Friend or foe?
Monday, 31 May, 2010
It's enough to make one’s heart sink. “The US military is reviewing options for a unilateral strike in Pakistan in the event that a successful attack on American soil is traced to the country’s tribal areas, according to senior military officials,” says a report in The Washington Post. The writer is Greg Miller, one of the Post’s best reporters and considered to have matchless sources in American intelligence and national security circles. America is clearly trying to send a message to Pakistan and the subtext is no longer just ‘do more’: it’s ‘do more, or else’.
The questions here are endless. If there is an attack on American soil and it is traced back to Pakistan, would it not also indicate a failure of American security and intelligence circles?
If zero tolerance is the game, should American officials also not be in the firing line, metaphorically speaking of course, in the event that the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, etc., all fail to prevent an attack? With these deliberate leaks to the press, is the American security establishment not flirting with danger domestically? The American public is being primed to demand some action against Pakistan in the event of a terrorist strike. If the trend continues, it will be more difficult for American politicians to resist launching strikes inside Pakistan even if they judge that there is no need — the demands of a public trained to see Pakistan as the problem may be too great at that point.
What are the long-term gains versus the costs of such a strike? Could the US realistically launch strikes inside Pakistan without expecting a severe backlash here, from the security establishment, the public, the politicians and the non-state actors? It would be absurd for America to try and position itself as a friend and well-wisher of Pakistan if it were at the same time launching unilateral strikes inside this country (whatever the official line, the drone strikes are not considered ‘unilateral’ by either side). And what message does this send to other countries? Could India argue it has a similar ‘right’ to launch attacks inside Pakistan? Before continuing down this road, American officials need to pause and think harder about the ramifications.
Peace in Swat
On Thursday, a statement released by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan welcomed the restoration of peace in Swat, citing the reports of a fact-finding team. This is encouraging and testifies to the Pakistan Army’s efforts since the military operation was launched last year. However, lasting stability hinges on several factors and requires more than the efforts of the army alone.
First, the security forces must refrain from adopting a ham-fisted approach. No illegal practices should be associated with the army. Yet the HRCP fact-finding team says that the security forces were in some areas committing human rights violations. These include extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions and the forced displacement of families of suspected militants. This is counterproductive and must cease since it tarnishes the image of the army while alienating the local people.
Secondly, the role played by the army in maintaining peace must slowly but surely be handed over to non- military agencies such as the police. The task of infrastructure development and rehabilitation must also be entrusted to civi- lian bodies. That the army repaired and rebuilt over 200 schools is praiseworthy, for instance, but sends the signal that civilian organisations are not in charge. The confidence of the people will not be restored unless the region appears safe enough for the army to be seen to be taking a back seat.
Third, the region needs a more efficient justice system. This will not only restore confidence in the state but also reduce the need for illegalities such as arbi-trary detention and extrajudicial killings. Only 57 of the nearly 3,000 cases registered against suspected militants since May 2009 have so far been decided, and there have been three convictions. This is unsurprising since there is only one anti-terrorism judge for the seven districts of Malakand division. Such deficiencies must be addressed if peace in Swat is to be sustainable.