Signals from Washington
AFTER the hype surrounding last year’s trip, Gen Raheel Sharif’s second visit to Washington DC as army chief was more workmanlike in tone. Following civil-military tensions that erupted in the run-up to Gen Sharif’s trip, it appears both the American hosts and their Pakistani visitor want to send a signal that the security-focused talks were not meant to sideline the political government. They only partly succeeded. The official White House readout on Gen Sharif’s meeting with US Vice President Joe Biden referred to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s breakfast meeting with Mr Biden on Oct 22 and seemed to suggest that this week’s visit was a follow-up. But such elliptical messages can only go so far. A far more powerful signal would have been sent if the two trips had been merged and the prime minister and army chief travelled to the US together. While there may be problems of protocol with a joint trip and Gen Sharif has specialised military issues to discuss with his American counterparts, a joint set of meetings would have signalled that the civilian set-up is not considered peripheral to national security and foreign policy.
Yet, there are undeniably important bilateral issues to be discussed regardless of the state of civil-military relations inside Pakistan. While details are scarce — the ISPR has offered only the barest of outlines regarding the various meetings and US officials have been similarly reticent — it is likely that the results of the discussions will start to be felt in the weeks and months ahead. Most obviously, given the uptick in activity surrounding the resumption of stalled talks in Afghanistan, there could be some kind of fresh push for peace negotiations. With the Pakistani state having demonstrated its bona fides when it comes to making talks a possibility, perhaps it is time for the outside powers to take Pakistan’s concerns more seriously. While Afghan President Ashraf Ghani still appears to be a potentially credible peace partner, Pakistan has legitimate complaints when it comes to the actions and rhetoric of the more hawkish elements in the Afghan state apparatus. From better border management to curbing the activities of anti-Pakistan militants in Afghanistan to working with Pakistan to nudge the Taliban to the negotiating table, it is also counterproductive to put the full weight of expectation on this country alone. If stability in the region is to be a shared goal, then achieving it must be a shared responsibility.
Lessons must also be learned from the abortive talks between the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban earlier this year. There is a fine line between encouraging the process of talks and rushing it. Immediate breakthroughs are unlikely and the process is likely to be very frustrating for all sides. Hopefully, Gen Sharif and US officials are working towards a road map for a sustained reconciliation process in Afghanistan.
Militancy far from over
AS three separate incidents in different parts of the country showed on Friday, despite continuing military and law-enforcement operations in the northwest of the country and Karachi, the militant menace is far from defeated. If anything, these attacks show that extremist fighters are lying low and waiting for opportune moments to hit back at the state and society. In the first incident, four Rangers’ personnel were gunned down in the Ittehad Town locality of Karachi outside a mosque they were reportedly guarding during Friday prayers. Meanwhile, in the KP town of Charsadda, two traffic policemen were killed in what police officials have dubbed a targeted attack believed to be linked to militants. In the third incident, two workers of a media house were injured when the offices of the organisation came under grenade attack in Faisalabad. Punjab counterterrorism officials had issued a warning that extremists linked to the militant Islamic State group would attack media houses in Lahore, as well as army and police targets elsewhere in Punjab. On the other hand, police officials in Karachi believe fighters from the banned TTP’s Swat chapter may be involved in the attack on the Rangers. The group has maintained an on-again, off-again presence in the Sindh capital, and appears to have struck when it found the ‘right’ moment. The Rangers have led the law-enforcement operation in Karachi that was launched in September 2013 and which has largely zeroed in on religiously as well as politically motivated militants, along with other violent criminals.
Due to advance intelligence, security around media houses in Lahore had been tightened, which is possibly why the attackers turned their attention to Faisalabad. The lesson, then, from Friday’s incidents is that actionable intelligence can be critical in pre-empting or raising defences against terrorist attacks. Therefore, the military and civilian intelligence and security apparatus need to keep an ear to the ground to intercept militant communications in order to thwart future attacks. Moreover, the momentum against militant outfits must be sustained as these groups are far from neutralised. An important element in defanging militant groups in the long run — apart from dismantling their infrastructure and ability to organise — is to prosecute those elements in society who are unabashed cheerleaders of violent religious militancy in Pakistan. The clerics of Islamabad’s Lal Masjid, who have again resumed their activities, are a prime example of this breed of militant sympathisers.
Bangladesh trials
GREAT harm can be wrought if the line separating punishment from vengeance becomes blurred, making it all the more urgent to not just ensure that justice is done, but that it is also seen to be done. Unfortunately, Bangladesh stands poised on the brink of this misstep as regards the controversy that surrounds the trials taking place of people accused of having committed atrocities during the period of the 1971 war. The process of investigating the alleged abuses was initiated in 2010 by the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed with opposition parties maintaining that the trials were being used as a political tool. The government denies this, but given that there are doubts that the proceedings meet international fair trial standards, the distrust remains. This latter point was underscored on Friday when Human Rights Watch, while urging the Bangladesh government to suspend the executions of two opposition leaders convicted of war crimes, said that “Justice and accountability for the terrible crimes committed during … [the] war are crucial, but trials need to meet international fair trial standards. … Unfair trials can’t provide real justice, especially when the death penalty is imposed.”
The two opposition leaders whose executions are being referred to here are Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mujahid, secretary-general of the Jamaat-i-Islami, and Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, earlier a legislator from former prime minister Khaleda Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Both have been handed down the death penalty for war crimes and on Wednesday, the Bangladesh Supreme Court rejected their final appeal against their sentences, paving the way for their execution unless the president grants them clemency on the basis of their mercy petitions. For the convicted men, the death sentences ought to be suspended in the interests of humane treatment and the irrevocability of this penalty — which this newspaper has always opposed. But for the reputation of Bangladesh itself, it is important that the standards that prevail at these trials be drastically improved and the process be stripped bare of any vestige of political motivation.
Source: Editorials
Published in Dawn, November 22nd, 2015