A hearing on Balochistan
February 11th, 2012
There is reason to be both optimistic and cynical about hearings by the US Congress’s Foreign Affairs committee on the situation in Balochistan. The hope is derived from the fact that the state’s violations of human rights in the province, including alleged killings, abductions and torture, have generally been ignored by the international community and so, any publicity given to the issue can be seen as a net positive since it opens the prospect of a much-needed change in policy. At the same time, however, the sudden concern by some members of the US Congress about Balochistan could be part of larger strategic concerns that may have little to do with human rights and international law. The Americans have always been suspicious of Chinese investment in the region, including their involvement in the port of Gwadar and in the country’s energy sector. The proposed gas pipeline from Iran is also supposed to run through Balochistan. This, apart from the embarrassment caused to the federal government by the hearing having taken place, may explain the Foreign Office’s denunciation. Even the US State Department, acutely aware of how sensitive this issue is, distanced itself saying that the hearing did not reflect the policy of the US government and that the issue of Balochistan should be solved through internal negotiations.
Having said that, the mere fact that the US Congress saw fit to conduct these hearings shows just how dire the situation in the province really is. Human rights activists and experts apprised the committee of the violations taking place in Balochistan. A representative of Amnesty International even called for the Leahy Amendment to be applied to all military units operating in Balochistan. The said amendment is commonly applied to security assistance programmes to prevent foreign aid from being used to further human rights abuses. While one can understand why the Pakistan government is upset about the hearing, a better response may be to change in existing policy on Balochistan in a manner that the wishes of the local population are factored in. This is the best way of ensuring that the situation improves and that separatist feeling is quelled. That, clearly, is an end that should not even require prodding by a committee of American lawmakers.
Another drone strike
February 11th, 2012
In a strike that is sure to reopen the debate over the morality and efficacy of drones, the US reportedly killed Badar Mansoor — the man believed to be the head of al Qaeda in Pakistan — in a drone attack on February 9. Among the crimes Mansoor is held responsible for is the attack in Lahore in 2010 that killed 100 members of the Ahmedi community. He is also believed to have run training camps in North Waziristan that sent militants to fight in Afghanistan. If indeed Mansoor has been killed in this drone strike, then it is a significant blow to al Qaeda’s operations in Pakistan and a victory in the fight against militancy. But this does not mean that it spells vindication for the controversial drone programme.
For one, we cannot be sure if Mansoor has actually been killed. Information coming out of the tribal areas is notoriously unreliable and even though the US seems adamant that they got Mansoor, Pakistani authorities have been hesitant to confirm it. As we know from the experience of Hakeemullah Mehsud, who seems to be declared dead in a drone attack every few months before turning up alive, there is no way to be certain that the intended target has been hit.
Even if Mansoor has been killed, this does not entirely justify the use of drone technology in Pakistan, since recent studies by investigative journalists have found that even with the supposed precision of drones, mostly civilians end up being killed in the attacks. However, this strike does indicate that both parties are cooperating with each other in the war on terror, especially since Mansoor was believed to be involved in attacks on various military installations. In the long run, it is important for the US to get Pakistan to reopen their supply routes to Afghanistan and to have a healthy relationship again. As for Pakistan, it should develop the capability itself which allows it to reach and target militants and terrorists in the areas that are currently covered by the drones. That would resolve the controversial and very emotive issue of sovereignty once and for all.
Funds for the Taliban
February 11th, 2012
The war on terror — and the terrifying fact that we may be losing it — has been discussed over and over again at all kinds of forums. The nature of guerilla warfare, the possible lack of genuine commitment to oust the Taliban, and the complications created by the porous nature of the border with Afghanistan have all been discussed at length. But the president, in his latest comment on the issue, has raised and often-ignored but relevant point. He has highlighted that the war on terror is closely linked to drug trafficking, and can only be won if this source of funding was cut off. The matter is one that has, we are told, been taken up at various international forums. However, it is in many ways surprising that this issue has not been raised with greater frequency within our own country, despite all the focus on militancy and the devastating impact it has had here. It would seem obvious that cutting off funding for the extremists could go a long way towards stopping them, or atleast hampering their activities. Given this, there needs to be a much greater focus on battling trafficking and eradicating the trade of heroin which continues from both Pakistan and Afghanistan, where, along the border, poppy continues to be grown.
There is another dimension to this. While the drug trade may be the chief source of funding for the Taliban, they have through the years, also established links with criminal gangs involved in bank robberies, kidnapping for ransom and other such activities. This keeps the money flowing in and so action to end militancy must then be tied in with a wider drive against law and order. The need to stop drug trafficking exists not just because of the Taliban link but also because it will save the millions who have become addicted to the white powder which is responsible for evil of many kinds. One hopes that the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan will work together on this pressing issue to fight a malaise that afflicts both their people.