Area 14/8: A Case of National Social Ignorance

By Z. Feroze
Area 14/8

As our nation in tatters cries out for a savior through the crevices of a skeptical general election, everyone seems to have something to say. While a number of analysts and PTI supporters tend to rationalize the despair through baseless discourses such as ‘An illiterate nation chose an illiterate leader’ and the more plausible, ‘the elections were rigged. What a rotten, corrupt system’, the trends of a loquacious and influential social media are left out. So let me ask, what is this social media? How did it become into a dreadful Lernaean Hydra that cannot be beheaded through a run-of-the-mill sword? Also, is there anything remotely Herculean about Mian saab?

Read more…

ANP: Never say die!

By Benazir Shah
ZoneAsia-Pk

HE’S LOST 819 OF HIS PARTY COLLEAGUES TO TERRORISM, AND SURVIVED AN ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT IN 2008. WE RECENTLY SPOKE WITH ASFANDYAR WALI KHAN, CHIEF OF THE TALIBAN-THREATENED AWAMI NATIONAL PARTY, WHICH GOVERNED KHYBER-PAKHTUNKHWA PROVINCE UNTIL MARCH, ABOUT SATURDAY’S ELECTIONS AND MORE. EXCERPTS:

The ANP has been mercilessly attacked by the Taliban in the run-up to the elections. As a result your party has been unable to campaign freely. At any point, did you consider not participating in the May 11 polls?

In the last four years, our party has lost a total of 819 workers. Why are we being targeted? Simple: [the Pakistani Taliban] want to keep us out of the elections. For Pakistan these are not just any elections, the new Parliament will have to deal with 2014, when NATO and ISAF forces withdraw from the region. When 2014 comes around, they do not want liberal people to be in the government. These forces want a free hand to do whatever they want, but they will not keep us out. This is not just a war between ANP and the Taliban or Asfandyar Wali and [Taliban kingpin] Hakimullah Mehsud, this is a war between two mindsets. The liberal, progressive, and democratic are on one side. On the other end are those who ruled Afghanistan and later surfaced in Swat. If we back off now, we let them win. The more the elections are delayed, the more bloodshed there will be. It is not going to get any better.

How is your party campaigning?

We cannot run advertisements like the other parties. We just don’t have that kind of money. It is common knowledge how much these [cable news] channels charge for broadcasting ads. Our local workers move door to door. The day Haroon and Ghulam Ahmed Bilour were attacked in Peshawar [on April 16], we lost 17 workers. The very next day pamphlets were distributed in the city warning people not to hoist any flags of the ANP or display its posters and stickers. And the same evening in Peshawar, Nowshera, Charsadda, Swabi, and Mardan our party circulated thousands of stickers. The stickers had the party’s [electoral] symbol on it, which is the lantern, and a slogan, “Country or Coffin.”

Your partner parties the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and Pakistan Peoples Party have also been specifically targeted by the Taliban.

There is some misunderstanding. ANP has not gone into an electoral alliance with the MQM. PPP, MQM, and ANP have borne the brunt of terrorist attacks. We thought that if we got together to raise our voice against the bloodshed, the impact would be different. But let me clarify, again, that this is not an electoral alliance. It might not help the situation, but the three of us share an enemy. The people of Pakistan had been fooled for a very long time in believing that Karachi is the turf of the MQM and ANP. Now at least everyone knows the truth.

Is it accurate to say that the bloodshed in Karachi over the past five years is a result of turf wars among militias affiliated with the ANP, MQM, and PPP?

If I had a Pakhtun militant wing in Karachi, would I be targeted the way I am today? Please do not push us to the wall. That is my biggest fear. Do not push us to a situation where we decide to defend ourselves. The day we start defending ourselves, things are going to take a very ugly turn! If I had a militant wing in Karachi, I don’t think anyone would have had the guts to attack me.

‘The true referee of the electoral showdown is Hakimullah Mehsud.’

Will election results accurately reflect voters’ choice?

Let me make it very clear, ANP has been shoved into a wrestling ring with its hands tied. The opponents stand across from us and their hands are free. Until now, we were under the impression that the referee for these elections was the chief of the Election Commission of Pakistan, Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim. I have the utmost respect for him. But the true referee of the electoral showdown is Hakimullah Mehsud. Look at his statements, he’s “allowed” Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Fazl), Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf to hold public rallies, and he’s not “permitted” ANP, MQM or PPP to do the same. Is this his decision to make? Mehsud has clearly defined his friends and his foes.

After the attack on Haroon Bilour, you wrote to the Election Commission demanding more security. What became of that?

Copies of the letter were also sent to the president, the caretaker prime minister, and to the chief justice. Nine days lapsed and nothing happened. There wasn’t a word from the ECP. On the 10th day, Ebrahim showed up on television claiming he never received any such letter. That is the last I heard of that. The Election Commission is telling us to make our own security arrangements. Use your own untrained security guards, they say. Now, if these untrained security guards are enough to guard me and my candidates, then they must be capable of also guarding the country? The government took my security away in a very awkward manner, at 9:30 p.m. one night, without even informing me. The security that had been provided to me consisted of one policeman and four guards. The Election Commission denies it ordered it, but then there is written evidence proving it requested all security be withdrawn.

Will you accept the election results without any hesitation?

No, that will depend. It will depend on the results and how things shape up. As far as electoral alliances are concerned, it is still too early to decide that. Let me repeat, since this is a war between two mindsets, I will not go for an alliance with a party which belongs to the other camp. Let’s not name anyone. However, I would like to add that of late there is a new phenomenon arising before the elections. A few days ago, two Jamaat-e-Islami workers were caught with 90,000 fake ballot papers. Now new reports are emerging-I am still trying to confirm them-that a Jamaat aspirant’s house was raided and another 30,000 to 35,000 bogus ballot papers have been recovered. If these things start developing then there will be a big question mark on the upcoming elections.

What should be the chief priority of the next elected government?

Terrorism needs to be addressed immediately. One has to take control of the field. Right now, the ownership of the field is being challenged. We can continue to fight among ourselves about what we may want to plant in the field, but first we must own it.

Pakistan: Neither unwilling nor unable in Tirah Valley

By Zoon Ahmad Khan
SPEARHEAD RESEARCH

Tirah is a belt of valleys providing a convenient passage into Afghanistan, with a population of 1.5 million. Fertile for what Afghanis do best: opium, poppy fields have flourished in the region and the government has been for years trying to curb the epidemic. But the Tirah Valley people are slippery under the quivering thumb of the establishment since colonial times. It was in 2003 that the Pakistan Army entered the valley, that too after 9/11 and escalating Talibanization of the northern region when it was believed that Osama bin Laden could be hiding in one of these self governing regions.

For a month now, since March 2013, Tirah Valley has been making headlines. As over 300 militants have been eliminated and more than 30 army personnel have achieved martyrdom in less than thirty days. Due to fierce resistance, the military operation has gained momentum. Like the Swat operation, where Taliban had allied themselves with the local government promising better law enforcement and good riddance from the sloppy civil courts, in Tirah the emergence of TTP has also been gradual. Owing to poor infrastructure and isolation of the region (a tribal area that avoids foreign interference), news of the hundreds killed while resisting TTPs advancement in to the region, never reached mainstream media sources.

Three militant outfits are operating in the region presently: Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Islam (LI), and Ansar ul Islam (AI) . The AI and LI have been battling with each other in the region for more than seven years over sectarian differences. When the LI joined hands with the TTP, AI reached out to the Pakistan army to protect its position against its adversary. It is noteworthy that the AI, a militant organization, has previously been banned for protecting the area from foreign influence (i.e. the government). How this support for the AI is any different from that of the Taliban back in the 1980s is not clear. For Pakistan, at the moment, fighting the Taliban is more crucial. What demons this war gives birth to can be dealt with later perhaps.

The TTP has not taken over the valley overnight, nor without assistance. Since last June, one step at a time the Tirah tribes have been coming under their fold. Even today, as the army marches against the Taliban with bursting force, launching aerial assaults to drive the Taliban out, few know the gravity of the situation. Few realize the dire consequences of this belt coming under full control of anti-state outfits. Thousands of the valley’s inhabitants have migrated out of their homes towards Peshawar. What will become of them and their families knowing the situation of IDPs amidst a fragile economy is another burden we are temporarily ignoring for a false peace of mind.

With three vital entry points: into Peshawar, Orakzai and the Khyber Pass (the main passageway for NATO supplies) the valley is an important stronghold for the TTP. With no road access, the army was initially only relying on aerial assaults. So far with scanty news, all we get a few days later is a death count of militants versus soldiers. Nothing about civilian casualties. Turns out we have an alternative for the drone strikes that have caused much discord between us and the United States. But the problems with an operation where only Pakistani blood is being spilt are manifold.

These quandaries can take the shape of a thought process. Firstly, Tirah was not above the regular drone drill. Rather the area has been a frequent target. Yet the LI joined hands with the Taliban, killed hundreds of civilians while fighting the local AI, took over the entire region over the course of a year. All of this while drone strikes were happening with unhampered discretion. Should this not make us question the effectiveness of drone strikes? The AI , temporary partner of the Government of Pakistan in this operation, is not our friend either. It is these temporary alliances with local militant outfits, and keeping our enemies ‘closer’ that has strengthened them to begin with. Before the Taliban took over completely, Ansar-ul-Islam were adamant that they could handle the situation. But with stiff resistance from TTP backed LI. Eventually the Pakistan army was forced to step in and save the region. The main question that arises from such situations is: why should we trust the security of such volatile and strategically important regions with militias who are not completely supportive of the government?

Initially when the wave of conflict erupted last month, media and ISPR reported that two militant groups were at war with each other and the death toll from both sides was being reported as “militant death toll”. TTP extended full support to LI, and AI was almost driven out of the region and increased TTP influence in the region was becoming evident. It was at this point when civilian casualties escalated and mass migration from the Tirah Valley started that the army stepped in. With General Elections only days away, it would have been catastrophic if hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of the valley had become IDPs. Additionally with Peshawar well within the range of rocket launchers the threat of TTP advancement in to the developed regions of the country had become too real. The AI-Army alliance is strategic and passing. Whether the army death toll includes the AI, or they aren’t dying at all is not certain. It is possible that the militant death include the AI, TTP, and LI, which would quite literally be true.

The new tagline for justifying drone strikes is ‘Unwilling and Unable’. The US claims that Pakistan is both, unwilling and unable to get rid of terrorists, and hence drones, are a final resort to secure their own national interest is justified. How they come up with new justifications for overstepping the boundaries and disrespecting sovereignty is fascinating. But after delegating the responsibility of keeping the terrorists out to anti-state elements, who haven’t pledged any loyalties to the region, what can we say about Pakistan’s sovereignty? Some argue that more than delegating authority the military and political establishments’ apparent absence was more about respecting the existing status quo that has been for centuries.

The expanding terrorism in the Northern areas can be solved not by drone attacks or killing the terrorists alone, rather by better law enforcement and presence of state sponsored security. The operation that Pakistan army troops are sacrificing their lives for concerns the US’ national security as well. After the drone method has proven ineffective and immoral both countries should look into alternatives. The US needs to decide: in or out? If out then they should completely rely on what the Pakistan army executes. But if they believe we are unwilling and unable then they must join in any battle against the Taliban, even if some blood will be spilt. But this would mean allowing US troops into our territory, and that is another breach of our sovereignty. And hence the dearth of solutions. As the army continues to sacrifice lives, while we acknowledge the courage it takes to execute such an operation, we must realize these lives and those of the civilians can be saved if preventive measures are taken. The upcoming government must get all local and foreign stakeholders on board and strategize better governance in the northern areas of Pakistan. The gun is only a temporary solution.

PAKISTAN HAS NO ENEMIES

By Ahsan Waheed
ZoneAsia-Pk

As of now Pakistan has no enemies. Even those who hate us and want to do us in are not really our enemies. Take India for example—basking in the glow of its many achievements it is gloating as Pakistan stews in its own juices. All it has to do is wait for juicy morsels to be thrown up by Pakistanis themselves so that it can tweak them and splash them all over the world. The recent plethora of whistle blowers is manna from heaven for the Indian media, establishment and politicians so these whistle blowers are encouraged to spew out more and more poison against their own country and they are falling for it in pursuit of their own warped ambitions.

Consider Afghanistan. It can talk publicly about a strategic relationship and need not be an enemy. It encourages the Pakistanis who have joined hands with others to kill other Pakistanis not just in the western border areas but deep in the heart of Pakistan. Now and then they inspire the misguided Pakistanis who think they are struggling for their rights and freedom by killing their brethren who may be of a different sect or by blowing up the people who are their saviors and by damaging precious assets of the State. There are many who then take on the task of stoking the fires and exploiting the vulnerabilities that emerge. It helps that Pakistanis raise their own voices to condemn their own law enforcers.

Consider the US whom many consider an enemy. It’s not– because it doesn’t have to be. By our actions and our confessions and the antics of our despicable whistle blowers and those who give them a stage we are actually confirming the worst fears of the US and the western world. No one needs to do anything and the well funded think tanks all over are going crazy analyzing and projecting what we are telling them about our past and present. No other country talks endlessly about its own corruption the way we do. No one parades sensitive issues the way we do. In no other country are their own countrymen actively involved in assisting others from inside to carry out dastardly terrorist attacks and subversion. We kill our own governors and then eulogize the killers. We set up national heroes making a laughing stock of ourselves. So called analysts and experts think it is macho to dig up dirt on our own institutions and scatter it all over. No sir—the US need not be our enemy.

Take the Taliban-not the ones fighting to free their country of foreign occupation but those who are fighting and killing to get power so that they can impose their rule and their laws on Pakistan Of course they are Pakistanis but with them are free loaders from all over the world as well as from other parts of Pakistan. There are some who have sympathies for them. Others think we should surrender to them or join them or hold talks with them on their terms. Our confusion translates into the world thinking we have a mindset with Lemming like suicide ambitions. We then find others simply setting themselves up in inspirational or funding roles to keep the body counts high all over the country. The Taliban need not be our enemies to get what they want—they can be our friends and achieve their goals. If they want to talk why don’t they declare a cease fire and talk without pre conditions?

The whole world with many Pakistani included are telling us what to do to get our economy right. We are doing the exact opposite of what they are telling us. Mobilize your resources-we do not. Curb your expenditure-we do not. Stabilize your internal security—we do not. Establish the rule of law-we do not. Get your public sector enterprises under control-we do not. Stop subverting your institutions by using discretionary powers and political clout-we do not. Get everyone to do his job-we do not. Elect political LEADERS not people who want authority-we never did-will we now?

The media is having a ball. It is raking in revenues from advertisements. It has developed clout and uses it to pressurize and extract the maximum from every source. It pits whistle blowers against each other and watches them do each other and the country in. It pits political rivals against each other and then sits back and watches the feathers fly as they scream like banshees. It does not do any heavy lifting like policy analysis, counseling, advising or suggesting or informing-much easier to rake up and scatter muck all round. To hell with the country and its image. The joy in the media is from the excellent local and foreign drama serials, movies and fun talk and comedy shows. No wonder more and more people are getting hooked to these and go to the news channels only during ads in their favorite shows.

So do we have enemies? No we do not because we are own worst enemies. Like sheep we see people lined up for meaningless security checks, waiting in queues for CNG in their vehicles, outside government offices to get some flunkeys approval or signature or simply staring into space as they wait for the power to come back on. Yet it is these people-the common folk in the cities and villages- who are keeping the country afloat and functional. From abroad they send hard earned foreign currency and within the country they work and earn and spend and pray for better days. These people are the true friends of this country and it is their resilience that keeps faith alive and the home fires burning. They demonstrate the great potential that this country has. Long live the people and may the enemies within perish.

Karachi calling

ZoneAsia-Pk

Urban violence has become a permanent affliction in Karachi. Anyone explaining the roots of this violence to you would say ‘it’s complicated’ – and that is indeed an accurate summary of the bloodshed that erupts across the city in random spurts. The plague of violence in Pakistan’s biggest city and commercial hub is multifaceted. From ethnic strife to gang wars to politically motivated crimes to just petty theft – Karachi has it all. Where does it start? And more importantly, where would it end?

This is strange because less merely 25 years, Karachi was the land of opportunity in Pakistan. Once the capital of the country, this economic hub bustled with life and activity with little thought spared to the horrors awaiting citizens a few years down the road. Fast forward to 2012, Karachi faces (in the words of Bilal Baloch) feeble security, over-population, poor public transportation and housing, weak law and order, abuse of public services by the wealthy and powerful, illegal land-grabbing and squatter settlements, pollution so pervasive that it contaminates food and water for all, ethnic divisions, sectarian divisions, meager education; in short, institutional inadequacies on a grand scale. At the same time, it is this city that allows unbridled port access to NATO, fishermen and businessmen. The city has seen the likes of Alexander the Great, Sir Charles Napier, Muhammad Bin Qasim, poets, authors, bloggers and artists. The City of Lights continues to function under such paradoxical circumstances, with violent bloodshed in one corner of the city and celebrations in another.

Read more…

Spearhead Analysis: The Taliban in Paris

Spearhead Analysis – 12.12.12
Spearhead Research

The official word from the Taliban is that they will be in Paris for discussions with the US and its western allies and with the former Northern Alliance representing the Karzai government in Afghanistan. This is an amazing development on several counts. It indicates that the Taliban are a cohesive organized group with clear cut policies and that they think that the time has come for them to be part of the reconciliation process. It is nothing short of a miracle that they have decided to become a part of the intra-Afghan dialogue supposedly led by the Afghan government but actually a joint US-Pakistan venture.

Not surprising then that President Karzai feels left out and has tried to gain a toehold by blaming the US for the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan for a recent assassination attempt on the Afghan intelligence chief. Mr Karzai knows full well that the attack could have been planned anywhere in Pakistan or Afghanistan but that does not make it something sponsored by the state of Pakistan. The US, in a recently released Pentagon report, has clearly stated that the problem in Afghanistan is the lack of state capacity in Afghanistan, the high level of corruption there and the sanctuaries in Pakistan’s western border areas (created as a result of the fighting in Afghanistan).

It is also not surprising that with the start of the end game in Afghanistan the US and Pakistan are at pains to point out that their rocky relationship is back on track – at least for the 2014 transition in Afghanistan for which the progress in 2013 is critically important. A 25 member US delegation participated in the US-Pakistan Defense Consultative Group meeting in Pakistan and both sides expressed satisfaction at the positive outcome. There have been other discussions between the two countries on energy and economic issues. The Pakistani Foreign Minister declared the US-Pakistan relationship ‘back on track’ with all issues resolved and accompanied by the Army Chief she was in Brussels for discussions and briefings that seem to have gone well.

Given the track record of the US-Pakistan relationship Pakistanis may be forgiven for asking if all this is for real and sustainable after 2014 or is it to get Pakistan on board till the transition in Afghanistan is completed without a serious mishap?. After all when the US left after the USSR exited from Afghanistan, not only was Pakistan left to face the blow-back but it was also slapped with sanctions unable to effectively support the indigenous uprising in Kashmir against Indian atrocities. Pakistan has responded positively to US overtures and the Taliban it holds are being released – free to travel and participate in the negotiations that might lead to political stability in Afghanistan. There is a realization all around that the reconciliation and dialogue track could eventually lead to the all important phase of direct US-Taliban negotiations with Pakistan’s support.

The danger of failure on the reconciliation front is that there may be reversion to a civil-war environment given the fact that warlords are alive and well. Ismail Khan’s recent gathering in Herat indicated that this could happen. There is also the realization that with continued US presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014 the Taliban could not depend on external support in an all-out bid for power – as they had attempted earlier. The fact that Pakistan wants peace and stability in Afghanistan to deal with the insurgents in its western border areas and that it wants Afghanistan to deny support and sanctuaries to such groups creates convergence in objectives. Trouble may come from a split in the Afghan government ranks – if Karzai decides to play hard ball especially because of the remarkable cohesion being displayed by the Taliban. Much will also depend on how many US troops stay on in Afghanistan with guesses that put the figure anything between 10000 to 25000), what kind of a status of forces agreement is drawn up for these troops and significantly on the capacity of the Afghan security forces.

(Spearhead Analyses are the result of a collaborative effort and not attributable to a single individual)

Spearhead Analysis: The Taliban in Paris

Spearhead Analysis – 12.12.12
Spearhead Research

The official word from the Taliban is that they will be in Paris for discussions with the US and its western allies and with the former Northern Alliance representing the Karzai government in Afghanistan. This is an amazing development on several counts. It indicates that the Taliban are a cohesive organized group with clear cut policies and that they think that the time has come for them to be part of the reconciliation process. It is nothing short of a miracle that they have decided to become a part of the intra-Afghan dialogue supposedly led by the Afghan government but actually a joint US-Pakistan venture.

Not surprising then that President Karzai feels left out and has tried to gain a toehold by blaming the US for the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan for a recent assassination attempt on the Afghan intelligence chief. Mr Karzai knows full well that the attack could have been planned anywhere in Pakistan or Afghanistan but that does not make it something sponsored by the state of Pakistan. The US, in a recently released Pentagon report, has clearly stated that the problem in Afghanistan is the lack of state capacity in Afghanistan, the high level of corruption there and the sanctuaries in Pakistan’s western border areas (created as a result of the fighting in Afghanistan).

It is also not surprising that with the start of the end game in Afghanistan the US and Pakistan are at pains to point out that their rocky relationship is back on track – at least for the 2014 transition in Afghanistan for which the progress in 2013 is critically important. A 25 member US delegation participated in the US-Pakistan Defense Consultative Group meeting in Pakistan and both sides expressed satisfaction at the positive outcome. There have been other discussions between the two countries on energy and economic issues. The Pakistani Foreign Minister declared the US-Pakistan relationship ‘back on track’ with all issues resolved and accompanied by the Army Chief she was in Brussels for discussions and briefings that seem to have gone well.

Given the track record of the US-Pakistan relationship Pakistanis may be forgiven for asking if all this is for real and sustainable after 2014 or is it to get Pakistan on board till the transition in Afghanistan is completed without a serious mishap?. After all when the US left after the USSR exited from Afghanistan, not only was Pakistan left to face the blow-back but it was also slapped with sanctions unable to effectively support the indigenous uprising in Kashmir against Indian atrocities. Pakistan has responded positively to US overtures and the Taliban it holds are being released – free to travel and participate in the negotiations that might lead to political stability in Afghanistan. There is a realization all around that the reconciliation and dialogue track could eventually lead to the all important phase of direct US-Taliban negotiations with Pakistan’s support.

The danger of failure on the reconciliation front is that there may be reversion to a civil-war environment given the fact that warlords are alive and well. Ismail Khan’s recent gathering in Herat indicated that this could happen. There is also the realization that with continued US presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014 the Taliban could not depend on external support in an all-out bid for power – as they had attempted earlier. The fact that Pakistan wants peace and stability in Afghanistan to deal with the insurgents in its western border areas and that it wants Afghanistan to deny support and sanctuaries to such groups creates convergence in objectives. Trouble may come from a split in the Afghan government ranks – if Karzai decides to play hard ball especially because of the remarkable cohesion being displayed by the Taliban. Much will also depend on how many US troops stay on in Afghanistan with guesses that put the figure anything between 10000 to 25000), what kind of a status of forces agreement is drawn up for these troops and significantly on the capacity of the Afghan security forces.

(Spearhead Analyses are the result of a collaborative effort and not attributable to a single individual)

Tacstrat: Getting Waziristan Right

Tacstrat Analysis

North Waziristan figures prominently on the entire terrorism scene. Every terrorist or would be terrorist arrested indicates some kind of direct or indirect link to North Waziristan making it a point of convergence for anyone contemplating a terrorist act. All reports confirm the presence of Afghan Taliban personified by the Haqqani Network, the ‘Pakistan Taliban- Tehrik Taliban Pakistan and an assortment of Chechens, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Arabs and even Western origin people in North Waziristan together with kidnappers, drugs and weapon smugglers and criminals from Pakistan who go there to rest and recuperate after their latest venture and before the next one. The outreach from this area into the urban centers of Pakistan links it to various extremist militant outfits that are ready to do whatever is required for a price and with the added benefit of furthering their own ethnic, sectarian, political or resource gathering agendas. It goes without saying that there may be, and probably is, external exploitation of this complex situation. This cauldron of criminal, subversive, insurgent and militant activity is the single most important reason for Pakistan’s image worldwide as the epicenter of terrorism and for the economic decline fuelled by a destabilized internal security situation. The combined threat that this situation poses now threatens Pakistan’s existence as a state.

Read more…

Tacstrat: What makes Drones illegal

Tacstrat Analysis

The United States has been conducting drone attacks in the Northern ‘terrorist infested’ areas of Pakistan since 2004. Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles controlled by the CIA’s Special Activities Division. Although drone attacks started during George W Bush’s second term, with the consent of Pakistani government and military, they have substantially increased since President Obama joined office. The number of militant versus civilian casualties in these attacks varies. While the Pakistani government insists that more than 90% of the casualties are not targeted terrorists, Western media continues to push all the victims under ‘suspected militants’ category. The New American Foundation has released statistics since 2004. The uncertainty of the number of casualties is appalling.

Year	Number of Attacks	Number of Casualties
		Minimum	Maximum
2004-2007	10	155	200
2008	36	219	344
2009	54	350	721
2010	122	608	1028
2011	72	366	599
2012	43	210	333
Total	337	1908	3225

While countless reports have been published proving the counter-productivity of the “let’s go get ‘em” counterterrorism strategies, the ethical dimension of this debate has taken another turn altogether. And hence the issues encircling the drone debate need to be addressed layer by layer.

Recently drone talk has become quite common in Pakistan. Opposition parties have taken up the issue and popular cricketer turned politician Imran Khan, a well respected philanthropist, has used his political party to raise tremendous amount of awareness of the injustice of drone warfare. With the help of his ex-wife Jemima Khan, Khan’s party has decided to take the matter to the International Criminal Court with the release of a documentary Jemima is working on. This mass level awareness about the issue has gone global. The issue has been taken up by Western media and one of the biggest milestones for the anti-drone movement was Noam Chomsky’s decision to join the club. Noam Chomsky, perhaps the greatest philosophers of the 20^th century, is also one of the biggest critics of Liberalism and American foreign policy.

But what is the problem with the US government resorting to a method of killing terrorists that minimizes American casualties?

First of all Pakistan government claims that drone attacks are taking place against Pakistan’s consent. When exactly Pervez Musharraf sanctioned the US to use Pakistani airspace to conduct these attacks in the Northern belt, and who signed what contract if any remains of the many mysteries in Pakistan’s political history. The fact is nobody knows. When this issue was taken up and Pakistan’s PPP government under media and civilian pressure claimed their sovereignty was being compromised, the American government mentioned some fax that we have yet to see. But then again, confidentiality of evidence is vital because otherwise lives would be at stake. However drone attacks were a regular phenomenon even when the PPP took office. So why was it only after opposition parties and the media took up the issue that the government realized something had hit them?

Secondly, drone attacks are illegal because the suspected criminals/militants/terrorists are not given a chance in court. So this is a more theoretical dimension of the debate. Say, even if only 10% of the victims were militants, according to international norms of criminal justice, just killing them off without a trial is a crime. What exactly are those militants guilty of?

Thirdly, what is that final line between a militant who poses a threat to national security and a civilian? Have the terrorism busters across the globe defined exactly who is a trouble maker and why?

For a comparison with other counter-terrorism used recently, we can take a look at the successful military operation in Swat in 2007. The Pakistan Army sent in troops to the district of Swat to confront the locally elected Taliban forces who were forcefully imposing their version of Sharia on the people. The main incentive for the locals to vote the Taliban in was an efficient justice system, but the Taliban’s promises of justice came with ugly laws to suffocate the Swati society completely. The Pakistan army after tough battle with the Taliban and military and civilian casualties was successfully able to drive the Taliban out. Even though two years later Taliban presence became a reality the government realized was impossible to ignore, and a mutual compromise was reached, the operation from the Pakistani perspective was a success because its targets were placed with more precision.

The militants killed in the military operations were obviously not given the luxury of a trial. They however were given the benefit of confrontation. The Pakistan Army announced the operation, allowed those who claimed to side with the establishment a chance to leave with their belongings and loved ones. The rest chose to fight. They were not mere civilians, or suspected militants at best. Their crime at that point was not mere suspicion of conspiracy or involvement in ambiguous violence or terrorism. Rather they saw themselves as adversaries of the Pakistani government on an equal footing and put up a fight.

On the other hand, drone attacks are premised on the assumption that these areas are safe havens of terrorists. Ground spies leak information that is used to conveniently finish off the suspects. Unsuspecting, busy with their regular errands and out of nowhere they are turned to dust within seconds. All it takes is a remote control. Like a video game, exactly like a video game. What is more disturbing is the lack of accurate statistics. The Pakistan government and the US are not on the same page. Not on the total number of casualties, not on the number of militants, not on the number of affected, nor to what degree. Children have lost lives. Women have often been targeted. Interviews have shown that the CIA’s method to decide location of strikes is pretty much random.

Not only are more civilians being affected, this brutal method of killing has only increased hatred towards the United States, hence increasing militant recruitment. Are drone attacks, escalating militants ranks, killing off more innocent people than suspected, worth pursuing? CIA’s brutal double tap technique has earned the US immense criticism. While since 2010 the number of attacks has decreased, the number of casualties has increased because a strike is followed by missile fires which kill the people who have collected to help survivors. This method ensures that the United States has crossed all limits to violate human rights and bow the seeds of hatred to people who might even be against the militants before their loved ones become victims of such brutality. Is this the Peace our allies are fighting for?

It is bizarre how the Pakistani government left the issue as soon as a certain fax was mentioned. While opposition parties and human rights groups worldwide are chanting in harmony against these killing devices, it seems bizarre that the International Court of Justice needs to wait for a documentary to take notice of the matter.

In search for a national terrorism policy

ZoneAsia-Pk

A country can never be fully prepared to meet the challenges that terrorism, be it of any kind or in any shape, brings. In the Information Age, methods and techniques of terrorism are continuously evolving and the danger keeps escalating. Pakistan faces a unique challenge, for it is the battlefield for fighting terrorists which have caused great human losses across the globe. Since 9/11 it has had to deal great pressure from western powers to curb militants who have targeted foreign nationalities and even Pakistanis. With an economy in distress and meager welfare facilities, all of which are plagued with corruption, insecurity and cases of terrorism have stretched thin the allocation of resources. However, policy makers and analysts feel some of this stress can be relieved if Pakistan deals with security crisis in a systemic and organized manner. Twelve years into the War on Terror and Pakistan still lacks a universal narrative on terrorism. The attack on 14 year old Malala Yousafzai on October 9th uncovered the political rifts in the Pakistani government over counter terrorism.

The world hurled its condemnation on the Taliban militants who targeted Malala, an act that symbolizes the existence of an oppressive mindset that violates basic human rights. Pakistani politicians reacted strongly, some calling for the immediate enactment of the North Waziristan Operation to eliminate the militants. MQM expressed great disapproval with Altaf Hussain urging the army to immediately begin the Waziristan operation. Repeated failure of dialogue with the Taliban has convinced him of the need for a military response. Although ANP and MQM do not see eye to eye on all matters, the former’s failure against Taliban in Peshawar caused it to support a military response. The ruling party, PPP, was not far behind in denouncing the attack. Its senior leaders including the PM vowed to root out extremism but they were hoping the Army or the parliament would take the initiate by approving of an operation. However, the Army threw the ball in the government’s court by necessitating its approval for any such action while resistance from opposition parties thwarted a parliamentary endorsement. The government finally decided to play safe by promising that such a decision will be taken if the need arises with the backing of the political and military leadership.

Even though all political parties criticized the attack to some degree or another, some parties chose to disagree with a military reaction against terrorists. The JI and JUI, for instance, urged the government not to misuse this incident to gain some political advantages and support for a military operation. At the same time, various conspiracy theories regarding the role of Malala as a spy and the wider interest of America in exploiting Pakistan sprung up. Significant opposition also came forth from Imran Khan, leader of PTI and the savior of Pakistan according to its rapidly growing supporters. He believed a military action to be premature which if carried out would aggravate the security crisis. Khan suggested a three point strategy: detachment from the American War on Terror, dialogue with the militants and as a last resort, military action. He particularly stressed on the participation of the locals in these decisions so that they did not feel alienated.

PML-N is a step ahead of many parties as they not only differ with other parties but their own members also have conflicting viewpoints. Although they have opposed the government’s plan for a military operation in Waziristan, their leaders haven’t explicitly favored dialogue either. PML-N members claim this to be a political trick to delay elections. Still we have Marvi Memon propagating a forceful response while Zafar Ali Shah, Khurram Dastgir and Saad Rafiq have been open to the option of cooperation as part of a multidimensional approach.

If this wasn’t enough, the matter of a terrorism policy was muddled with pro-Malala and anti-Malala discourses. Phrases like “You are either with the Taliban or against the Taliban” were being used to determines one’s loyalty to the state or the militants. A national terrorism policy cannot be simplified to just the Taliban, the drones or US intervention in Pakistani affairs. In fact they are the constituents of that policy.

A difference in opinion over the Waziristan operation should guide debate and discussion over other issues to eventually reach a state policy against terrorism. This is however only the first part of the process; the policy must then be implemented. Malala’s attack was most unfortunate but when seen in the context of the upcoming elections and worldwide outrage, it may be just the right amount of push needed to ensure that political parties come up with policy agreeable to all and sundry.

Tacstrat: America’s Indian successor for Afghanistan

By Nida Afaque
Tacstrat Analysis

Will India decide to play a central role in Afghanistan after 2014?

As the Afghan war winds down, the focus of attention has diversified to include regional powers which will bear the partial burden of restoring stability to their Afghan neighbor. India, for one, has increased its presence in Afghanistan in social, economic and most recently, in political spheres. Under the umbrella of the War on Terror, India has had the opportunity to widen its wings into Afghanistan that had previously been restricted due to the Taliban rule. The more pressing concern is whether it will continue with the same fervor once NATO forces withdraw in 2014.

India’s foreign policy and nationalistic goals can provide a better understanding about its interests in Afghanistan. India hopes to develop into an self-sufficient nation not only capable of protecting its national interest and managing its own economy but also one that drives other economies. Furthermore, it wants to be recognized as a leading member in regional matters. Equipped with the world’s largest democracy, an expanding economy and developed military forces, India has set its eye on becoming the unrelinquished power in Asia.

With this goal in mind, it has ventured into the troubled lands of Afghanistan. Since its experience with the Taliban have not been very pleasant, India has played safe by directing majority of its involvement in the developmental sector. In the past decade, it has provided aid worth approximately $ 2 billion, thereby becoming Afghanistan’s fifth largest donor. It has made generous contributions to healthcare, food supplies and rural developmental projects. It has set up the largest children’s hospital in Kabul. Thousands of Afghan students are enrolled in Indian universities on scholarships.

To facilitate foreign return on investments, it has initiated infrastructural projects in Afghanistan. Just last month, the Indian government organized a summit to encourage local entrepreneurs to invest in Afghanistan. Up till now, Indian companies have successfully built the Delaram-Zaranj highway connecting Iran with major cities of Afghanistan and provided Kabul with non-stop supply of electricity through power lines originating from Uzbekistan. They are also constructing a government building in Kabul and the Salma hydro-electric power dam in Herat. In addition, India is making headway into the mining sector. Work has begun at the Hajigak iron-ore mines in Bamiyan and it hopes to extend it scope to the copper and gold mines too.

India has also been importing fruits from Kandahar where locals have expressed a desire for India to set up storage and processing facilities. The Preferential Trade Agreement signed in 2003 has helped to consolidate trade relations between the two nations. India hopes that one day Afghanistan would allow it to extend trade to Central Asian Republics through its territory. Greater regional associations would help in countering the vast influence of China especially in technology and manufactured goods.

India must be commended for such a well-conceived strategy of involvement for it ensured that it had the support of the government but more importantly that of the people. Recent polls have shown India’s unparalleled popularity amongst the locals (71%). This widespread support has paved the way for India to engage in political and security matters of Afghanistan with great ease. It signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement in October 2011 where India pledged to enhance Afghanistan’s economic and political assets. Although India was against any involvement with the Afghan Security Forces, it has now agreed to train them on its own soil. Afghan officers receive training in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorist operations at various regimental centers in India. So far approximately 2500 soldiers have been trained. Together with its other projects, this move shows India’s commitment to Afghanistan’s capacity building plans. At the same time, this strategic position in Afghan politics allows India to prevent Pakistan from developing an overwhelming influence in Afghanistan.

By securing a say in Afghan defense plans, India also has the chance to address its fear of radical Islamic militants, especially those who have links to the Afghan Taliban. Some of these groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Tehrik-e-Taliban use Pakistan as a safe haven. Some reports even claim that the ISI has befriended these groups to carry out its dirty work. If the Afghan Taliban patch up relations between Pakistani forces and terrorist organizations residing in Pakistan, it could result in a renewed and even more forceful attack on India specifically in Kashmir. For this reason, India may choose to build assets in Afghanistan to counter Pakistani militants. Already, there are suspicions that Afghanistan’s intelligence agencies are helping India in fueling anti-Pakistani sentiments through the Baluch rebels hiding in Afghanistan.

Over and above these incentives for engagement in Afghanistan, is the pressure from United States which is urging India to take up a greater role in the endgame. The US has tried to work with Pakistan. However, Bin Laden’s sanctuary in Abbottabad and the failure of the Pakistan army to wipe out terrorist networks in Waziristan has cracked US confidence in Pakistan. China is mostly interested in mineral extraction and Russian has generally disapproved excessive American presence in the region. The conflict over Iran’s right to a nuclear bomb rules out Iran as an ally. That leaves India.

The US is wooing India by recalling their close knit collaboration in defense and warfare. In the last 10 years, arms worth $8 billion have been sold by US to India. Furthermore, US has shown favors towards India in terms of nuclear non-proliferation. While it censured North Korea and Iran on their nuclear weapons, India launched it long range missile without any resistance.

Indian authorities have resisted adopting the position of a leader for the rehabilitation of Afghanistan with open arms. The geographical disadvantage it encounters actually gives Pakistan an edge over it. Not only does the latter share a border with Afghanistan, its citizens also share a common religion and culture with the Afghans. Thus, the materialization of India’s plans for its Afghan neighbors with a hostile Pakistan in between poses a great challenge.

As with the rest of the world, India has been affected by the global financial crisis. The rupee has declined against the dollar and investments have fallen by 41% causing deficits to increase. State institutions are plagued by corruption, the caste system is still prevalent and inequalities in income continue to rise while welfare services remain meagre causing 350 million people to be living below the poverty line. Due to these reasons, the Indian public is uncertain about the cost effectiveness of investing in Afghanistan.

India’s advancement in its relations with US could cost them regional peace. Pakistan is already antsy with India’s growing presence in Afghanistan, one wonders what it might do if India decides takes over the reins. As recent as April 2012, Pakistan launched a missile soon after India conducted a missile test. Similarly, India doesn’t want to pick a fight with China by openly aligning itself with the US. Iran is a significant supplier of India’s petroleum demands; too much allegiance to America would harm India’s economy.

In a nutshell, domestic and foreign pressures are urging India to play an active role in Afghanistan. Out of the coalition partners, only US will be retaining some training brigades after 2014. Regional powers have to step in or risk the spread of insecurity to their nations. Pakistan’s relations with America tend to oscillate whereas India has proven to be more consistent and helpful. Another point to consider is that out of all the regional powers, India has strong resources to achieve its objectives and is probably at the best possible terms with both the Afghans and the coalition partners. Pakistan, Iran, Central Asian Republics , China and Russia all carry some serious differences with either coalition partners ( mainly the US) and/or the Afghans. Although the situation with Taliban is tricky, recently the militants have warmed up to Indians and even praised their government for not buckling under US pressure. India too has relaxed its stiff stance against the Taliban when it showed willingness for an Afghan-led reconciliation process. In other words, India can easily be expected to assume a dominant role, if not command, the rehabilitation process.

Rather than showing tantrums over India, Pakistan must act reasonably. An unstable Afghanistan would be detrimental to both nations. Pakistan and India should treat this as an opportunity to set aside their differences. Afghanistan can provide trade routes to facilitate investment activities beyond South Asia. Projects like the TAPI gas pipeline project can promote interdependence and harmony in this region. If transparency and boundaries of engagement are properly designed for these projects, there is no reason for concern for the two rivals.

Divorcing the Taliban

By Nida Afaque
ZoneAsia-Pk

The long and short of the war in Afghanistan was to eliminate terrorists and reinstall social equality for the locals so that women can have a greater say, children can acquire education and the young Afghans can find a stable source of income. The decade long war has ripped Afghanistan limb from limb; thousands of people have died, millions have incurred lifelong crippling injuries, social security is non-existent and perpetual state of chaos has taken over the nation.

The politics of withdrawal of coalition forces has seen ups and downs. The Chicago summit underscored the sincerity of the coalition forces in exiting Afghanistan. Months prior and after the summit, NATO forces have been integrating the Afghan security forces in their daily routines. NATO agreed to carry out night raids via Afghan counterparts, stop aerial attacks on Afghan residential buildings and even basic literacy camps have been set up to educate the afghan troops. A dip in Taliban attacks was also recorded.

The past few months have witnessed resurgence in violence from the Taliban. Suicide attacks, gunfire and bombs have occurred near the bases of Coalition forces and the Afghan security forces. Western embassies have not been spared the terror either. The latest attack was at a hotel in a scenic locality of Kabul on the pretext of un-Islamic activities like alcohol consumption. Soon afterwards, a cross-border attack was launched on Pakistani check-post resulting in deaths of 8 soldiers and 17 Pakistani security armed forces personnel were
beheaded after being taken hostage.

These graphic attacks have sent strong messages to coalition forces, afghan forces and even neighboring Pakistan. Taliban have been quite stubborn in working for a peace process but they did cede to form a diplomatic office in Qatar. While coalition forces have repeatedly stressed on their determination to leave the battlefield, some like the French have promised to leave even before the set date.

Unfortunately some serious blunders have been committed by them too which has turned positive reinforcements sour and send the reconciliation process many steps behind. The burning of the Holy Quran was a major incident that brought disapproval from all over the world. Shortly afterwards, a US marine allegedly suffering from PTSD killed 17 afghan civilians. But perhaps the greatest irksome moment for the Taliban are the reports from western media that their power has been weakened.

Indeed, actions speak louder than words and these graphic images are not soon to be erased from the minds of the locals. The targets of these attacks were mainly soldiers and civilians in close proximity to these soldiers, physically and/or figuratively. It is important to realize that these attacks occurred at the same time negotiations were taking place with the coalition forces. Thereby, indicating that the 10 year war has hardened the hearts of the Taliban against foreign invaders. This could also mean that the Taliban would reassert themselves and carry out the same tribal code of ethics they followed back in their term.

Another distressing point is the attitude of the Taliban regarding aid workers and volunteers. Many foreign social workers have been kidnapped for heavy ransom which some believe funds their extremist attacks. A senior British aid worker, Khalil Dale, was even killed when the ransom was not paid. For human right activists this would signal the continuation of violations against women, children and minorities.

The Taliban also symbolize a big question mark for Pakistan’s security. The porous Pak-Afghan border will continue to remain a source of skirmishes and refuge for the militants. Some intelligence reports have claimed alliances between ISI and the afghan Taliban. Assuming that it is the truth, Pakistan’s strategy to gain the Taliban’s vote has failed. TTP, which have been marked as a terrorist group by Pakistan, has been maintaining sanctuaries in Afghanistan probably with the help of the Afghan Taliban. The latter has been terrorizing locals near the border. The TTP already idolizes the Taliban for fighting foreign forces. With a history of terrorist attacks all over Pakistan, if the afghan Taliban decide to use the TTP for their purposes, Pakistan is looking at a serious threat. The Afghan Taliban could use this to harm Pakistani forces. The Afghan Taliban have also started warming up to Indian presence, a blow to their relations with Pakistan.

After these hiccups, Pakistan has to rethink its strategy for dealing with the Taliban. It has suffered immensely from being labeled as “part of the problem”. Domestic concerns are too pressing for Pakistan to be indulging in foreign battles. It’s time to end this insecurity by completely wiping out the presence of terrorists in Pakistan. Non-interventionists would recommend a strategy of negotiation. But the peace deal with the Taliban in Swat has proved how unreliable such accords can be.

The strategy of differentiating between the “good” terrorist and the “bad” terrorist can no longer continue. Discriminatory ethnic and religious movements be those of the Sipah-e-Sahaba or the Lashkar-e-Taiba will all have to end. For such a mass scale operation, foreign powers will be willing to help Pakistan achieve their common goal of regional and global peace. Furthermore, a new holistic strategy to be applicable after the operation has to be formulated, one that encompasses the presence and activities of these groups.

Such an aggressive strategy of uprooting the terrorist elements will also prove dangerous for the country’s politicians, armed forces and other law enforcement personell as always innocent civilians. It will invariably clamp down the nations’ freedom of speech and right to privacy but then nothing comes for free. Sadly, Pakistan has reached a point where a return to normalcy will cost them dearly but a radical operation like this can give it the chance to reestablish the writ of the state and get rid of the boulder blocking its economic and social prosperity.

US-PAK relations post-2014

By Nida Afaque
ZoneAsia-Pk

The Davis affair, OBL raid, Salalah attack, closure of NATO supply routes were one pitfall succeeded by another until one could only wonder: could this get any worse? The current state of affairs does not appear any less dismal. Persistent demands of abstaining from drone strikes from Pakistan’s end have only fallen on deaf ears. Suspicions of al-Zawahiri’s presence and the US House subcommittee’s proposal of imposing conditions on aid to Pakistan indicate that reconciliation may not be around the corner. The looming withdrawal of coalition forces in 2014 also means an agreement acceptable to the regional powers has to be made before the forces exit Afghanistan.

What does this mean for Pakistan and where does it see its relations with America heading?

A good place to start is to understand United States’ objectives for the region and the role Pakistan comes to play in achieving these objectives. The US wants to ensure that terrorists from this region are no longer a threat to its national security and that Afghanistan has a democratically stable government which works in the interests of the masses. Coalition forces have been carrying out a direct attack on terrorists and have recently started divulging power to Afghan National Forces and accepting many of their terms to culminate in the Strategic Partnership Agreement.

Over the years, Pakistan’s role in the war on terror has become increasingly active. For a third world country, Pakistan has tried to relocate its meager resources and armed forces against terrorists taking refuge near the Afghan border. Thousands of lives have been lost and cities and towns have turned to dust. America, however, is not too sympathetic for it believes Pakistan is not mustering all the force it can behind this cause. One cannot blame Pakistan if they fall short in their efforts. America has not set a good precedent from the Soviet war and Iraq is still reeling from the effects of foreign intervention. It is thus quite natural for Pakistan to look out for itself by holding the Taliban card. Pakistan has protested against US demands and presence by boycotting the Bonn Conference and evacuating US forces from some of its airbases. But it will remain wary of taking drastic steps with matters like CSF funds still due unsettled.

The US needs the support of local powers to ensure sustainability of peace efforts. But reaching out to India, Russian and Central Asian republics over Pakistan only reflects American distrust of their so-called ally, Pakistan. Things are not too sunny for these Asian powers whose national economies and people are proving to be a handful for the governments. India is experiencing a decline in rupee against the dollar while Russia’s domestic politics are a major concern for its public. Russia also continues to maintain a strong influence on the central Asian republics. Even China has been losing its manufacturing activities to other countries. Therefore, these countries may not be willing to wholeheartedly participate in achieving US’s goals because of which US may have to resign to Pakistani assistance.

For Pakistan, diplomatic relations with the United States extend to the economic and social realms too. America remains amongst Pakistan’s top trading partners and has carried out developmental projects to improve living and social conditions of its people. Collaborating with NGOs and local business partners the US has funded projects aiming to tap Pakistan’s natural resources help alleviate the rampant energy crisis. Time and again US’s strong commitment towards alleviating Pakistan’s internal crises has surfaced, but this interest reflects US’s own regional interests. The US has offered cheaper gas alternatives and has tried to revive the TAPI project which had until recently lost much of its fervor in an attempt to discourage the Iran-Pakistan pipeline project. For now, despite its level of dependence on the IMF and World Bank (both of which are highly influenced by the US), and an open call for sanctions by the US, Pakistan has decided to go ahead with the IP pipeline.

Contributions in the social sector have been more than significant. Since 2002, the US has been providing $ 2 billion aid annually to Pakistan making it the third largest recipient of US aid. Just last year $ 1277 million and $ 1143 million were allocated to military and civilian programs respectively. Some of their eminent projects include Fulbright Scholarship, BISP and HEC.

After 2014, the US will have a remarkably smaller force present and with no impending security mission, Pakistan can expect them to be more forthcoming in civilian projects. In fact, America has already started to improve its image by publicizing its share in agriculture, education and health sectors. This could help legitimize US aid and at the same time make a difference to Pakistan’s paltry social welfare system.

While the governments of the two countries seem to be struggling to make things work, the masses may not harbor the same sentiments. Some conservatives have been remonstrating against US influence in Pakistan and have successfully organized themselves under the banner of Difa-e-Pakistan. Even though US aid to Pakistan is less than 1.2% of the GDP, this small amount of aid magnifies its effect in terms of the efficacy with which these institutions work, and the sectors it has been channeled towards. Breaking ties with US therefore might prove disastrous for the social welfare development, whereas aligning with them can open doors to diplomatic relations with other foreign powers. However, staying under US influence might only make us increasingly dependent, and with a strong backbone to structure and solidify the building blocks of our nation, these high levels of dependence may eventually compromise on our sovereignty. Such a mindset is also found on the American side which doubts Pakistan’s intentions in the war on terror.

Times may be tumultuous but a complete breakdown of diplomatic relations will be prevented by the interdependence of the two countries. The recent setbacks have sent the relationship decades behind. American withdrawal from Afghanistan coupled with changes in the internal climate of Asia’s regional countries will produce a shift in political and economic power dynamics.

These power dynamics may shift in favor of America. Its global power and influence is widely acknowledged. Neither Pakistan nor any of its other allies pose as a formidable competition to the US. Thus it is highly possible to expect Pakistan to bend to the terms demanded by US. But as Hafeez Malik suggests in US Relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan: The Imperial Dimension, America might lose its stronghold due to an “imperial overstretch”. Pakistan’s current civilian government has been resisting what they believe is unnecessary US interference. It did close down NATO routes, expel US forces from the Shamsi air base and may continue to stand against US imperialism. Pakistan may altogether decide to abandon the War on Terror and risk losing military and possibly civilian aid. Even worst is the possibility of US interpreting this to be a hostile move and giving in to its fears of a terrorist nation. We could then be looking at the latest venue of the War on Terror. Then again, we must not overlook the anxious efforts US is making to leave Afghanistan. Just like it came to accept Afghan demands for the transition process, it may also agree to do so with Pakistan. After all, it has repeatedly been stressed that Pakistan is an essential component to their operations in the region.

How the situation unfolds has yet to be seen but one thing is for certain; this is relationship is worth salvaging in some form than not having any relationship at all. The latest impasse is an opportunity for Pakistan and US to reach a common ground on contentious issues and build a relationship which is not based on merely temporary circumstances.

STRAWS IN THE WIND

By Ahsan Waheed
ZoneAsia-Pk

There is a big hype in the media about the Prime Minister’s fate at the hands of the judiciary. It is certainly news and a sad day for Pakistan but not the kind of catastrophe that it is made out to be. If he is convicted and goes there will be another Prime Minister and it will be business as usual. The majority feel that he should be allowed to complete his term and that writing a letter to a foreign government about an elected President is not what our government should be doing. In any case these matters are good for drawing room discussions and media speculations but do not matter one way or the other.

Then there is the furor over the memo, the so called memo-gate. This non starter from the outset started off with a bang, created some fireworks and collapsed with a whimper. It is being dragged along but no one is interested any more. If two functionaries had to depart then another two took their place. If there was some hard talk then it was followed by clarifications and assurance. The whole thing was and remains farcical.

We now have the drama of the ISI Chiefs replacement. This is a routine affair and there are clear cut procedures for it. If he gets another extension it will be good because he is a straight talking and straight shooting man who has done a great job. If he retires he will be replaced by a suitable lieutenant general selected from the panel of names given by the military. The US Ambassador has commented upon this change in his address in Massachusetts. The US is ‘monitoring’ this change as if it matters or as if it can do anything about it. One of the analysts from the many who make a living out of commenting on Pakistan has said that this change is very significant because the ISI is not just an intelligence agency but it actually makes policy. So has it made all the policies that are being implemented? All this does boost the ISI image by driving home the point that it is an obsession for many who are terrified by it. That’s not too bad-is it?

The US is talking to the Taliban and have allowed them an office in Qatar so that others can talk too. Everyone and his aunt know that the US is preparing for a face saving exit after being defeated and after failing to create any sustainable structures in Afghanistan. The Taliban and others are licking their chops at the prospect of tucking into the pathetic caricature that is the Afghan Security Forces. The suited guys in government are looking at getting out as quietly as possible to wherever they came from. After the US and NATO leave it will be business as usual in and around Afghanistan. Karzai will be ditched and will be history-not that it will make any difference.

There is the matter of who kept Osama under wraps. A bitter, sick retired general with an axe to grind has blamed Musharraf and everyone is running round in circles. A doctor recruited by the US to find Osama is being interrogated and the US is ‘concerned’—he is a Pakistani and not a US citizen. US ‘diplomats’ continue to be tripped up some where or the other-the latest being one caught at an airport with bullets in his bag. Every one wonders where his gun was hidden and whether they searched him thoroughly. Some mad cap ‘fundos’ with some misguided former position holders get up on a stage and make threatening noises and tremors go through the land and as far away as the US! The good thing is that Pakistan continues to tick over and Pakistanis cope with power shortages and soaring costs. If the NATO logistics resume through Pakistan the dollars will flow in—not bad at all.

What matters is Pakistan’s economy, its internal situation, its institutions and public sector enterprises, its relations with neighbors and the world, its people and internal security. This is what we should be focusing on because if we get this right we are home free. Till we can do that let us develop thick skins and not get tickled by all these meaningless straws in the wind.

The Solution to Pakistan’s Problems

By Shemrez Nauman Afzal

We all know what is wrong with Pakistan. We all read the newspapers every day. We watch TV, we watch the anchors and the video clips, we listen to the radio, and with a straight face, we acknowledge that we have become immune to violence, to hatred, to inequality, to greed, and to whatever happens to Pakistan.

If you’re really not concerned or bothered about it, and would rather do something else, now is the time that you stop reading this, because it really isn’t worth your while. But if you do care, and if you do want to do something about it, but don’t know what to do or how to do it, just take a little bit of time out and listen to what I have to say. The choice is yours, but the right to know is yours as well.

Yes, there are many problems with Pakistan, and nobody knows where to start from or where to pick up. But instead of talking about what’s wrong with Pakistan, shouldn’t we be talking about how we fix it? Everyone says there’s a war being fought against us – some say it’s the Taliban, some say its America, others say it’s the mullah’s, and so on. Well, if it is a war according to that narrative, then we do need to fight a war against Pakistan’s problems, but how many wars can we fight? Do we pick up arms and fight the Taliban? Or do we join the Taliban and fight America, in Afghanistan or like Faisal Shahzad in New York? What good does protesting do if you do not get your voice heard in the end? Do numbers in the street matter when you give a speech and go home, but do not achieve anything substantive or cogent from the common platform that you all stand for and believe in?

Yes. We need to fight a war against all of Pakistan’s problems. One war that we need to fight is against apathy. And that is the biggest war we must fight. Why do we not care? We must care. If we feel sad or depressed, then we must do something about it so that it does not keep happening to us; call it survival if not altruism. We cannot sit idly by and watch our nation spiral down into further depths of chaos and anarchy. But what do we do? Do we join the police or army? Or do we join the Taliban and Al Qaeda? Do we join those who are protesting every day out in the streets, on one issue or the other? We might think of all of this, in the comfort of our drawing room, and then just move to the TV or read something on the internet. Or go out to have a cup of coffee, meet with friends, drive around, do something interesting, get tired, go to sleep, and live another day.

If you are still reading this right now, know that you are responsible for this country’s problems if you don’t do anything about it. Whenever you stop acting like a citizen of Pakistan, you do this country so much harm that it becomes hopeless for other citizens of Pakistan to live or survive. And there is a way to make amends for it. There is a way to actually undo the wrongs, the mistakes, the grievances of the past sixty-three years.

If Pakistan is your country, if you really feel for it beyond an national identity card or a passport, then own up to it – to its mistakes and to its greatness. Become its engine of change. Bring positive and meaningful change, and stop waiting for it. Stop being concerned – start being responsible. And it’s not that difficult, and if you really are worried about Pakistan and want to help change it for the better, then you won’t have to change much yourself – you will just have to become, for lack of a better term, more productive. And others who are already being responsible, or want to be responsible, will join you. If you don’t believe me, you should listen to Allama Muhammad Iqbal who said har fard hai millat ke muqaddar ka sitara; each citizen is the shining star of the nation’s destiny.

So stop cribbing about hopelessness and despair. Stop being apathetic. BE the change you want to see. Bring positive and meaningful change through democratic means, and silence all those here and abroad who say that Pakistan is a failed state. It does not matter who you vote for, as long as you vote and make your voice heard. Your political opinion does not matter in your drawing room – and contrary to popular opinion, it may matter even less on your blog – but on the ballot paper, your political opinion is your exercise in charting out the destiny of your country. It is both your privilege and your responsibility – in a democracy, the citizens rule, but if the citizens are not responsible or capable to rule, then the system falls apart. And we all see that it has.

Despite our better judgment, we have made this mistake again, and again, and again. This has happened in all elections that Pakistan has experienced – most of them have been labeled as rigged, while the one in 2008 had high hopes, but ended up with results that also accounted for 46% bogus votes in the final tally. The citizens of Pakistan are capable to rule themselves – if they were not, sovereignty would have no point in our country, and some already believe it doesn’t – but in order to properly exercise this capability, the citizens of Pakistan must be responsible about electing their leaders and representatives. To do this, they must vote responsibly – because someone who has come to power without your vote (whether it is a general or a politician) will not be accountable to you in any way. Pakistan must prepare for elections in late 2012, or early 2013. Or even before that. The timing of the election matters very little – what matters is the result, and what matters even more is that if it reflects the general will of the people of Pakistan. How must Pakistan prepare for this? By being aware about the political system of the country and of the political options available in any given electoral situation. Since education has suffered immensely in Pakistan, even electoral knowledge in the voting populating is found wanting. Constituents must responsibly elect their representatives, and they must know how to be responsible during election campaigns as well as during voting procedures. Bringing change by the ballot is the only chance Pakistan has; change by the bullet is something the residents of Swat would repeatedly warn you about.

It is time for you to become responsible; responsible about Pakistan, responsible about its problems, responsible about what you can do about it, responsible about actually doing something about it, and by doing so, encouraging others to be responsible in the smallest ways that they can. Once we are able to understand how to convert our concerns and depressions into innovative ideas and solutions, we can share these small solutions to help our communities deal with bigger problems. For Pakistan right now, community mobilization is the most important element of recovering a national and local ethos that is becoming victim to suspicion, mistrust, and other social impediments. Communities must become aware of their living environments, and they must responsibly handle the problems that they and their neighbors face. This cannot happen in a day, but for it to succeed, it must continue to happen every day, and you must do your part for your community even if others don’t. And when it is time for you to decide who gets to govern us and determine the future of our country, make sure you vote, and vote responsibly.

The future of Pakistan depends on it.