A pointless resolution
Thursday, 07 Oct, 2010
IT is like flogging a dead horse. On Tuesday, the Punjab Assembly passed a resolution asking the federal government to develop consensus among the federating units for building the Kalabagh dam at the “earliest”. The Punjab lawmakers should know that there is little chance of the Kalabagh dam being built. If they are unaware of this aspect of Pakistan’s politics of hydrology, it is time they registered it and reconciled themselves to it. The dam’s rejection by the other provinces is categorical, with three provincial assemblies and politicians of all hues joining hands to form a united front to meet the perceived threat to their share of the Indus waters, besides having ecological concerns. Even the money needed for building a reservoir of that proportion is not likely to be available because foreign donors have made it clear they are not going to fund a politically controversial project. That the Punjab Assembly still believes the construction of the dam is possible shows how detached it is from reality. More mind-boggling was the PPP’s support for the resolution. The motion was passed unanimously because no PPP member was present at the time. Yet, extraordinary as it sounds, it had the blessings of the PPP’s parliamentary leader, who said he saw in the resolution nothing that went against his party’s policies.
The resolution is a commentary on the political acumen of the two leading political parties. The country is groaning under the weight of problems ranging from whopping inflation and the gigantic task of post-flood reconstruction to the state of war in which the nation finds itself because of the Taliban insurgency. A new addition to Pakistan’s problems is the crisis that has developed in relations with the US and Nato following the menacing rise in the number of drone attacks and the violation of Pakistan’s territory by Nato-Isaf helicopters. The gravity of the situation demands national unity and a mobilisation of the people’s energies to pull Pakistan away from the brink. Instead, the assembly of the country’s most populous province wastes its time in passing a resolution that adds to the nation’s misery instead of mitigating it.
From the PML-N’s own point of view, the resolution couldn’t be more counter-productive, for
instead of creating space for itself in the three other provinces, the PML-N resolution has handed the nationalist parties a new opportunity for Punjab-bashing. In Sindh especially we can expect a new round of protests and rallies against a project which, despite being dead, will come in handy as a rallying point for all nationalists, thanks to Tuesday’s pointless resolution.
-------------
Clarity needed
Thursday, 07 Oct, 2010
AS Isaf convoys bound for Afghanistan continue to be attacked in parts of Pakistan and one of the two entry points at the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the Torkham crossing, remains closed, it has become increasingly clear that the latest rise in tensions between the US and Pakistan is not likely to abate any time soon. Predictably, the blame for this unfortunate, and potentially dangerous, state of affairs must be shared by both sides. The Isaf helicopter incursions into Pakistan and missiles fired from across the Afghan border were simply bad ideas. Worse, Isaf/the US have shown a reluctance to disavow the attacks themselves and have gone only as far as to show some sympathy for the loss of Pakistani soldiers’ lives in one attack in Kurram Agency. It is clear that American frustrations with the slow pace of Pakistan’s efforts to dismantle, or even aggressively tackle, the militant sanctuaries in North Waziristan Agency have reached a new high. But whether the frustrations are justified or not is beside the point: in foreign policy and particularly in the midst of a war, states should always focus on outcomes, not avenues for expressing counter-productive frustrations. Few neutral observers would give the American sabre-rattling much chance of success, given that Pakistan has counter leverage (impeding non-lethal Isaf supplies’ delivery) and that its strategic choices have not bowed to political timelines in Washington over the last decade. So it makes little sense to vitiate the atmosphere between the two countries further when there is little possibility of inducing a serious shift in policy through such tactics.
On Pakistan’s part, there is a need to bring some clarity, in public as much as possible, on its partnership with the US in the fight against militancy. What is the policy on drones? What is the policy on cross-border ‘hot pursuit’ or other raids? Are there special exceptions for the very highest of high-value targets, such as Bin Laden, Zawahiri or Mullah Omar? The benefit of having clarity on such issues would be that the Americans would not be able to unilaterally amend the rules when it suits them.
-------------
Outdated stereotype
Thursday, 07 Oct, 2010
THE sentencing of Faisal Shahzad on Tuesday to life imprisonment is a reminder of how the stereotypes and political discourse surrounding militancy and extremism are out of sync with reality. Traditionally, militancy of the variety witnessed in Afghanistan and Pakistan has been understood as a phenomenon linked to poverty and political disenfranchisement. Extremist ideologues, it is argued, use these social issues as pegs to challenge existing power structures and view the ranks of the poor as recruiting grounds. This may still be true but it does not apply to persons such as Faisal Shahzad with roots in the secular, upper middle class who first went to the US in 1998 to study for a university degree.
He showed no remorse during court appearances, reportedly telling investigators that he had hoped to pull off a second bombing. Worryingly, evidence has emerged that he received cash and advice from the TTP. In terms of his background, Faisal Shahzad is not alone. Young men with similar profiles have been found to have participated in a number of terrorist attacks in recent years, including 9/11. Omar Saeed Sheikh, who studied at Lahore’s Aitchison College and the London School of Economics, is another example. Clearly, extremism is an issue that is no longer confined to minds that have been rendered susceptible by poverty, or the lack of awareness and education. This aspect of the matter merits attention, because the new breed of terrorists comes not from the tribal areas but from cities, including western ones. The West must ask itself why increasing numbers of people are succumbing to extremist ideologies and quoting perceived western inequities as their motivating force. Faisal Shahzad told the court that he had acted in reaction to US military action in Muslim countries; why is this becoming an oft-repeated statement in the context of terrorism?