Soft on America?

STRANGE things are happening on the war against terrorism front. While President Zardari, Pakistan’s most powerful civilian leader, was shaking UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s hand outside No 10 Downing Street, Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was flying to Pakistan to hold emergency, unscheduled talks with the top brass of the Pakistan military. Adm Mullen also met Prime Minister Gilani on Wednesday, but the meeting with civilian leaders were clearly a sideshow. Chief of Army Staff Gen Kayani’s recent vow to defend Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty “at all costs” from foreign forces and subsequent noises from the military hierarchy all point to one fact: the military is angry — the word ‘enraged’ is being bandied about — by US attacks in Waziristan. Adm Mullen came to address that anger.

While President Zardari and his civilian cohorts have all rejected American military intervention inside Pakistan, the general tenor of their remarks has been restrained and suggests everyone — inside and outside Pakistan — needs to work to reduce the tension in the Pakistan-US relationship. President Zardari’s remarks to reporters after his meeting with Prime Minister Brown epitomise his government’s soft stance. The president “hoped” that there will be no more US attacks inside Pakistan and said that the UK “understands Pakistan’s position” on those attacks. Intriguingly, the president said that the UK had a better understanding of the subcontinent than any other country and was therefore ideally positioned to present Pakistan’s point of view to the world. President Zardari’s comments on British influence were an unfortunate contrast to those of former Indian prime minister, I.K. Gujral, who contemptuously dismissed Britain as a “third-rate power poking its nose in” when then-UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook dared to offer his country act as a mediator on the Kashmir issue. President Zardari’s comments were also strange given that the UK is furious about its troops losses in Afghanistan — over 30 have been killed this year in Helmand province, where most of the UK’s 8,000 troops are based — and has often blamed militants crossing over from Pakistan for those deaths. Significantly, Mr Zardari was unable to tell reporters that Prime Minister Brown agreed that US attacks in Pakistan were a bad idea.

The fact is American strikes inside Pakistan are a terrible idea. US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher has said the whole Pakistani state apparatus must line up behind the goal of beating the terrorists and stabilising Pakistan. Unfortunately, the Americans giving the terrorists a beating on Pakistani soil will do anything but stabilise Pakistan — and all but guarantees that even fewer Pakistanis will accept that our own army beating the terrorists is a good idea either. No doubt President Zardari and everyone down the de facto hierarchy of civilian power are new in office and faced with an extraordinary crisis. However, the president appears to have frozen in the face of an American onslaught. Mr Zardari must now use his speech before a joint sitting of parliament to explain his plan for defeating militancy — and keeping the Americans at bay.

Political antics in Punjab

REPORTS of efforts to unsettle the Shahbaz Sharif government in Punjab do not inspire hope of a lasting order based on the principles of democracy and tolerance. The PML-N, which heads the now uneasy coalition in Lahore, is justified in objecting to any moves to destabilise its government. The PPP maintains that it is not planning to stage a coup against Mr Sharif, yet overtures made by PPP men such as Governor Salman Taseer defy the assurances held out by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and his party colleagues.

The PPP did allow the PML-N to not only take control of Punjab but also consolidate its hold on power. With help from the PML-Q, the PPP could muster the number required to form a government in Punjab after the Feb 18 election. The PPP could in fact have managed to secure for itself the slot of chief minister of Punjab — a title that has eluded the party for more than three decades now. That opportunity was not taken, we were proudly told, in the interest of democracy and national reconciliation. Theoretically, the PPP has no case now for mounting a challenge to the Sharif government in the province since PML-N is by far the biggest party in the Punjab Assembly. Practically, Taseer & Co may have a numerical chance of taking power in Lahore but given the acrimony the act will surely lead to, the party which is in power at the centre may be well advised to refrain from any such adventure.

This is one side of the story and it will be impossible to absolve the PML-N of all blame should it lose its grip on power in Punjab. It is difficult to say which came first — the PPP’s effort to seize the biggest and most powerful province or the PML-N’s attempt to force the PPP to sit on the opposition benches. The PML-N had to leave the federal cabinet after its partner broke a pledge. The PPP’s support for Mian Shahbaz Sharif was not conditional on the fulfilment of any promise. Consequently, it can be argued that the PPP has no moral compulsion to leave the Punjab cabinet. If any party has that compulsion, it is the PML-N which continues in power while judges continue to be re-sworn at the Lahore High Court barely a kilometre away from the Punjab Assembly.

Time for the kill

MONSOONS always herald the dreaded return of the deadly dengue mosquito, yet authorities have never failed to deliver an unapologetic repeat performance — a failure to advocate timely precaution that can prevent a yearly epidemic. Reports claim that on Tuesday, as many as 16 new suspected patients of dengue were admitted to various hospitals in Karachi. Unsurprisingly, this year too the figures for dengue victims remain alarming. According to the Sindh health minister, 598 people have been brought to health facilities across the province and 172 have tested positive for the vector-borne virus. Karachi is home to over 60 victims out of which, claims the minister, some 24 have been discharged. Dismal statistics persist despite last year’s 25 dengue deaths with an astounding 3,000 reported incidents of infection. Earlier this year, relevant authorities had expressed fears that the virus may acquire a year-round presence if apt and immediate preventive measures are not adopted. Needless to say, these steps become all the more imperative given that only 20 per cent of the population has access to malarial treatment; the same for dengue.

This week, the Sindh health minister announced that his government intends to embark on a public awareness campaign against Aids, Hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis, polio, pneumonia and dengue. The department has prepared a documentary for the electronic media which will be supported by radio and print campaigns. However, where the move is well-founded, it can quite literally be saved for a rainy day. The monsoons have left us with many victims — a situation that was perfectly avoidable had the same initiative been generated earlier in the year. It seems that once again health officials have failed to value time. Regrettably, the poor timing of elaborate health initiatives renders them irrelevant, especially in a country where the absence of new mosquito control technology makes a well-timed approach the only remedy to such outbreaks.



OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press

The Peninsula, Qatar

THE US Federal Reserve has allocated $70bn in an effort to bail out the country’s fragile financial system through open operations after stock markets in New York and across the world suffered a severe blow on Monday.

The world had not recovered from the shock of subprime meltdown when two of Wall Street’s major banking and finance firms, Lehman Brothers, America’s fourth largest investment company, filed for bankruptcy protection while Merrill Lynch, which was worth $100bn last year, sold out to Bank of America for a ‘paltry’ $50bn…. Unfortunately, Lehman Brothers could not find a buyer for saving investors and to redeem its reputation. It was yet another ‘Black Monday’ in the history of Wall Street, which nose-dived 500 points, after the 1987 debacle in America’s financial hub. Financial markets crashed 21 years ago also on a Monday. The heat is being felt in almost all the stock markets, including Qatar, with losses amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars due to poor mortgage finance and unproductive real estate investments besides leaving the fate of some 85,000 staff of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch uncertain.

The Doha Securities Market (DSM) fell sharply by 7.06 per cent while the Gulf Arab stocks recorded the lowest in 14 months. It has been reported that foreign investors have been taking profits in DSM, causing a heavy dent in the securities market….

Now, the million-dollar question before the financial pundits … is, will Uncle Sam step in with effective pragmatic measures to stem the rot? — (Sept 16)

Cowardly acts of terror

------------

Gulf News

THE series of explosions that rocked Delhi on Saturday was claimed to have been instigated by a group calling itself the Indian Mujahideen. Quite what their objectives are, they have not disclosed. But it must be assumed that they are trying to create divisions between Hindus and Muslims, with the attacks being undertaken not only during Ramazan, but also close to some important Hindu festivals.

What is particularly alarming is that these despicable and cowardly acts against innocent people are aimed at weakening the communal harmony in the country. This wouldn’t be the first time such attempts have been made in India. In the latest case, five bombs were set off in random fashion around New Delhi. This shows complete disregard for human life. Bombs are not target specific; to the contrary they will destroy anyone and anything in their reach. The people calling themselves Indian Mujahideen have demonstrated contempt for human life. Ramazan, when these explosions took place, is not a time for violence against one’s fellow beings. It is a time for prayer, fasting and contemplation.

Yet it is glaringly apparent that the so-called Indian Mujahideen prefer to create violence and havoc in busy marketplaces, and that also at times when the markets will be most crowded. The penchant for violence in India is increasing as both Hindus and Muslims resort to the wanton form of destruction that we saw on Saturday. It is a fruitless exercise to resort to death and injury to prove a point.… — (Sept 15)

-----------

THE world in general and Pakistan in particular have witnessed cataclysmic events which have had a profound impact on their psyche, behaviour and conduct. These events are interrelated in one way or another.

Would it be prudent to state that 9/11 shaped not only US behaviour and attitude towards others but also confined the regional ambitions of emerging powers to ‘preferred policy goals’? While India emerged as the preferred power to deal with in South Asia, Pakistan, despite its honeymoon with the coalition forces in Afghanistan, did not find long-term favour.

In the new world order, Washington’s priorities were to commit US forces to two potential conflict zones simultaneously in order to be able to regulate their final outcome. While Iraq and Afghanistan emerged as ‘near threats’, North Korea and Iran were long-term threats which could wait. Resultantly, Pakistan was marginalised in its quest for recognition as a self-professed regional power.

Pakistan’s Kashmir policy took a direct hit because of its alleged military support to ‘freedom fighters’ in Kashmir, and seen as terrorists trying to destabilise a democratic India. Kargil and its fallout were symptoms of a larger malaise which we failed to recognise: our attempts to find strategic depth in Afghanistan and the consequent rebound on the intervention of US forces, much to the detriment of the state’s long-term strategic goals vis-à-vis India.

Intelligence-gathering during peacetime negates or confirms the ‘hypotheses’ wargamed for a potential conflict, both external and internal. While our conclusions over the post-Kargil standoff with India with respect to avoiding an all-out war may be correct, the exploitation of the environment went in India’s favour, with the knowledge that the US would not allow an all-out war between two nuclear powers, especially when its game plan was unfolding in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Consequently, we lost face both on the political and military fronts because of India’s superior exterior and internal manoeuvres. A poor understanding of the international political environment led to faulty conclusions being drawn which included the assumption that Kargil would ultimately result in a stalemate, with India accepting the intrusion as a consequence of its Siachen adventure. Nothing could have been more out of sync with US interests in the region. We faced a humiliating retreat once India was given the ‘go ahead’ by the US leadership.

The insurgency pattern in Balochistan can be seen in its revival after 1974 and subsequently as it gathered momentum in 2000, especially in relation to the US interest of isolating an increasingly dominating Iran in the region. The IPI (Iran-Pakistan-India) gas pipeline was planned under an adverse international environment, where the long-term ambitions of the US in the region were ignored. Meanwhile, the alternative energy options from Turkmenistan and Qatar, widely supported by the US, were ignored to our own detriment especially in view of the lack of control over the security situation in Balochistan. The pattern is reversed in Afghanistan’s north where relative peace prevails and where the Northern Alliance guarantees security for alternative power transmission lines through Wakhan and the Kunduz province.

What does this mean to our strategic analysts? Considering the expected acute shortage of energy in the coming years, we will perforce gravitate towards these ‘preferred options’. Why then must we squander millions of dollars in feasibility studies and waste precious time in the process?

In a post-9/11 world, notions of sovereignty, independent foreign policy and ‘first-strike capability’ in a conventional conflict have to be seriously reviewed. During Kargil, preparations to arm strike aircraft with nuclear warheads and the movement of strategic launchers to forward launch sites were picked up by US surveillance immediately, with warnings being issued to both antagonists to scale down this alert. The launching of Tomahawk cruise missiles over Pakistan’s sovereign airspace and meant for Al Qaeda/Taliban targets in Afghanistan in 2001 is a case in point where information was shared at the last moment with Pakistan, and that too to avoid a misunderstanding concerning a possible Indian strike. Again, during Operation Enduring Freedom, US strategic over-flights in Pakistan’s airspace were forced upon a vacillating government, which had not fully comprehended the dynamics of the unfolding US strategy in the region. Not only were over-flight rights given, certain PAF airfields were also handed over (officially for logistic support) to US ground forces for the conduct of Afghan-based operations. Why did we fail to adapt to the changing military strategy in our region?

First and foremost, the fixed mindset of our strategic analysts, and the notion that Pakistan was militarily weaker than India led to a strategy of pre-emption, or choosing the time and place to strike first to neutralise enemy war plans in a reactive mode. Also the idea of capturing strategic depth or the centre of gravity to quickly bring about a reversal in strategic operations has to be seen in the early arrival of military thresholds.

Is the conventional wisdom of using direct military force preferred over the weakening of the state from within by means of insurgency and insurrection? Is this the preferred model post 9/11?

A reappraisal of Pakistan’s threat assessment will point towards greater emphasis on internal threat especially in view of the Taliban and Baloch insurgencies in two provinces. While the conventional military threat has receded where Pakistan’s traditional enemy is concerned, the preferred model is the attrition-based one that advocates prolonged internal operations leading to the erosion of will and an economic meltdown.

The ultimate aim of weakening the state from within is to erode the capacity to launch military operations and the logistic sustainability for future military endeavours in Kashmir and Afghanistan — in other words to make it a pliant state to allow the ambitions of outside state actors to unfold; and so that minimal resistance is offered. There seems to be a paralysis in the minds of our policymakers on what to do in the given scenario.

The writer is a retired brigadier.

-----------

THEY clutched union flags and held pictures of the Queen, and some wore rows of medals across their breasts. But the words on the banners that they unfurled spelled out their protest: “Gurkhas Won 13 VCs But Still Unwanted By UK.”

On Tuesday, hundreds of Gurkha veterans gathered outside the high court in London to mark the beginning of a battle against the British government’s refusal to grant settlement in the United Kingdom to those who retired from the regiment before 1997.

The actor Joanna Lumley told the gathering: “My father served alongside the Gurkhas for 30 years. I am a daughter of the regiment. He would be absolutely overwhelmed with shame and fury that we have behaved this way to the Gurkhas, our most loyal and constant friends..”

Lumley rallied them with the words “ayo Gurkhali”, the traditional battle cry meaning “Gurkhas go forward”. Many veterans see this as their final fight: five have died in the time that it has taken for their appeals to be heard.

The UK government argues that since the Gurkhas’ regimental headquarters were in Hong Kong until 1997, those who retired before then would not have developed significant ties to the UK. Five Gurkhas who have been refused visas on this basis are spearheading what will be a test case for almost 2,000 other similar refusals.

The Gurkhas, who have fought and died for the British for almost two centuries, insist that their ties are strong. Arguing their case, Edward Fitzgerald QC told the court that the Home Office’s claim that those who retired before 1997 could not have built up close ties to the UK was not rational. “To say this is to ignore the history of the Gurkhas. And it is to ignore the special debt this country owes to all Gurkhas, past and present,” he said. “What matters is the fact of service, not the location of service.”

Soldiers recruited from the Commonwealth to the British army have a right to settle in Britain after four years of service anywhere in the world, under a policy known as the Armed Forces Concession (AFC). Fitzgerald said the AFC “elevates three years in UK barracks beyond the defence of Britain abroad”.

Present in court, in their wheelchairs, were two Gurkha soldiers who were awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery. Tulbahadur Pun, 85, was decorated for charging the enemy alone and enabling his platoon to move forward. Lachiman Gurung lost a hand when, after lobbing back a number of enemy grenades, the third one he threw exploded in his hand — he continued to fire at the enemy for four hours. Pun was awarded a settlement visa only after a special concession followed a high-profile campaign; Gurung does not have one.

— The Guardian, London

---------------------------------------------