Afghanistan: Demographic denial is a democratic denial

Posted by Admin On Saturday, 15 October 2011 0 comments

By Brig Asif Haroon Raja
Pakistan had agreed to become a US ally and fight its war to save itself from getting bombed to Stone Age and to become stronger economically, politically, socially and diplomatically. Looking back, none will disagree that Pakistan has been a loser on all counts and it finds itself weaker than what it was in 2001. The one that had given high hopes is today bashing Pakistan and threatening to exercise military option against it.    
Allies sit together, consult, plan and strategize together and share the fortunes and misfortunes of war together. This is a unique case wherein an ally is distrusted, ridiculed, maligned, blackmailed, threatened, emasculated and stabbed in the back. Out of 49 countries taking part in war on terror, Pakistan has taken the heaviest brunt and suffered the most and yet the US singles it out and makes it a scapegoat to cover up its failings. Whenever the US military finds itself in thick soup and its image is at stake, it promptly gets hold of Pakistan, accuses it of uncommitted sins and gets a temporary relief. The US should remain beholden to theconvenient scapegoat which is ever ready to offer itself for sacrifice to bailout ungrateful USA.
100,000 US troops and over 40,000 troops of 26 NATO countries and other allied countries together with 176,000 strong Afghan National Army (ANA) have been fighting few thousand ill-equipped, ill-clothed, ill-fed Pashtuns in Afghanistan for over a decade under most conducive military environments. Not only have they had no dearth of top of the line ground and air weapons, equipment, technology and funds to sustain the war, they didn’t have to bother about collateral damage to civilians or destruction to property and infrastructure. They have a license to kill and are above law. The world as a whole has been giving diplomatic, moral and political support to their cause of freeing the world of terrorism and ignoring their atrocities.
American servicemen serving in Afghanistan are heavily paid and their welfare, medical and entertainment needs are catered for. High quality hot cooked food is airlifted from Dubai daily and troops are frequently sent on leave and also rotated. To cater for their personal safety and security, they have been confined to well-fortified military bases and are seldom made to fight the militants face to face. A very large armada of security contractors has been hired on heavy fees to lessen the load of combat troops. They pay money to the militants to get their road supply containers pass through the areas under their control.
In its ten-year stay, the ISAF has yet to score a battle victory against Taliban linked with al-Qaeda. The only thing the occupation troops have done is to make use of its superior weaponry to destroy and kill. Whatever night raids conducted by US Special Forces are not against Taliban strongholds but against undefended and unsuspecting villages of Pashtuns. The US-UK forces had tried to capture Helmand twice but failed. They suffered reverses in a province where anti-Taliban non-Pashtun Hazara community has a heavy presence and Pashtuns are not pre-dominant. The attackers got the message that if the Taliban couldn’t be defeated in Helmand, they could never be defeated in Pashtun heavy regions. It was this apprehension which discouraged Gen Petraeus to launch an operation in Kandahar, or any of the six regions dominated by Haqqani network. Despite spending over $10 billion a month in Afghanistan, great majority of Afghans hate the Americans and want them to vacate their country. Policy of longer stick and smaller carrot has totally failed to win over the Afghans.
The adversary they have been confronting is homeless, friendless, isolated, and without logistic base and financial institute to meet war expenses. The resisting forces live off the land and are devoid of air, tank, air defence, and long range weapons support and intelligence cover. All their needs are purely on innovations and self-help basis. Their command structure is dispersed and under ground and they make use of emissaries to pass instructions and avoid use of cell phones and telephones for fear of being detected and killed by unmanned drones. Top leaders of Taliban have thus far miraculously escaped the manhunt and drones.
At the time of commencement of war on 7 October 2001, the teenaged boys aged ten or so have now grown up and attained full manhood while those who were born in that timeframe are over ten-year old and are able to hold and use personal weapons. Most are orphans and there is none who has not lost his father, mother or his sibling. They have seen the whole saga of death and destruction and had no opportunity to enjoy the monkeyshines and liveliness of their childhood or boyhood. They could neither enjoy family life or the comforts of home and hearth or could go to school. They have been on the move like gypsies from one place to the other to save themselves from the chasing hounds. Their parents have aged faster due to malnourishment and fatigue. Most suicide bombers are teenagers whose age range between 12-16 years.
This rag-tag force of Pashtuns that was supposedly uprooted and defeated in December 2001 and declared as worthless people has miraculously turned the tables on the occupiers of their land through sheer dint of determination and raw courage. With backs against the wall, they put their lives at stake since they had nothing to lose and nothing to own. Hardly a day passes without an offensive act. It was expected that their surge would get diluted after two troop surges, but not only the upsurge of Taliban has continued, casualty rate of ISAF has gone very high since 2009.
The Taliban have managed to gain upper edge over almost 70- 80% of Afghan territory and control of ISAF is confined to major urban centres only. Security incidents are up by 39% in the first eight months of this year compared to previous year. They have become so daring that they are now striking targets inside most heavily defended cities of Kandahar and Kabul. Their most stunning attack was on US Embassy, NATO HQ and National Directorate of Security on 13 September. It implies that the Pashtuns that have suffered grievously are sympathetic towards the cause of Taliban and that the Taliban might have gained understanding of Pashtun elements within ANA and Police. Back channel peace talks might have helped the Taliban to develop links with security contractors and government officials.
Murder of Tajik origin Burhanuddin Rabbani on 20 September has given a deathblow to peace efforts and has almost sealed Karzai-Taliban contact channel, making Karzai heart broken. Kabul which is the most fortified and defended city has become vulnerable, which is a cause of great vexation and worry for ISAF and ANA. The ANA which the US and British trainers have been training since long at a heavy cost is proving to be a brittle entity. The situation has become extremely grave since the drawdown of troops has already begun and seven cities including Kabul have been handed over to ANA. By the end of this year 10,000 US soldiers would be out of Afghanistan and another 23000 by next summer.
During five-year stint in power of Taliban, notwithstanding their extremist policies, they had many good things to their credit. However, vicious US-western media campaign not only demonized the Taliban but the whole lot of Pashtuns in Afghanistan and the ones residing in FATA. Despite the fact that all Taliban are Pashtuns but all Pashtuns are not Taliban, a misperception was built that all Afghan Pashtuns were bad boys. It is now that good boys are being found from within them, but not to benefit them but to divide the Pashtuns.
Now that the pullout has commenced since last July, the foreign troops are in no mood to risk their lives. They want to return home safe and sound and in stable mental condition. 70% of Americans are against the war and want an early end. The home pressure coupled with presidential election date drawing near has resulted in a tiff between Obama administration and Pentagon. The former miffed with the military for not delivering even after receiving heavy consignment of reinforcement twice, desire on time completion of withdrawal of all troops if not earlier. Karzai who was getting closer to Pakistan has got jittery after the setbacks on military and political fronts and has decisively gravitated towards India. He has once again reverted to his old acrimonious attitude towards Pakistan. He is now seeking security from India, EU and has also got inclined towards the US idea of American troops retaining military bases after 2014.  
Pentagon, US command in Kabul, CIA, India, Israel and Karzai regime are not in favor of drawdown and want the troops to stay at least till victory is achieved and Taliban are forced to negotiate from position of weakness. The US Corporations also want prolongation of war till accomplishment of their profit-making objectives. None of these players as well as Russia, China, Iran and neighboring Central Asian States wants the Taliban to regain power and would like the current dispensation to continue with Taliban at best becoming the junior partner. Knowing that they are in a better bargaining position, the Taliban are not ready to negotiate with the US or with Karzai regime and that too on conditions imposed by USA, and want early withdrawal of all foreign troops. Since they were forcefully and illegally removed from power by the aggressors, they consider it their right to return to power since they represent the Pashtuns who are in great majority. 
Pakistan and possibly China, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Turkey and some others may not object to Pashtuns returning to power through democratic process, provided they refrain from pursuing extremist policies and sheltering terrorists of other countries. Pakistan feels that the Pashtuns having gone through trials and tribulations must have learnt many lessens and would show greater maturity and prudence so as not to get isolated from the world comity. It considers that demographic factor as provided for by international law and democratic principles give Pashtuns the right to form the next government. Had the US not snatched this right, it may not have landed itself in such a dire strait. Pakistan will feel more comfortable with Pashtun led government in Kabul, but sees little scope to build friendly relations with pro-India and anti-Pakistan non-Pashtun Northern Alliance regime in Kabul. This however, doesn’t imply that all Afghan non-Pashtuns are anti-Pakistan.

READ MORE

Drone Laws and US Outlaws

Posted by Admin On Friday, 14 October 2011 0 comments

THE killing in Yemen of Anwar al-Awlaki and three al-Qaeda associates by a drone on September 30th has caused far more fuss in America than previous drone attacks. The reason...



THE killing in Yemen of Anwar al-Awlaki and three al-Qaeda associates by a drone on September 30th has caused far more fuss in America than previous drone attacks. The reason is that al-Awlaki and one of his fellows were American citizens. Few will mourn al-Awlaki’s passing. But such apparently extra-judicial executions provoke three broad questions. Are drone strikes compatible with the laws of war? Was this killing legal? And, whatever the legality, is this system of meting out justice compatible with America’s longer-term interests? Our answers are yes, maybe and no.
The use of drones has increased dramatically, especially under Barack Obama (see article). Many people find the computer-games aspect of what the Pentagon likes to call “Unmanned Aerial Systems” creepy, but drones are much better than manned aircraft at hunting fleeting targets. They have the endurance to loiter patiently, so their remote pilots can pick the moment to release their missiles when there is both the greatest chance of success and the least risk to innocent bystanders.
Moreover, as this newspaper has argued before, armed drones do not undermine the rules of war. Ethical worries may mount in the future, especially if the armed forces ask for permission to give their machines greater autonomy. But for the moment they remain conventional weapons, with humans subject to the conventional tests that their action be discriminate and proportionate. The remote-pilot in, say, Nevada who pushed the button that killed al-Awlaki is as answerable for his actions as the pilot in the cockpit of a fast jet; and so are the drone pilot’s commanders—right up to Mr Obama himself.
In Pakistan, drone strikes are conducted to support a counter-insurgency operation. Al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen, not in a war zone. The president’s defenders claim that strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters are legal under the September 2001 Authorisation to Use Military Force Act, which allows Mr Obama to employ “all necessary and appropriate force” against any country, organisation or person involved in the September 11th attacks or “to prevent future acts of international terrorism”. They add that killing a man who is plotting to kill Americans is a legitimate act of self-defence, given that al-Awlaki was in a country that was unable to act against him.
A time to reflect
From this perspective, America has a prima facie case that it acted legally. But that argument clearly needs to be tested. It is not just that international law, which surely applies in this case, is less generous towards targeted assassination. There are questions to be asked even under American law. What precisely, for instance, were the grounds for killing the other American jihadist, a website editor against whom the evidence seems less definitive? More information is needed. And is the president’s right to place an individual on a “kill or capture list” greater than that individual’s constitutional right to due process? The Supreme Court should look at this rapidly.
Finally there is the impact on America’s broader aims. Just as Guantánamo was against America’s interests though judged legal by some American courts, so targeted assassination may cause more problems than it solves. Although drones have decimated al-Qaeda, they have also helped to destabilise Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country of 190m Muslims. Nobody wants to make America’s “long war” even longer.
Two things would make America’s conduct somewhat less controversial. First, all drone killings should be carried out by the armed forces, not the CIA: they must be part of the conventional chain of command. And second, there should be some system of formal judicial review to determine whether the evidence against someone is sufficiently strong to make that person a target for assassination. One American commentator, Harlan Ullman, has suggested using the secret courts that meet to authorise domestic surveillance as a model.
America has a potent new weapon. Now it needs to adapt it to its principles.
    READ MORE

    No Peace Without Pakistan

    Posted by Admin On 0 comments

    The current US-Pakistan relations are being driven by the Indo-US desire to completely eliminatePakistan’s influence in post-US Afghanistan. India is preparing to take over the reins of Kabul’s de facto government from the...





    The Passive Voices




    The current US-Pakistan relations are being driven by the Indo-US desire to completely eliminatePakistan’s influence in post-US Afghanistan. India is preparing to take over the reins of Kabul’s de facto government from the US. A very well authored script is being played out to discredit Pakistan and its human and material sacrifices in War on Terror. To strengthen anti-Pakistan perception being created by the media, stage-managed events are unfolding which include unfortunate assassination of Professor Rabbani. But can Pakistan’s role in the post-US Afghanistanbe totally eliminated? What would be the consequences of any such ill-conceived plans? Pakistan is Afghanistan’s immediate neighbor and both the countries share a porous border called Durand Line. The tribes on both sides of the border are not only ethnically related, they have family ties. In some cases, families are divided on both sides. These are ethnic Pashtun tribes which incidentally constitute the ethnic majority of Afghanistan and have always been ruling the country. Afghanistan has been a favorite playground for the players of the Great Game since 17th century. In those days, the competition between Tsarist and Communist Russia and the British government for Central Asia made Afghanistan a deadly battle ground, and graveyard, for the occupation army of Britain. The USSR, a super power, wrote its complete disintegration in the battlegrounds of Afghanistan in 1980s. America first entered Afghanistan to counter Soviet encroachment.  Ten years ago, the United States launched a military effort in the country to inhibital Qaeda actions, to end the draconian rule of the Taliban and to help the country establish free democratic institutions. The evidence suggests that the US has not been able to achieve its objectives through its Afghanistan (mis)adventure. It has now decided to withdraw from Afghanistan. If Afghanistan misadventure was a deadly blunder of Bush regime, the troops’ draw-down at this stage will be a deadliest mistake. If America withdraws from Afghanistan before the country establishes a stable democratic government, it creates the opportunity for radical groups such as al Qaeda and/or the Taliban to return and dominate the government, undercutting US goals. Pakistan, which shares a long border with Afghanistan, has a vested interest in the stability of Afghanistan.  According to Washington Times, an unfriendly government in Kabul creates difficulties in terms of regional issues, border disputes, border control, easy access to Pakistan by Afghan radicals, trade problems and a host of other issues. Moreover, the growing insurgency in the provinces bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan costs Pakistan in both manpower and financial expenditures. Pakistan and Afghanistan relations are tense, partially because Pakistan believes Afghanistan and India actively work against Islamabad.  Pakistan points to the Afghanistan vote against its accession to the United Nations – the only country not to support its inclusion – as evidence of anti-Pakistan sentiment. Afghanistan and the United States claim Pakistan has supported the Taliban and fueled the Afghan insurgency because it believes the Taliban represents stability.  Currently,Pakistan provides refuge to more than three million Pashtuns who fled Afghanistan after Russian invasion. If Pakistan continues to see itself outside the process in Afghanistan, it will have to defend its own interests in the region.  This could include political and material support for those groups Pakistan believes are friendly and provide stability.  If Pakistan returns the three million Pashtun refuges to a fragile Afghanistan, for example, it could tip momentum toward the return of a Taliban government, undercutting US objectives in the country. If Pakistan sees a political vacuum in Afghanistan after NATO forces withdraw, it will be forced to fill that void to keep other regional powers from gaining power in Afghanistan and avoid further problems on its borders. Very simply, an Afghanistan without the participation of Pakistan will remain fragile. Currently,Pakistan is a buffer state between terrorism and the rest of the world. If it does not have a say in the future Kabul dispensation, it will be pushed to wall and will not be able to stop the terror from reaching the shores of Europe, USA and other developed states. If India starts meddling in Afghanistan in the hope to control the future Afghan government, it will have to pay a very heavy price. India is supporting only the Northern Alliance, an ethnic minority in Afghanistan and is hated by the Pashtun majority. Its role, whatsoever, in otherwise distant Afghanistan in the hope to encircle Pakistan and  keep China away from the region, will not be acceptable to the Pashtun majority. Any power brokering by India will keep Afghanistan, and the entire region, destabilized and will leave the world at the mercy of extremists and terrorists.
    READ MORE

    Long War: At Cost of Pakistan

    Posted by Admin On 0 comments

    Visit the US, there is no sign of any threat or attack, life goes like routine with no shade of war anywhere. Here in Pakistan, there is no road or street that does not have barricades, security checks and all sorts of problems that the people face. The entire thrust has come on Pakistan for no fault of hers. Bush and company have made billions, killed people in hundreds of thousands with no swet on their faces.
    By Wahab Munir Qureshi
    9/11 will always be remembered as a day which changed the course of history. Pakistan joined the US in its so-called war against terror and implicitly signed the treaty of gradual but assured destruction. It was later revealed by Gen. (R) Musharraf, then President of Pakistan, how United States of America threatened Pakistan to join coalition forces or face dire consequences. He in his interview with CBS news show "60 Minutes" said that after the September 11 attacks the United States threatened to bomb Pakistan if it did not cooperate with America's war campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan. He further elaborated that the threat came from AssistantSecretary of State Richard Armitage and was conveyed to Musharraf's intelligence director. "The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age".
    Now ten years down the road it’s worth analyzing how Pakistan has been affected economically and militarily, both at the regional and international levels due to this long war; the war against terror.  Primarily, it was the economic aspect which influenced decision makers more then anything else to join the US in its world wide campaign against terror. It was estimated that the cost of this war to Pakistan would be $2.669 billion dollars. This was calculated on Pakistan’s assumptions that:
    • The war that had begun on 7th Oct 2001 would end swiftly by December 2001.
    • Normalcy would return on track from January 2001
    • The Taliban government would be ousted and a low intensity fight would continue, but this would not affect the economy of Pakistan significantly
    • The additional increase in freight cargo and war premium would be removed. It is obvious that the Pakistani ruling elite of that time failed to foresee the actual implications of joining the US-led camp.
    • The cost of war which was estimated to be about $ 2.669 billon, actually reached up to $ 67.926 billon; war was suppose to end within two months, but intense fighting continued and is still underway, and it is not expected to end anytime soon.
    • Taliban which were suppose to be ousted by January 2002 are still having shadowgovernments in 32 out of 34 provinces of Afghanistan. Therefore, it’s important to analyze how Pakistan’s economy has suffered over the years. This war has transformed a prestigious Pakistani nation into a nation of the downtrodden, where scholars and intellectuals spend most of their time and energies in accusing the great powers of not contributing significantly in return for Pakistan’s sacrifices in this war.
    Now coming back to the economic losses that Pakistan has incurred in this so called war against terror, is almost $70 billion – equivalent to almost half of the country’s total debt. In financial year 2010-11, Pakistan has lost $17.83 billion, equivalent to this year’s tax target; reported by Economic Survey of Pakistan. These losses do not include the damages on account of a recent attack on Pakistan Navy base in Karachi, destroying two surveillances aircraft; the P3C-Orion and other affiliated losses. 63 percent Pakistanis surveyed in June 2008 expressed that they felt less secure than they did just one year ago. This has resulted in hiring private security; measures have been taken to tighten the security all along the country. Pakistani society is gradually being transformed into an army bunker. Its roads, hotels, hospitals, schools, colleges, factories, mosques, markets, and even parks are insecure. All the security measures that have taken place could have been avoided, if Pakistani government could have made the right choice at the right time. 86 percent of Pakistanis who were surveyed believed their country was headed in the wrong direction, and 72 percent believed their personal economic situation had worsened in the past year.
    Economic losses can be divided into two broad categories, tangible and intangible losses. Tangible losses are of two types, direct economic losses and indirect economic losses. Direct economic losses are those which are more visible, measureable, and easy to correlate, where as, intangible losses are invisible and difficult to correlate and measure in monetary terms. 
    It was the first time in the history of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations that Pakistan had a friendly government on its second longest boarder, with the Taliban in power. After joining the long war, Pakistan for the first time felt the need to secure its western boarders, as US was occupying Kabul and was transmitting instability into Pakistan. Pakistan was forced to deploy its army and its first soldiers stepped into the territory which has never been conquered and proven to be the grave yard for two super powers. Billions of dollars have already been spent, along with the loss of some 4000 army personnel’s lives in securing our western borders. On the contrary, this money could have been utilized for other productive purposes like generating electricity, building dams etc which, in turn, could have boosted economic activities in the country. In an IMF report, it is estimated that Pakistan has suffered losses of more then 2080 trillion rupees in “war against terror”. Opening a new front and mobilization of Pakistan’s army to western boarders makes the country’s eastern boarders more vulnerable to Indian hostilities and aggression, which for now is deterred primarily due to Pakistan’s outstanding nuclear and missile capabilities. Pakistan has had to deal with a large number of pressing challenges in its military campaign in Swat and Waziristan but has emerged successful despite lack of resources. Now America is threatening Pakistan to start another military operation against the alleged presence of Haqqani group in Pakistan. While Pakistani officials have denied the presence of any such group on its territory, Sirajj-ud-din Haqqani has also denied their presence in Pakistan. Afghanistan is a safe heaven for those people who are working against the American intervention in Afghanistan, as 32 provinces are still under the rule of Shadow government of Taliban.     
    Pakistan’s economy has been damaged badly over to its involvement in the war on terror and its dependence on foreign aid and services has increase. This reduces its ability to become self efficient and also forces it to make compromises on its sovereignty, which is an integral part of modern nation-state system. Money given to Pakistan in the name of aid doesn’t even compensate the tenth of the losses it has occurred. US remains the main provider of aid to Pakistan, under heads like Economic Assistance, USAID, Military Assistance, Coalition Support Funds, Kerry Looger bill, etc. But large parts of this aid remain conditional and are meant for specific purposes which serve the interest of the US. Moreover, this aid is distributed through NGOs, which shows the level of trust US has on its front line coalition partner. In fact, this aid has proven to be poisonous for Pakistan’s economy, its GDP drops from 4.3% to 2.3% in ten years. Pakistan, by joining US led war on terror has entered into hostile relations with domestic and regional actors. In other words, the very act of becoming a front line ally of US, has jeopardized Pakistan’s security and economic existence. This has led to the creation of a law an order situation in Pakistan; deaths of around 35,000 innocent people, thousand wounded, and billions of dollars of property losses.   

    Huge sums of money are spent to improve the internal security of the country. CDA for example is planning to replace concrete blocks with automatic road blockers in Islamabad. The project will cost around Rs1.5 billion. Now, you may not come across any gate without a security guards, holding a gun in his one hand and a metal detector in other; in front of walk through gate, behind security fence. This setup is now quite common in the country, but was never witnessed before 9/11. Country’s five star hotels are now converted into virtual bunkers with a small army of security guards. Similar setups are witnessed in schools, offices, factories and elsewhere. All these security measure need money, man power, and time which could otherwise be utilized to advance economic activities. Furthermore, these security measures make people insecure and act as a hurdle for foreign investors and investment.

    It may be noted here that 4510 out of 9000 officials of Islamabad Police have been deployed with the VVIPs and politicians to provide them with fool-proof security, whereas, the remaining force is deployed in the various departments of police including police stations, traffic police, CID etc. Similar setup is witnessed across country. This, in turn results in fewer number of law enforcing personals actually performing their duties of protecting common citizens which allows criminals to conduct their activities and escape as police force is busy in protecting elite. This results in instability and discourages economic activities. The government needs to realize that such an environment is not conducive for domestic and foreign investment. While domestic investors are thinking of investing elsewhere, foreign investors are also disheartened by such developments.       
    Economic losses of Pakistan in “war against terror” are much more then merely economic losses, even though the aid given to Pakistan is marginal and conditional, and loses can not be measured in monetary terms. In contrast to $67.9 billion in losses, the United States has so far given $13 billion in aid to Pakistan, of which almost $9 billion are military disbursements and $4 billion in net civilian aid. The total amount is less than what Pakistan suffered in losses in fiscal year 2010-11 alone. Now it is quite obvious that Pakistan’s involvement in the war on terror has had detrimental consequences for Pakistan’s economy. If Pakistan had decided to stay away from this long war as Iran did, then Pakistan might have been in a better and stable economic position.  
    After analyzing the gains and losses that Pakistan has had to bear in the past ten long years, it has become obvious that the longer we’ll stay in this war, the more we are going to lose. Now its time to review our foreign policy and to avail the opportunity given to us by the Americans themselves to exit from “war on terror”. Pakistan is under pressure to start military operations against Haqqani group, whereas Haqqani group in not a banned or terrorist organization as yet. It has never carried out any act of violence in Pakistan. Its struggle is mainly against the American occupation of Afghanistan. Pakistan must develop a more regional cooperation approach focusing on China, Russia, Central Asia, Iran, ASEAN and rest of Muslim world. The longer Pakistan will stay in US camp, the more we are going to hurt our national interest. US is supposed to exit from Afghanistan in 2014, and without a shadow of doubt, Taliban will emerge as the most powerful and determinant actor in Afghanistan’s politics. Pakistan must try to rebuild working relations with its neighbors to secure its national interest and to safeguard against the Indian influence in Afghanistan.

    READ MORE

    Pakistan: Fighting Terrorism

    Posted by Admin On Thursday, 13 October 2011 0 comments

    "Terrorism cannot be fought without addressing the root cause that is denial of justice, opportunities and reduction of gap between the rich and the poor. Slogans do not fill the empty stomachs or provide jobs etc." Raja Mujtaba
    By Sobia Hanif
    Almost a decade has gone by since our involvement in the US-led war on terror and today we are more vulnerable to acts of terrorism and violence than we ever were. In recent years the trend of growing terrorism has shifted from previously hard hit areas such as KPK and FATA to urban centers where it was previously least expected. Now major cities and sensitive locations are under greatest threat. In 2009, terrorists concentrated their activities in KPK but in 2010, Lahore became the hub of terrorist attacks. This year also, we have seen terrorists relocating and strengthening their positions, and regaining control of areas where they were fast losing influence. In a report to the Congress on October 2, 2011, President Obama informed its members that ‘Pakistan’s counter-terrorism measures had failed to yield results this year with insurgent activities gaining ground’. While many in the Pakistani establishment could easily brush aside US criticism by accusing it of conducting propaganda against Pakistan, one must also not forget that Pakistan for its part has yet to devise a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. While acknowledging Pakistan’s sacrifices and its sincerity in trying to up-root terrorism, we need to realize that our counter-terrorism strategies are not as effective as we would have liked them to be. If that had been the case the ten years down the road, Pakistan would have been a much safer place than it is today. Therefore, it is only sagacious to search for loopholes within our strategies and devise methods which can effectively thwart terrorist attacks and eventually eliminate the menace of terrorism from the Pakistani society.
    The phenomena of terrorism in Pakistan, is not only extremely complex but also multi-layered. At its heart, there are issues such as conflict of ideologies; whose brand of Islam is right and how to have this brand imposed on others. The recent treacherous killing of members of the Shia Hazara community in Balouchistan indicates a surge in sectarian violence in the country which must not only be condemned but also met with an iron fist. But the issue is not all religious or sectarian. A sense of bereavement and depravity, a lack of belongingness, a frail political establishment and overpowering military not to mention the avarice of an unwholesome few who play the pawn in the hands of external agents, have created a monster which is difficult to contain and almost impossible to eliminate. In the past decade or so, the citizens of Pakistan have witnessed a gradual but assured destruction of its assets. Ascending terrorist activities have not only snatched away a sense of security and economic well being but has also hurt our pride and standing in the world. While on one hand, Pakistan is struggling to tackle internal security threats, on the other hand, it is combating a war of perceptions on the international front. It is constantly being bombarded with allegations of duplicity in the war on terror, ignoring the bitter reality that Pakistan has suffered the most in all respects during the course of this long war. The world community must understand Pakistan’s genuine security concerns amidst US with drawl from Afghanistan in the near future. Neither do we want history to repeat itself nor can we change our neighbours.
    As the menace of terrorism continues to wreck this country apart, the political establishment has decided to let the military deal with the issue on its own which relies mainly on a four-tier approach; clear, hold, develop and disintegrate. As yet, the first two stages of this approach are underway while the latter two cannot be carried out without a favourable public opinion and support. The Chief of the Army Staff, Gen Kiyani rightly remarked during the National De-radicalization Conference held in Swat in July this year that ‘there is no military solution to terrorism’. Therefore, the government needs to re evaluate its present policies on counter-terrorism and adopt substantial measures to compliment the army and other security forces in their efforts to eradicate terrorism.
    While Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has advocated for a ‘Triple D’ approach which comprises of Dialogue, development and deterrence, it is yet to see an implementation. The government ought to devise a counter-terrorism strategy based on a holistic approach whereby the root causes of terrorism are addressed, coupled with an effective military campaign and collective regional and international efforts to dismantle terrorist networks in the country. In this respect, Pakistan may learn from the experience of regional states such as Sri Lanka which successfully defeated the LTTE (Liberation Tigers OF Tamil Ealam) in 2009.
    Enduring efforts by successive governments to resolve the issue politically coupled an effective military campaign eventually ended the 26 years old armed conflict which resulted in the loss of more than 80,000 lives, with hundreds of thousands internally displaced. In this regard, Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari and his Sri Lankan counterpart, Mahindra Rajapaksa agreed to coordinate efforts against terrorism and promote intelligence sharing for greater regional peace. Pakistan agreed to learn from the Sri Lankan experience of countering terrorism. However, despite optimism, we have yet to witness the fruits of such cooperation. Having already lost more than 35,000 lives, it is high time that we devise and follow a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy by accepting the fact that terrorism is hollowing out the foundations of this great nation and providing a justification to hostile external agents to sit and gloat about the realization of their vile designs.
    READ MORE

    US In “Bermuda Triangle”

    Posted by Admin On 0 comments

    A Way Out for You Uncle Sam
    By Jawad Raza Khan
    We have recently finished 10 years of US intervention in Afghanistan, in connection to a man hunt, and for chaining a socio-political ideology against the western world. Without wasting time on conspiracy theories and going into the details of gains and losses of Afghan occupation, it’s time to precisely evaluate situation in hand, especially on the eve of American planned withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Strategic military philosophers will indeed agree to this point that withdrawal of troops from a lawless piece of land requires more deliberate planning then its occupation. If the required weightage is not given to this strategic move, the results coming up will resemble the troubled African lands and previous Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. It is quoted by a senior intelligence officer from Pakistan that even General Zia ul Haq the architect of Soviet defeat was was not in favour of immediate Soviet withdrawal after tough Afghan resistance, in fact, he was sensing anarchy in Afghanistan in the wake of immediate Soviet withdrawal and was foreseeing very serious implications on Pakistan. He opposed the Geneva accord without the participation of Afghan Mujahideen.
    The situation, region and players are identical with US replacing Soviet Union in troubled Afghanistan now. US exit scenarios are recently discussed in high profile forum under a German Policy Research Institute Hanns Siedel Foundation in Islamabad. The most disturbing portion of the seminar was its conclusion, as it ended in more confusing state, then it was, before the start of the said activity. One thing which was appreciated, discussed and deduced very comprehensively was that Afghans alone must be given a chance to decide their future after the US exit from their homeland and that is certainly a very positive sign. On the other hand it is more than evident that in this global village, chain reactions of the international and regional powers cannot be ruled out in totality, especially in the presence of active, effective and importantly effected regional powers in the disturbed zone.
    A Senior Taliban leader just after US invasion in 2001 addressed the west “yes! You have the clock but we have time”. The past 10 years have indeed shown the qualification of the said statement, as now US in complete confusion, has now planned its phased withdrawal in 2014. Correct assessment of situation right at the start of WOT launched by US forces, made Taliban to defend Mazar Sharif for more than three months but after the planned withdrawal  of Taliban it took only three days for Northern Alliance to reach Kabul.  Taliban withdrew in the face of sophisticated technology and supreme air power of US, as they were not capable to hold their troops together in a pitched battle scenario. Playing on their own strength, the guerilla warfare, Taliban withdrawn intact and has once again made the world realize that conflicts in Afghanistan are required to be seen with different goggles on.
    Using ethnic divide of Afghanistan has not ever brought results for any military power as far as the dynamics of Afghanistan is concerned, US has certainly gave it yet another try by weaponing Northern Alliance with Tajiks given the lead role. On the other hand, critically observing the Afghans societal make up; these people have been living together since ages and it was only after Soviet Intervention which militarized the ethnic texture of the Afghan society.
    Coming over to the US situation in the Quagmire; US forces are in control of 10% of Afghanistan with completely fragile situation in the red zone of Capital Kabul; The most important pillar of any insurgency operation “The security” has been outsourced to all war lords including Taliban; US is paying heavy amount to Afghan warlords including Taliban for the safety passage of their military supplies for their sustainability in Kabul; US has been forced to talk about negotiating with Taliban; Karzai has lost faith of his countrymen nearly in totality; US is on the verge of losing yet another strategic partner by involving in blame throwing against its top spy agency; Perception management is getting more and more difficult; Taliban gaining strength day by day; Elections in Afghanistan are recorded as more rigged than the previous one, no faith of Afghans on own institutions. The situation is even bleaker, if we keep the downward trend of US economy into perspective, with military failing to achieve some sort of control in the capital (Kabul) alone.
    Every problem has the solution however, the right intent and correct mindset to pursue that intent is the pre-requisite to pass the bog. US administration needs to ask question within their selves to grow the appropriate catharsis. Is Taliban a political entity? If no why the most powerful Army in the world couldn’t do its job in 10 years? If yes, than why US wants to engage in a political dialogue with Taliban covertly, why not to declare a whole some unilateral cease fire in Afghanistan and then come on the negotiating table? Why not call for elections after getting the desired peace in the wake of the said cease fire? Why not to get UN support in getting Armies from Muslim world to monitor the fairness of the said elections? And why not to announce immediate withdrawal of US troops after handing over the power to the legal government of Afghanistan?
    The only problem I see in this course of action is that US will be confessing its defeat in Afghanistan officially and that’s the only impediment troubling the self-esteem of world’s super power. While I was writing these lines I was updated by a news channel that Ms Hillary Clinton is ready to talk with all Afghan including Haqqanis. This statement is an endorsement on Pakistan’s correct perspective of Afghan turmoil, if this is right for US, how it can be fatal for Pakistan.
    Truth has to be faced one day or the other, but, the problem here is very intelligently highlighted by ex-British Prime minister.  
    Winston Churchill said "In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies". 
    READ MORE

    Telling Lies in Democratic Pakistan!

    Posted by Admin On Tuesday, 11 October 2011 0 comments

    NOTES FROM A SOCIAL SCIENTIST
    By Dr. Haider Mehdi
    Ey parto khurshid jehan-tab idher bi
    Siye ki tarh, hum pay ajab waqt para hai
    (O World-illuminating Sun! Cast your splendor here (on us, in this direction) too;
     A strange time, like a shadow, has come upon us)
                                                              Ghalib – Translation,  Aijaz Ahmad
    The Urdu metaphor “is hammam meh sab nange hain” (everyone here is involved in the shameless charade of evil and weakness) fits perfectly to the prevailing conditions of Pakistan’s ailing and suffering democracy. Political democracy, which is, in principle and essence, a system of governance to work for public welfare, enhancement of democratic institutions and people’s participation in decision-making at all levels of society, is being manipulated to serve the personal interests of the vested political class. Indeed, it is not a new political phenomenon; however, the pursuit of democratic ideals has never been betrayed like this before. Today’s Pakistan lives in a permanent state of political promiscuity.
    Zardari-Gilani regime and its coalition allies, distrusted, disrespected, considered unscrupulous and unclean politically, unchaste and wanton in political morality, disowned by the majority of Pakistani people, seems to be completely unaware and uncaring of the public sentiment. The Zardari presidency considers “politics” a game of chess: the overall purpose is to “win” at all cost against adversaries and to remain entrenched in political power for years to come – the nation is of no consequence with its multiplying and destructive problematics as long as political power remains vested in the PPP’s present leadership and its future dynastic plans. And yet, ironically, the “jialas” claim that the PPP and its leadership are serving the democratic interests of Pakistani masses – unmindful of the calamitous and critical state of affairs into which this regime has pushed the country. This nation has never been lied to before vis-à-vis ground realities with this level of consistency and gross political deception. 
    The entire nation knows that drone assaults against Pakistan’s own citizens are being conducted with the explicit complicity of the incumbent regime in Islamabad. The Prime Minister himself is rumored to have told the former US ambassador in Pakistan to continue the drone attacks while his government looks the other way – protesting for public consumption. Sad, is it not? How much more unscrupulous can a political administration be?
    Every citizen of this country is aware of the fact that Pakistan does not exercise an independent foreign policy. What we have is a “master-slave” relationship with the US and its allies even to the extent that the appointments of senior Pakistani diplomats and military commanders are tactically approved in Washington and London. Whatever the dimensions of the remaining foreign relation dynamics, the Pakistani army exercises virtual control over them. The total absence of civilian control over foreign affairs is an open secret in Pakistan. And yet, the incumbent regime in Islamabad continues to keep a deceptive attitude and unscrupulous charade of silence over its lack of democratic control and growing foreign intervention in Pakistan’s domestic and external affairs. Shameful, is it not? How far can this nation tolerate the unending violations of its sovereignty, dignity and national pride?
    Most Pakistanis now seem to realize that Zardari-Gilani government is a national liability. The President’s and the Prime Minister’s approval ratings are dismal:  people have lost faith in the government’s ability, competence and handling of the economy: the national crisis is mounting and this regime’s failures are staring the nation in its face. And yet, Asif Ali Zardari is wholeheartedly focused on the political witchcraft of reconciliation with other discredited traditional leaderships, in a “numbers game” to win March 2012 senate elections. The irony in this entire “gameplan” is that the voice of the masses and their democratic aspirations are entirely disregarded in this willful and deceitful political manipulation. The fact of the matter is that given this regime’s three and a half year less-than-marginal performance and overall failures, it should have voluntarily resigned; that is how parliamentary democracies work. But political witchcraft is still a thriving art in the ruling circles of Pakistan, inclusive of other major parties and their leaderships.
    In most democracies these kinds of allegations (corruption, financial irregularities and political mismanagement in domestic and foreign relations) would surely be enough to remove a regime from political power. Yet, although the Zardari-Gilani position has collapsed to untenable parameters, the PPP leadership is busy consolidating its political control for an extended period in the future. How has this become a possibility?
    Ask common Pakistanis and they will tell you of their distrust in the major opposition party and its leadership in the present political set-up. They will lament that Pakistan is in financial, economic, political, social, cultural and diplomatic turmoil – at the verge of becoming a failed state.  They also are fearful of being declared a terrorist state by none other than their own allies. And people place the blame of the impending crisis squarely on the main opposition party, the PML(N) and its leadership, for failing to play their democratic role in the parliamentary system. The majority of Pakistanis question the secretly arranged PML(N) and PPP alliance, the PML(N) leadership’s tactical approach to not challenge the incompetence of the PPP, looking the other way at the chain of embarrassing PPP financial scandals and non-compliance of the Supreme Court’s judgments, all under the PML(N)’s false pretext of saving the democratic system. A sizeable portion of the Pakistani population will reveal that a trust-deficit has evolved in public perception over a period of time in PML(N)’s politics of duplicity. They also have apprehensions of the PML(N)’s recent “darnas” and public “jalsahs,” viewing them as not only reactionary tactics to counter Zardari’s political moves to make the PML(N) leadership irrelevant  but also as an intangible response to Imran Khan’s rising popularity, especially in Punjab.
    Indeed, there are obvious elements of truth in all of these public perceptions.
    The PML(N) leadership would be well advised to revamp its political strategic approach to remain relevant in Pakistan’s political spectrum. The trouble is that the PML(N) leadership is still conducting itself with the mindset of 1980s politics: they have failed in appreciating the expanding political awareness of the Pakistani masses. So the question is: Why should the PML(N) (or for that matter any other political party with such an approach to Pakistani politics) remain politically relevant in an age of political transformation ? They should not and will not.
    As for Zardari’s political summersaults and manipulations, the PPP will be swept away in the political storm that is brewing in the hearts of Pakistani people.
    The people’s revolution is in the making! It is only a matter of time! Telling lies in Pakistan’s politics will soon become self-destructive!
    READ MORE