequitable nature of the NPT were indeed heartening. But one has see, how the US and Russian talks on disarmament progress and the ideal goal of Global Zero is realised.
Most significant was his policy statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which he categorically supported establishment of a two-nation state and strong opposition to Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. He made no mention of the status of Jerusalem but said that it was a holy and revered place for the three Abrahamic religions, Jews, Christians and Muslims, indicating that Israel will have to accept and accommodate this reality. If President Obama is really able to convince Israel to accept a two-state solution, withdraw to 1967 borders and stop building settlements then it would dramatically transform the relationship between US and the Islamic world and weaken Al Qaeda’s ability to capitalise on the injustices that the people of Palestine continue to suffer.
President Obama’s acknowledgement of Hamas being representative of a section of Palestinian people was a major departure from the Bush administration policy of branding them as terrorist. There were clear indications that his administration would be more equitable and retain a balance in its relations between Israel and Palestinians. Doubts however linger in the minds of many if Obama would be able to implement this new policy on Middle East in view of the hard line attitude adopted by Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and the strong pro-Israeli lobby that exists in the United States.
The cost of war
US think tanks, Congressional committees and State Department officials keep reminding us of the $12 billion of assistance that has been provided to Pakistan since 2001. Nearly 68 percent of this amount was reimbursement of costs incurred by Pakistan military in counterterrorism operations in FATA. And over $3 billion were provided for economic assistance and development. There is no doubt that deciding to join the war on terror led to substantial flow of US and international assistance from individual countries and donor agencies and did contribute for a while in bringing about macroeconomic stability and increased growth rates. But Pakistan soon realised that its fiscal and monetary policies that were heavily reliant on foreign assistance were not able to sustain growth.
What is however seldom realised internationally or by domestic audience that the cost of war that Pakistan had to bear and continues to bear is many times more that the aid that it has received so far. Institute of Public Policy of Beacon House National University in its recent annual report has come out with a comprehensive study of the state of economy in which the economic cost of the war on terror has been estimated since 2004-05 to be $31.4 billion, far in excess of the assistance of $1.7 billion annually.
With expanding insurgency in tribal belt and increasing acts of terrorism in Pakistan the direct and indirect costs are growing exponentially. In 2008 alone nearly 2,500 people lost their lives and about 5,000 suffered serious injuries. There has been massive damage to property running into billions of rupees. In addition the number of militants killed by our security forces during military operations also runs very high. And property damaged has been great. The costs have been increasing as the intensity and expanse of terrorist activity and insurgency is expanding.
The indirect costs include drop in investment, inability to proceed with development work, loss of production time, increase in employment and high cost of supporting displaced persons. As risk has increased so have insurance and other overheads costs.
Pakistan has suffered from flight of capital, closure of business and industrial activity and stock market has taken a deep down turn. Then there are opportunity costs as well. Pakistan’s fight against insurgents has political fallout and the nation is suffering psychologically. Political and social costs have been even higher. This conflict has ruptured the society and given rise to a deep polarisation between ethnic groups, widened the chasm between liberals and conservatives and between the religious and secular groups. It has pitched one religious sect against another and has also introduced an element of class warfare. This insurgency has also exposed the hypocritical side of the Islamic state as it could not effectively neutralise the militants at the ideological and ethical level and had to seek support of the military. This was despite the fact that the militants were presenting the most warped and distorted interpretation of Islam.
Clearly, the insurgency has challenged the invincibility of the armed forces. Although the army’s learning curve has been fairly good and it showing far better results in Swat and Malakand division under the guidance and leadership of General Kayani as compared to its performance during the Musharraf period. We have once again learnt that quality of commanders and soldiers is even more important as we fight in the valleys or do urban combat in Swat and other places. Recent experience has shown that political ownership is the key for mobilising public support in fighting insurgencies.
This insurgency has introduced new weapons and systems. The use of drones by US has been a force multiplier and given a new dimension in fighting insurgencies but has also brought in moral and political dilemmas. On the militants side the extensive use of FM broadcasts both as a command and a propaganda weapon has been a unique feature.
Despite the huge cost of war the results until recently were not very encouraging. It is since the Swat operation has started that there has been a qualitative change in the military operations and the militants are on the run.
The question on the mind of every one today is what is it we want to achieve in the end. Indeed we are fighting this war for our survival and our future and as much for the stability and security of the region and in a larger context for the globe. The overarching mission of our military apart from establishing the writ of the state in all those areas of tribal belt and Malakand division is the preservation of the constitution, democracy and our value system. The sacrifices our soldiers and officers and civilians are making are an investment to ensure a better future for our country for which we should be deeply indebted to them.
In fact Pakistan is a Force Maguire for the entire world and as it happens in Force Maguire regular commitments are replaced with extraordinary measures. This is the reason why the global community must come forward and facilitate.
In parallel, Pakistan should aim at increasing industrial and agricultural production and improve overall efficiency in governance and financial management to meet this extra burden. Seeking financial assistance from allies and international donor agencies to tide over immediate and short term contingency may be acceptable. But leaders who make it a habit and culture of seeking outside financial assistance lose respect and credibility both at home and abroad and find it difficult to motivate their people to fight the militants. What is more vital is to place the country on a war footing and a war economy and be as self reliant as possible.
What is however seldom realised internationally or by domestic audience that the cost of war that Pakistan had to bear and continues to bear is many times more that the aid that it has received so far. Institute of Public Policy of Beacon House National University in its recent annual report has come out with a comprehensive study of the state of economy in which the economic cost of the war on terror has been estimated since 2004-05 to be $31.4 billion, far in excess of the assistance of $1.7 billion annually.
With expanding insurgency in tribal belt and increasing acts of terrorism in Pakistan the direct and indirect costs are growing exponentially. In 2008 alone nearly 2,500 people lost their lives and about 5,000 suffered serious injuries. There has been massive damage to property running into billions of rupees. In addition the number of militants killed by our security forces during military operations also runs very high. And property damaged has been great. The costs have been increasing as the intensity and expanse of terrorist activity and insurgency is expanding.
The indirect costs include drop in investment, inability to proceed with development work, loss of production time, increase in employment and high cost of supporting displaced persons. As risk has increased so have insurance and other overheads costs.
Pakistan has suffered from flight of capital, closure of business and industrial activity and stock market has taken a deep down turn. Then there are opportunity costs as well. Pakistan’s fight against insurgents has political fallout and the nation is suffering psychologically. Political and social costs have been even higher. This conflict has ruptured the society and given rise to a deep polarisation between ethnic groups, widened the chasm between liberals and conservatives and between the religious and secular groups. It has pitched one religious sect against another and has also introduced an element of class warfare. This insurgency has also exposed the hypocritical side of the Islamic state as it could not effectively neutralise the militants at the ideological and ethical level and had to seek support of the military. This was despite the fact that the militants were presenting the most warped and distorted interpretation of Islam.
Clearly, the insurgency has challenged the invincibility of the armed forces. Although the army’s learning curve has been fairly good and it showing far better results in Swat and Malakand division under the guidance and leadership of General Kayani as compared to its performance during the Musharraf period. We have once again learnt that quality of commanders and soldiers is even more important as we fight in the valleys or do urban combat in Swat and other places. Recent experience has shown that political ownership is the key for mobilising public support in fighting insurgencies.
This insurgency has introduced new weapons and systems. The use of drones by US has been a force multiplier and given a new dimension in fighting insurgencies but has also brought in moral and political dilemmas. On the militants side the extensive use of FM broadcasts both as a command and a propaganda weapon has been a unique feature.
Despite the huge cost of war the results until recently were not very encouraging. It is since the Swat operation has started that there has been a qualitative change in the military operations and the militants are on the run.
The question on the mind of every one today is what is it we want to achieve in the end. Indeed we are fighting this war for our survival and our future and as much for the stability and security of the region and in a larger context for the globe. The overarching mission of our military apart from establishing the writ of the state in all those areas of tribal belt and Malakand division is the preservation of the constitution, democracy and our value system. The sacrifices our soldiers and officers and civilians are making are an investment to ensure a better future for our country for which we should be deeply indebted to them.
In fact Pakistan is a Force Maguire for the entire world and as it happens in Force Maguire regular commitments are replaced with extraordinary measures. This is the reason why the global community must come forward and facilitate.
In parallel, Pakistan should aim at increasing industrial and agricultural production and improve overall efficiency in governance and financial management to meet this extra burden. Seeking financial assistance from allies and international donor agencies to tide over immediate and short term contingency may be acceptable. But leaders who make it a habit and culture of seeking outside financial assistance lose respect and credibility both at home and abroad and find it difficult to motivate their people to fight the militants. What is more vital is to place the country on a war footing and a war economy and be as self reliant as possible.
The way forward
President Zardari’s meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Russia on the sidelines of the SCO had raised hopes that Congress back in power with a comfortable majority would be more confident in opening a new chapter in India-Pakistan relations. The venue of the meeting had a historical and sentimental significance as well because nearly 43 years ago after the 1965 war, erstwhile Soviet Union had played a major role as a facilitator in bringing the two countries in agreeing to the famous Tashkent Agreement. The statement made by PM Singh after the meeting was disappointing and reflected India’s arrogance and continuation of the policy of sustaining pressure on Pakistan. The disappointment was even greater as our expectations from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were very different. He had displayed great restraint and conducted in a statesmanlike manner when the Mumbai incident occurred, despite intense pressures from the domestic hawks. We are also aware that he genuinely believes in a cooperative relationship with Pakistan and could have seized the opportunity of a new beginning with the democratic government.
Instead it appears that New Delhi is dragging its feet and is only partially prepared to open the dialogue process and that too as related to terrorism. In fact PM Singh’s “lecturing” in the presence of President Zardari was diplomatically imprudent considering that President Zardari is one of those leaders who is sticking his neck out to improve relations with India. His vision of relations with India is driven by economic and cultural motivations and is futuristic in approach. It is people oriented and less influenced by the historical baggage of animosity. This is in sharp contrast to the conventional security driven policy that both countries have pursued against each other since independence, apart from a few interludes. In the recent past two civilian prime ministers Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif had made earnest efforts at improving relations with India. Benazir’s plans to move ahead received a setback when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in a terrorist attack. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif responded positively to Prime Minister Vajpayee’s bold initiative that resulted in the historic Lahore declaration, validating the theory that democracies have always extended the hand of friendship. It was unfortunate that Indo-Pakistan détente was undermined by the Kargil misadventure. As regards Musharraf’s overtures of peace with India they were bound to fail as he neither enjoyed legitimacy nor credibility with the people.
It is not surprising that President Zardari has now decided to stay away from the NAM conference and it is PM Gilani who would be leading the delegation.
From an Indian perspective the Pakistani Taliban threat is not a reason to support Islamabad in its efforts at fighting terrorism. In contrast it is the Pakistan military that poses a far greater threat. Taliban have been targeting US and Pakistan military and not the Indians. As opposed to this India’s principal adversary is the security establishment. It uses Jihadi elements from Punjab as proxies to fight with insurgents in Kashmir and is responsible for terrorist attacks in India, including the last one in Mumbai. India has tried to project the “war on terror” as war from Pakistan. As India perceives that Pakistan’s policy has been to use militants to bleed India. It views Pakistan army’s raison d’etre as hostility toward India.
India has been using its strategic alliance with US so that it persuades Pakistan to dismantle the Jihadi militant organisations. For this it has been crying on the side of US along with Israel as a victim of terrorism. Not realising that the war on terror phobia may fade away during the Obama presidency and mutate into a campaign against terrorism. And Pakistan is one country that is most directly affected by terrorism. Sadly, the countries that Washington during Bush era applied its iron fist on to pursue the final goal of eliminating the terror threat – Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan — have in fact become real victims of terrorism.
Islamabad wants US to push India to move on the resolution of the Kashmir conflict and resume dialogue. United States clearly wants India to seek rapprochement with Pakistan so that it could focus on the western front. Whereas US is giving India a major role in South and the Central Asia but the real agenda is being articulated and managed by it in a classic role of a super power. This heightens insecurities in Pakistan. Besides, Pakistan’s security establishment is also unwilling to down grade the Indian threat and strongly believes that RAW has been supportive of militants in FATA and nationalist elements in Balochistan to lock up our forces as a quid pro quo for our support of militant groups in Kashmir. It is also presumed that New Delhi is subtly fuelling Pakhtoon nationalism and their grievances to weaken Pakistan. It is indeed unfortunate that India and Pakistan both view each other as enemy to reinforce the sense of national cohesion.
The question is where do we go from here? Repeat the same history of 61 years trapped in the past at a very heavy cost to our people or define a new future. Take months and years to start the composite dialogue and remain content with its infinitely slow pace and await a future Mumbai or a terrorist attack in Pakistan with the initiative resting with the militants.
In contrast imagine for a moment a scenario that Siachen and Sir Creek are resolved, trade and economic activity between India and Pakistan has acquired dynamism and people to people contact is on the increase. Kashmir is being seriously discussed in which major stakeholders of J&K are involved. All this may appear illusionary, but really not, if there is a will, firm resolve and clear vision.
Instead it appears that New Delhi is dragging its feet and is only partially prepared to open the dialogue process and that too as related to terrorism. In fact PM Singh’s “lecturing” in the presence of President Zardari was diplomatically imprudent considering that President Zardari is one of those leaders who is sticking his neck out to improve relations with India. His vision of relations with India is driven by economic and cultural motivations and is futuristic in approach. It is people oriented and less influenced by the historical baggage of animosity. This is in sharp contrast to the conventional security driven policy that both countries have pursued against each other since independence, apart from a few interludes. In the recent past two civilian prime ministers Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif had made earnest efforts at improving relations with India. Benazir’s plans to move ahead received a setback when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated in a terrorist attack. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif responded positively to Prime Minister Vajpayee’s bold initiative that resulted in the historic Lahore declaration, validating the theory that democracies have always extended the hand of friendship. It was unfortunate that Indo-Pakistan détente was undermined by the Kargil misadventure. As regards Musharraf’s overtures of peace with India they were bound to fail as he neither enjoyed legitimacy nor credibility with the people.
It is not surprising that President Zardari has now decided to stay away from the NAM conference and it is PM Gilani who would be leading the delegation.
From an Indian perspective the Pakistani Taliban threat is not a reason to support Islamabad in its efforts at fighting terrorism. In contrast it is the Pakistan military that poses a far greater threat. Taliban have been targeting US and Pakistan military and not the Indians. As opposed to this India’s principal adversary is the security establishment. It uses Jihadi elements from Punjab as proxies to fight with insurgents in Kashmir and is responsible for terrorist attacks in India, including the last one in Mumbai. India has tried to project the “war on terror” as war from Pakistan. As India perceives that Pakistan’s policy has been to use militants to bleed India. It views Pakistan army’s raison d’etre as hostility toward India.
India has been using its strategic alliance with US so that it persuades Pakistan to dismantle the Jihadi militant organisations. For this it has been crying on the side of US along with Israel as a victim of terrorism. Not realising that the war on terror phobia may fade away during the Obama presidency and mutate into a campaign against terrorism. And Pakistan is one country that is most directly affected by terrorism. Sadly, the countries that Washington during Bush era applied its iron fist on to pursue the final goal of eliminating the terror threat – Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan — have in fact become real victims of terrorism.
Islamabad wants US to push India to move on the resolution of the Kashmir conflict and resume dialogue. United States clearly wants India to seek rapprochement with Pakistan so that it could focus on the western front. Whereas US is giving India a major role in South and the Central Asia but the real agenda is being articulated and managed by it in a classic role of a super power. This heightens insecurities in Pakistan. Besides, Pakistan’s security establishment is also unwilling to down grade the Indian threat and strongly believes that RAW has been supportive of militants in FATA and nationalist elements in Balochistan to lock up our forces as a quid pro quo for our support of militant groups in Kashmir. It is also presumed that New Delhi is subtly fuelling Pakhtoon nationalism and their grievances to weaken Pakistan. It is indeed unfortunate that India and Pakistan both view each other as enemy to reinforce the sense of national cohesion.
The question is where do we go from here? Repeat the same history of 61 years trapped in the past at a very heavy cost to our people or define a new future. Take months and years to start the composite dialogue and remain content with its infinitely slow pace and await a future Mumbai or a terrorist attack in Pakistan with the initiative resting with the militants.
In contrast imagine for a moment a scenario that Siachen and Sir Creek are resolved, trade and economic activity between India and Pakistan has acquired dynamism and people to people contact is on the increase. Kashmir is being seriously discussed in which major stakeholders of J&K are involved. All this may appear illusionary, but really not, if there is a will, firm resolve and clear vision.
Land of conspiracies
The people of Muslim countries are relatively more prone to conspiracy theories and Pakistan is no exception. If this tendency is not arrested it could seriously impair our ability to think rationally. Major international and national events or policy issues are viewed not on the basis of facts but in most cases through the prism of a conspiracy theory. This aberration is not confined to the general public but has permeated professionals, the business community, bureaucrats, the media and even academia. The majority of Pakistanis are not prepared to believe that Arabs carried out 9/11. They refuse to accept that Muslims were responsible for the terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament, in Bali, Madrid, London, Mumbai and even Marriot Islamabad. What really is most disturbing that you come across educated people and those who have been in high positions resting their entire arguments and advocating policy prescriptions on the basis of these ludicrous assumptions. An ex-governor even went to the extent of stating in a television interview that no Pakistani or Muslim is involved in the South Waziristan insurgency and whatever is happening is the doing of “Hindu Taliban.”
This, however, does not imply that major powers are benign and do not pursue inimical goals.
What are the factors that have given rise to this type of thinking and what are its implications in the short and longer term? How can we come out of this warped and highly self-destructive syndrome?
The most obvious reason is a mindset of self-denial and escapism. Surely this is not a rational way of solving problems.
The trust deficit between the people and the leaders and between institutions is another contributing factor in giving rise to conspiracy theories. No one seems to trust anyone. Leaders lack credibility because of their performance and reputation. Very few are prepared to believe what they say or take them on their face value. Institutions are looked down upon in terms of professional competence, standards of integrity and few would accept the version presented by them unless it is woven around with fantasies.
Lack of scientific and technical education, absence of research and a culture that does not promote rational thinking makes people vulnerable to conspiracies.
Overzealous fundamentalist and nationalist tend to place blame on other cultures, religion or sects and on their opponents. Domestically we have a situation where diehard Sunnis blame Shias, and vice versa, and civilians transfer blames on the army and the army feels all the problems emanate from the civilians. At the external level targets are the US and India. This phenomenon is not peculiar to Pakistan. The US conveniently scapegoats Pakistan for all its failures in Afghanistan and India for its misdeeds in Kashmir passes the buck to Pakistan.
The policies of the US and other major powers also shatters confidence among Pakistanis. Bush’s policy of deceiving his own people and the rest of the world about the WMDs in Iraq and using the CIA to destabilise Iran or pressure Cuba and some Latin American countries has lead to doubts about US motives. In fact, some consider US foreign policy a greater danger to Pakistan than the threat posed by Taliban and other militant groups. Similarly, India’s intransigence on Kashmir and its inflexible attitude on other bilateral issues reinforces possibilities of its clandestine conduct. Pakistan’s turbulent past and disturbed neighbourhood are also responsible for breeding insecurities.
Despite Obama’s very forthright approach and sincere desire to assist Pakistan there are still many who doubt his intentions and weave conspiracies in Washington’s policies. It may not be easy to remove this impression in the light of our recent past when successive US administrations trumped Pakistan’s national interests by supporting dictators and imposing their will for political expediency.
Jacob Bronsther, a Fulbright scholar at New York University, has attributed conspiracy syndrome a consequence of “cognitive dissonance – the mental disturbance caused by the collision of contradictory ideas, stemming from the Muslim world’s lack of prosperity and power.” There may be some truth in this observation as it is difficult for a Muslim to reconcile to the painful reality that he is weak and the rest of the world has progressed rapidly and gone past him.
It is not that Pakistan alone is awash with conspiracies. Other nations too have their own stories to tell but these are not that overwhelming to cloud reality and not as self-destructive. The danger is that by subscribing to conspiracy theories we undermine our ability to examine a problem or formulate a policy on a rational basis. This is equally true for issues related to security, economics, politics or relations with foreign countries. For instance, we blame the IMF and World Bank for our economic ills and some perceive it as a part of a larger conspiracy. This line of thinking frees us as individuals, groups or nations from accepting responsibility for the failure, which is very dangerous. What we need most is to face internal and external problems squarely, accept the reality of growing insurgency and other challenges and formulate policies and take decisions on the basis of facts and not live in fantasy.
This, however, does not imply that major powers are benign and do not pursue inimical goals.
What are the factors that have given rise to this type of thinking and what are its implications in the short and longer term? How can we come out of this warped and highly self-destructive syndrome?
The most obvious reason is a mindset of self-denial and escapism. Surely this is not a rational way of solving problems.
The trust deficit between the people and the leaders and between institutions is another contributing factor in giving rise to conspiracy theories. No one seems to trust anyone. Leaders lack credibility because of their performance and reputation. Very few are prepared to believe what they say or take them on their face value. Institutions are looked down upon in terms of professional competence, standards of integrity and few would accept the version presented by them unless it is woven around with fantasies.
Lack of scientific and technical education, absence of research and a culture that does not promote rational thinking makes people vulnerable to conspiracies.
Overzealous fundamentalist and nationalist tend to place blame on other cultures, religion or sects and on their opponents. Domestically we have a situation where diehard Sunnis blame Shias, and vice versa, and civilians transfer blames on the army and the army feels all the problems emanate from the civilians. At the external level targets are the US and India. This phenomenon is not peculiar to Pakistan. The US conveniently scapegoats Pakistan for all its failures in Afghanistan and India for its misdeeds in Kashmir passes the buck to Pakistan.
The policies of the US and other major powers also shatters confidence among Pakistanis. Bush’s policy of deceiving his own people and the rest of the world about the WMDs in Iraq and using the CIA to destabilise Iran or pressure Cuba and some Latin American countries has lead to doubts about US motives. In fact, some consider US foreign policy a greater danger to Pakistan than the threat posed by Taliban and other militant groups. Similarly, India’s intransigence on Kashmir and its inflexible attitude on other bilateral issues reinforces possibilities of its clandestine conduct. Pakistan’s turbulent past and disturbed neighbourhood are also responsible for breeding insecurities.
Despite Obama’s very forthright approach and sincere desire to assist Pakistan there are still many who doubt his intentions and weave conspiracies in Washington’s policies. It may not be easy to remove this impression in the light of our recent past when successive US administrations trumped Pakistan’s national interests by supporting dictators and imposing their will for political expediency.
Jacob Bronsther, a Fulbright scholar at New York University, has attributed conspiracy syndrome a consequence of “cognitive dissonance – the mental disturbance caused by the collision of contradictory ideas, stemming from the Muslim world’s lack of prosperity and power.” There may be some truth in this observation as it is difficult for a Muslim to reconcile to the painful reality that he is weak and the rest of the world has progressed rapidly and gone past him.
It is not that Pakistan alone is awash with conspiracies. Other nations too have their own stories to tell but these are not that overwhelming to cloud reality and not as self-destructive. The danger is that by subscribing to conspiracy theories we undermine our ability to examine a problem or formulate a policy on a rational basis. This is equally true for issues related to security, economics, politics or relations with foreign countries. For instance, we blame the IMF and World Bank for our economic ills and some perceive it as a part of a larger conspiracy. This line of thinking frees us as individuals, groups or nations from accepting responsibility for the failure, which is very dangerous. What we need most is to face internal and external problems squarely, accept the reality of growing insurgency and other challenges and formulate policies and take decisions on the basis of facts and not live in fantasy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)