New ambassadors

July 20th, 2012

Two new envoys in critical posts at a critical time for the region: the replacement of the American ambassadors in Kabul and Islamabad is both a risk and an opportunity for a fresh start. Continuity at such a delicate stage might have worked better than the early departures of the outgoing chief diplomats; Cameron Munter left in less than two years and Ryan Crocker in just one.

And lingering sources of tension with America in both countries will not make these changes simple or easy. Mr Munter had been here for some of the most damaging episodes in US-Pak relations, but much about this relationship still remains to be sorted out, particularly on the counterterrorism front. And while Mr Crocker helped develop the framework that will guide the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, the trickiest part of it is likely to be its implementation; the new envoy will have to manage both Afghan anxiety about the country’s security post-2014 and mistrust of the American presence.

But persistent problems also suggest that new faces could become an opportunity to reset ties. In part this is because the success of American diplomacy here depends as much on how Washington works as it does on what goes on in Kabul or Islamabad. Mr Munter reportedly wanted to take a less aggressive approach to Pakistan than the CIA, on drone strikes, for
example. And although Mr Crocker’s health was put forward as the reason for his departure, he is said to have been in favour of a slower withdrawal from Afghanistan than has been planned. The more effective the US wants its new envoys to be, the more coordinated the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department, the Af-Pak office within the State Department and the White House will need to be — while still allowing the diplomats the independence they need to do their jobs. With Pakistan the main sticking point is counterterrorism, and in Kabul the focus is on war. Ambassadors, military and intelligence will have to develop consistent approaches without constricting the space for diplomacy to work.

For Pakistan an ambassador coming from a post in the Kabul embassy, as is Richard Olson, is not likely to wholly sympathise with its point of view. Alternatively, his contacts with Kabul could help navigate our own tricky relations with Afghanistan and coordinate a more integrated American approach to the region. Most importantly, the hope is that he is able to bring to Islamabad an open mind and the ability to balance America’s counterterrorism demands with Pakistan’s interests, politics and public opinion.

Blow to Assad

July 20th, 2012

Already on its knees, the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad took another body blow on Wednesday. The assassination of three of the regime’s top security advisers, including the defence minister, occurred in the heart of the capital and highlighted the continued shrinkage of the area under Baathist control. On Wednesday also, 600 more Syrians, including two brigadier generals, crossed over to Turkey, thus adding to the ranks of the Free Syrian Army. With fighting no longer confined to the provinces — helicopters and artillery are shelling parts of Damascus — there are rumours that President Assad’s whereabouts are not known. There is no doubt the 17-month-old uprising has now turned into a ferocious civil war, with the opposition claiming 17,000 fatalities. After Libya, this is the highest death toll for an ‘Arab spring’ country.

President Assad missed the bus in April when he accepted Kofi Annan’s six-point plan only to renege on it. The plan had provided for a ceasefire and smooth transition to democracy. The caretaker cabinet proposal, too, is dead. Even Russia had agreed to a neutral cabinet in which there would be men from both sides. But President Assad’s intransigence scuttled it when he insisted that he should be part of it. This was not acceptable to the opposition. Fissures in the security establishment have now been so widened and the loyalist ranks so weakened that Assad is pulling troops out of the Golan Heights to bolster security around him. The world has watched the fate of the four Arab dictators who have fallen. It is now for President Assad to decide whether he would choose to seek a Saleh-like amnesty and go abroad or suffer a worse fate. If his regime falls, there could be repercussions in the region. The causes of the uprising are not sectarian, but the fact that the Alawite minority has been ruling for four decades may give a sectarian touch to the aftermath. If there is a sectarian flare-up, there could be political fallout in neighbouring Lebanon. Iran would lose one of its allies and that would also affect Hezbollah and Hamas.

Fowl play

July 20th, 2012

WHEN is an ostrich not a bird? Apparently, when you add Pakistani legislators into the mix. On Wednesday, in its (in)finite wisdom, the Punjab Assembly once again declared by a majority vote that an ostrich was not a bird but an animal, at least for the purposes of officialdom. The issue came up because of the re-tabling of the Punjab Animal Slaughter Control (Amendment) Bill 2012. Although the bill had been passed by the PA earlier, the opposition and the provincial governor had objected to the inclusion of the ostrich in the animal category in the amendment act. The Punjab government’s aim seems to be to facilitate the import, farming and slaughter of ostriches for their meat. As a non-native exotic bird, ostriches were treated under the law — until the latest amendment was passed — in a way that limited their use for commercial purposes. Of course, rather than update the laws that would allow ostrich farming to be regulated and ostrich meat to be consumed, the Punjab Assembly saw fit to declare ostriches as animals and skip the more cumbersome approach.

Puerile as the Punjab government’s approach to legislating the farming of ostrich meat may be, the more important questions are, at whose behest was this done and what are the risks involved for consumers? Special interests lobbying for the change in rules are surely hoping to earn windfall profits and it has yet to be explained what loss the state exchequer may suffer from this. More importantly, by classifying ostriches as animals, are necessary health precautions that specialised ostrich farming may require — as opposed to more conventional animal meat — being overlooked? If the denizens of Punjab want ostrich meat, they are entitled to it — but it must be purveyed in a manner that is safe, healthy and without circumventing the rules.