Is the U.S-Pakistan Alliance Against Terrorism Coming to an End?:


By Tariq Mahmud Ashraf:
(0ct3,2008)

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/ADMINI%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-9.jpg[/IMG]
continuation of Pakistan’s support for the U.S.-led war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Commencing with the enormous backlash in Pakistan in the aftermath of the raid by U.S. Special Forces on Angoori Ada in the tribal area of South Waziristan on September 3; the disclosure by the New York Times that President Bush issued secret orders allowing U.S. Special Forces to undertake operations inside Pakistan without prior notice (New York Times, September 11); and the aggressive statements of several Pakistani leaders, the entire country has been gripped by a wave of anti-American sentiment which the country’s top civilian and military leadership has also been quick to echo.

Although disagreements between Pakistan and the United States have persisted ever since the latter invaded Afghanistan and President Pervez Musharraf engineered the abrupt somersault in Pakistan’s policy towards the Taliban to bring it in line with U.S. dictates, these have seldom assumed serious proportions or created apprehensions as they do now. In fact, recent events indicate that a major recalculation might be in the offing in Islamabad vis-a-vis Pakistan’s support for the U.S.-led War on Terrorism. Even the terrorists seem to have recognized the weakness of the regime in Islamabad and have conveyed a powerful message to it with the recent attack on the Marriott Hotel located in the heart of Islamabad (Dawn [Karachi], September 20; see Terrorism Focus, October 1).

A Diverging Alliance:

The recent furor over aggressive U.S. unilateralism surfaced immediately after U.S. Special Forces undertook their first-ever operation on Pakistani soil inside South Waziristan. The September 3 “snatch-and-grab” raid by an elite US Navy SEAL team resulted in the death of nine to twenty individuals (Dawn, September 13).

While the Pakistan Government lodged an immediate and forceful protest with the United States over this violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, Pakistan’s chief-of-staff, General Ashfaq Kayani, alluded to the implications of the cross-border raid by saying "such reckless actions only help the militants and further fuel the militancy in the area” (AP, September 11).

What was disturbing about the Special Forces incursion was the failure to provide any advance information by the U.S. military or government to their Pakistani counterparts. This was despite the fact that there were numerous military-to-military meetings in the preceding weeks, including visits by Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen to Pakistan and the secret August 27 “military summit” between Admiral Mullen and General Kayani aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. In addition to these meetings, the regular established channels of communication between NATO / ISAF authorities and the Pakistan military were available to inform each other of any new developments or operations, but these were not brought into use.

General Kayani’s discomfiture over having been kept in the dark even by those U.S. military commanders with whom he has been in regular contact was evident from his statements after the incident. While Admiral Mike Mullen was telling Congress that Pakistan had to be convinced to help "eliminate [the enemy's] safe havens," General Kayani was strongly criticizing the U.S. for leading NATO forces on a series of cross-border raids on militants within Pakistani territory, insisting there was no deal allowing foreign troops to conduct operations there. More explicitly, he reiterated that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country would be defended at all costs and that no external force is allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan (Daily Times [Islamabad], September 13; The News [Islamabad], September 13).

The national clamor inside Pakistan for the government to respond to this act of overt and unwarranted aggression led to a short-lived decision to stop the movement of U.S. military supplies through Pakistan en route to Afghanistan. The raids were the major issue discussed at the 111th meeting of the Corps Commanders at General Headquarters in Rawalpindi on September 12-13.

The Pakistan Air Force (PAF) began mounting Combat Air Patrols (CAPs) over Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) for the first time since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At the Government level, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's National Security Advisor, Major General (retd) Mehmud Durrani, formally wrote to his U.S. counterpart Stephen Hadley on September 5, warning that Pakistan would not allow any foreign forces to operate on its territory. This candid warning was issued to the Bush administration a day before Asif Ali Zardari was elected as the President of Pakistan (The News, September 13).

On the same day the United States was remembering the events of 9/11, the Pakistan Army was ordered to retaliate against any action by foreign troops inside the country. The Pakistan ambassador to the United States received assurances that the U.S.-led Coalition forces in Afghanistan would not operate inside Pakistan or launch any strike. However, the same night, Coalition forces launched another missile attack on Miranshah, killing more than 12 people. The escalating attacks by Coalition forces inside Pakistan have forced policymakers in Islamabad to seriously revisit Pakistan’s policy on the war on terror (The News, September 12).

An American government official quoted in a U.S. military newspaper described the Pakistani backlash to the September 3 Special Forces raid:

“[The raid was] an opportunity to see how the new Pakistani government reacted. If they didn’t do anything, they were just kind of fairly passive, like Musharraf was … then we felt like, okay, we can slowly up the ante, we can do maybe some more of these ops. But the backlash that happened, and especially the backlash in the diplomatic channels, was pretty severe… Once the Pakistanis started talking about closing down our supply routes, and actually demonstrated they could do it, once they started talking about shooting American helicopters, we obviously had to take seriously that maybe this [approach] was not going to be good enough. We can’t sustain ourselves in Afghanistan without the Pakistani supply routes. At the end of the day, we had to not let our tactics get in the way of our strategy. … As much as it may be good to get some of these bad guys, we can’t do it at the expense of being able to sustain ourselves in Afghanistan, obviously" (Air Force Times, September 29).

An editorial in Islamabad’s The News best encapsulated the frustration of Pakistanis:

"There is an escalating sense of furious impotence among the ordinary people of Pakistan. Many - perhaps most - of them are strongly opposed to the spread of Talibanization and extremist influence across the country: people who might be described as 'moderates'. Many of them have no sympathy for the mullahs and their burning of girls' schools and their medieval mindset. But if you bomb a moderate sensibility often enough, it has a tendency to lose its sense of objectivity and to feel driven in the direction of extremism. If America bombs moderate sensibilities often enough, you may find that its actions are the best recruiting sergeant that the extremists ever had" (The News, September12).

In another development, tribal elders met in Miranshah and announced their whole-hearted support for the Pakistan Government in any action it takes to face up to attacks by U.S./ Coalition forces on Pakistani soil. While welcoming the presence of PAF combat aircraft, which reportedly led to an unmanned U.S. drone withdrawing into Afghanistan territory, these tribal leaders vowed to fight alongside the Pakistani forces against all foreigners. The tribal leaders threatened to go further: “If missile attacks and bombing of our houses and markets do not stop, a tribal lashkar will launch a counter-attack inside Afghanistan” (Dawn, September 13).

Other than the combat patrols being undertaken by the PAF to thwart any ingress by American Predator UAVs, Pakistani security forces fired in the air to discourage a group of U.S. soldiers from crossing the Pakistan – Afghanistan border on the night of September 14-15. Seven U.S. helicopter gunships and two troop-carrying Chinook helicopters landed in the Afghan province of Paktika near the Zohba mountain range. U.S. troops from the Chinooks then tried to cross the border. As they did so, Pakistani paramilitary troops fired into the air and the U.S. troops halted their approach. The firing lasted for several hours, local people evacuated their homes and tribesmen took up defensive positions in the mountains (BBC, September 15). The reaction of the tribesmen indicates the adoption of an aggressive U.S. policy could well widen the insurgency by uniting the tribesmen with the Taliban – something that General Kayani has also alluded to. The Pakistan Government downplayed the event, saying the firing from the Pakistani side was carried out by the local tribesmen and not by Pakistani security forces.

Mutual Suspicions:

The checkered history of Pakistan-U.S. relations is well known. The two countries have had the most unstable of ties ever since Pakistan first allied itself with the U.S. by joining the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO, 1955-79) and becoming the recipient of U.S. military hardware. Pakistan’s disillusionment with the United States commenced with the imposition of the U.S. arms embargo during the 1965 Indo-Pak war and was further crystallized by the hands-off stance of the United States during the 1971 Indo-Pak war which saw Pakistan dismembered. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan once again brought the two countries together, only to see the United States depart abruptly, leaving Pakistan to clean up the mess. A distrust of the United States and its intentions permeated the Pakistan national psyche, a situation which was played upon by politicians and religious leaders to further their own agendas. President Musharraf’s decision to align Pakistan with the U.S.-led war on terrorism once again brought the two countries together Notwithstanding the imperatives that forced Musharraf to join the U.S. bandwagon, his decision created enormous controversy throughout Pakistan and was one of the factors that precipitated his eventual fall from power.

The uneasiness in the alliance stems from a number of causes:
the differing motivations of the United States and Pakistan in waging the war on terrorism;
the fact that Afghanistan lies in Pakistan’s backyard and has long been considered by its military leadership as bestowing strategic depth on Pakistan;
the ethnic, linguistic, cultural, social, tribal and religious affinities of the Pashtuns on both sides of the Durand Line;
the persistence of the U.S. leadership in forging relations based on individuals who are in power;
the growing alienation of the Pakistani populace with U.S. policies and the creeping perception that the war on terrorism is just an excuse for a campaign against Islam with the underlying theme of controlling the resources of mineral rich Central Asia while containing China.

In order for this alliance to survive, both countries need to understand that continuation of the military campaign is in their own national interest. It is vital, therefore, that the United States shed the cloak of unilateralism to wage this war together with Pakistan rather than alienating it by violating the latter’s sovereignty.

If the U.S. persists with its aggressive military unilateralism, it might be seen as following in the footsteps of the Soviets, whose ignominious retreat from Afghanistan spelled the demise of the USSR. If this happens, the United States could well be confronted with another Vietnam-like situation with no easy exit available. Interestingly, the aggressive stance of the Pakistan Army has been tempered by a more conciliatory attitude from Islamabad, with Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar stressing the need for the issues imperiling U.S.-Pakistan relations to be addressed in a pragmatic manner without bringing the two allies to a state of undesirable military confrontation (Arab News, September 14).

Conclusion:

The War on Terrorism consists of two separate battles: the first being waged by the United States and Coalition forces against the Taliban inside Afghanistan and the second being waged by the Pakistan military against the extremist militants who have made FATA their base of operations. In order to bring this war to a successful end, the efforts being expended on these two battles need to be coordinated and integrated, taking into consideration the apprehensions of both Pakistan and the United States while satisfying their respective policy objectives. Only then can this troubled, albeit necessary, alliance survive the test of time.

The United States must also take into account the fragility of Pakistan’s democratic government in dealing with this situation and endeavor to strengthen rather than weaken it, since the failure of the nascent democratic dispensation in Islamabad could create an opening for the country’s military to step in once again. This is completely undesirable since democracy in Pakistan would be put on the shelves for at least another decade if not more, leading to further instability and a possible failure of the country as a viable nation-state.

Timidity abroad, feudal ferocity at home
By Shireen M Mazari
9/17/2008
It would appear that the wimpish political leadership, in the wake of the no-nonsense statements of the army and air chiefs, has finally reconciled to the fact that the nation could not continue to accept the expanding US military intrusions into Pakistan. Of course, Prime Minister Gilani continued to show his timidity in the face of the US by declaring that we could only deal with the US diplomatically, and Zardari has yet to make a comment on the issue, but eventually the Pakistani security forces took action against US forces seeking intrusion into Pakistan and their non-lethal firing sent the proper message to the would-be invaders. Equally comforting was the fact that the Wazir tribesmen actively supported the security forces – showing once again that when the state is in consonance with its people rather than with hostile external players, the people will show their support.

This is just the beginning of a new threat Pakistani is now going to face, given the noises coming out of the US – especially from its aspiring leadership. The Republicans have now got a religious extremist as their vice-presidential candidate so God help the Muslim world if the McCain-Palin ticket is successful. After all, if Palin sees Iraq as "God's War", one can rest assured she will see other US invasions in a similar vein. As for Obama, he has been itching to have the US forces enter Pakistan since the time he began his campaign. So for Pakistan specifically, and for the Muslim world in general, the new US administration will offer no respite from the bigotry and extremism that dominates the American polity today.

Therefore, Pakistan has to be prepared to fight a dual terrorist threat – from the militants within our own polity and the state terrorism of the US that is now directly threatening Pakistan. That is why there has to be complete clarity and resoluteness on a rational national policy to combat these threats. The Information minister, Ms Rehman, has talked of a three-pronged strategy which totally leaves out any dialogue with militants. Perhaps this is mere ignorance, since wherever a militancy exists governments have had to seek dialogue to bring the militants round to a political settlement (a simple study of Ireland, Philippines and Sri Lanka, would help). After all, one cannot simply kill our own people. Instead, we have to show them the viability of dialogue and political accommodation – but the state must negotiate from a position of strength, which means those opposing militancy must be separated from the militants and given protection. But most important, the state has to be seen to be following national compulsions not US diktat. The US diktat is not restricted to the war on terror issues but intrudes into the domestic sphere as well. Only recently, the US State Department has intervened in a Rs8 billion Railways project which had been given to the Chinese. Seems the US is set to wreck Pakistan-China relations on many fronts.

The present NRO-scripted leadership seems to be going along with this US agenda, with President Zardari accepting the summons of the British prime minister – for that is what it sounded like from the British statement – and postponing his official trip to China. Despite all the efforts of this government to play the US game of distancing from China, the Chinese showed their commitment to Pakistan in the manner in which they dealt with the Indo-US nuclear deal in the Nuclear Suppliers' Group as well as in the statements made by the Chinese foreign minister while on a recent official visit to India.

One can trace the whole history of Pakistan-US relations and one will not find a similar supportive statement by the Americans for Pakistan's strategic interests. In contrast, of course, we can find a plethora of statements by our people, justifying what the US is doing to Pakistan. The present government's US-sponsored henchmen are doing a wonderful job in this regard, led from the front by supposedly our man in Washington, Haqqani, whose utterances are more as an apologist for the US. Take for example, his statement, at the time of the revelations that Bush had agreed to US forces going into Pakistan and in the immediate aftermath of the Angoor Adda attack – "No US orders of incursions" is what he declared in an interview with CNN! Makes one wonder whom he represents.

As for the terrorism issue, unfortunately, because of the massive accommodation of the US post-9/11, unless the Pakistani state can create space between it and the US, none of its anti-terrorism policies will have credibility. A beginning has been made by the proactive action taken against US forces in South Waziristan agency. It needs to be followed up with suspension of logistic supplies and withdrawal from the Trilateral Commission. Now that it is becoming evident that the actual agreements on paper between the US and Pakistan were not as extensive as has been given out since 9/11, it is time for the Pakistani state to reveal exactly what was committed to in terms of support for the US. Also, is it not time to reclaim all the bases that were handed over to the US, especially the sensitive Shamsi base in Balochistan?

It is the lack of clarity over government intent that has prevented a trust factor from developing between the state and civil society, so that only deeds can show intent. Belated correct noises on dealing with US military attacks, even though the president has yet to utter a definitive statement on this count, can only be believed by action on the ground. But the US is only one, albeit the most threatening, issue.

On the domestic front, the deceit over the judicial issue reflects an autocratic mindset that shows no concern for the voice of the people that actually created the space for democracy to revive itself again. Equally disturbing has been the active effort by the PPP leadership to conceal the truth of the Baloch women murdered and surreptitiously buried, simply to protect one of their own. Why have the voices of the PPP women also gone silent on this count? And it was unbelievable to find the respectable Raza Rabbani rudely objecting to the Senate Human Rights Committee taking up this most gross human rights abuse, and forcing the chairman to expunge the remarks of that brave human rights activist Tahira Abdullah, who was simply asking for the PPP senior hierarchy to take note of the investigation into the case.

Nor has any substantive action been taken against the death threat issued by Senator Zehri to Senator Yasmin Shah. Instead, we have had to witness the law and justice minister of Balochistan, a Baloch woman herself, actually defending this multiple murder of innocent Baloch women. Such is the power of decadent tribalism and feudalism in our "democracy". This is certainly not a case of "the people versus the expats, aunties and urbanites", but support to a struggle to end the illegal and decadent practices of the tumandars and to fight the repression of feudal and autocratic mindsets that still thrive in our political leadership – regardless of its urban or rural origins.

The fear that these traditions generate is reflected in the fact that only one defiant journalist, Rauf Klasra, has singlehandedly kept the issue alive for the public in the media – informing us of each new and ugly development in this case. Or is it vested interests that have silenced the self-proclaimed "liberal" media leaders on this issue?

Unfortunately, the present political leadership has shown a paucity for understanding the nation's will, electoral success notwithstanding. Its feudal approach where the state is being treated akin to a personal fiefdom is hardly the way to progress in the twenty first century.



The writer is a defence analyst. Email: callstr@hotmail.com

Pakistan made ‘scapegoat’ in terror war: FM

[IMG]/mritems/images/2008/10/2/2_245362_1_248.jpg[/IMG]Qureshi...matching response


WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said yesterday that his country was being made a “scapegoat” for the international failure to contain insurgent violence in neighbouring Afghanistan.
He insisted that Pakistan was confronting Al Qaeda and Taliban militant activity on its side of the border, which Washington has said was being used as a staging ground for terror attacks against US and other allied troops in Afghanistan.
“A large segment of the Pakistani public therefore believes Pakistan is being made the scapegoat for ISAF and Afghanistan government’s failings,” Qureshi said in a speech at Princeton University in New Jersey.
A copy of the speech was provided to AFP by the Pakistan embassy in Washington.
“We are doing our share in stabilising the situation in Afghanistan. However we must be honest to ourselves that the majority of Afghanistan’s problems originate in and must be treated in Afghanistan,” he said.
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is conducting by far its biggest and most complex operation in Afghanistan, where there are about 70,000 foreign troops, most of them deployed under the Nato banner.
Relations between the US and Pakistan have been strained after US troops in Afghanistan stepped up attacks on militants inside Pakistani territory amid Washington’s concerns that Islamabad was not doing enough in containing insurgents.
Qureshi sought closer co-ordination among the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan, saying each partner should “shed preconceived ideas and notions about the others’ actions and motivations.
“The approach should be to address the problems rather than scoring media points,” he said.
He called for a beefing up of capacity of both Pakistani and Afghanistan forces to fight insurgents.
On the Pakistani side, he said the country lacked night fighting capability and needed the means to gather real time intelligence and to mount a “precision response in which there is minimal collateral damage.”
Qureshi wanted “a matching response on the Afghanistan side” to border control measures Pakistan had instituted.
“We have some 1,100 posts along the border. There are about a hundred or so on the Afghanistan side. These posts and measures should act as a double net,” he said.
The minister said that while disagreements could erupt between allies,” we must not forget that Pakistan and the US are a team in this war.
“Neither can win this war easily without the other.” - AFP

US-India, Pakistan-China alliance visible after Mumbai: Nepal Maoists

Kathmandu, Dec 8 (IANS) The ruling Maoist party of Nepal has warned that the Mumbai terror attacks would escalate greater tensions in South Asia pitting a strengthening India-US alliance against Pakistan, the alleged home of the terrorists, and its ally China.”After the Mumbai attack and tensions escalating between India and Pakistan, the South Asian region is again becoming a hotspot in world politics,” warned the Maoist-affiliated Red Star fortnightly that hit the stands this week.

The Maoist paper says that the visit of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to India soon after the attacks in Mumbai that killed 172 people “is likely to widen the rift between India and Pakistan”.

According to the Maoist perspective, China, Nepal’s northern neighbour that has stepped up overtures to the Maoist-led government with several high-level visits, is on the way to becoming a super economic power with two digit economic growth while the US is passing through its worth economic meltdown since the 1930s.

“China has good relations with Pakistan and is helping Pakistan in many aspects,” the fortnightly said. “Slowly the US-India and China-Pakistan alliance is becoming more visible.”

Blaming “serious negligence and incompetence of the Indian security sector” for the three-day attack that brought Mumbai to a standstill, the Maoist mouthpiece indicates it will give the US an excuse to consolidate its presence in South Asia.

According to the report, US president-elect Barack Obama has pledged that he would concentrate on Afghanistan and that Washington “may attack the Al-Qaeda and Taliban who are hiding in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani government”.

The US, the paper says, has also created a “heavy presence” in Nepal and has the “long-term plan to encircle China”. It predicts that as soon as Obama assumes office, the US will focus on South Asia as part of its plan to check the growth of China.

“The US presence in South Asia means a worsening India-Pakistan relation,” the paper says.

“The US plays one against the other for its interest, just as the British did in the past. China and Russia will obviously feel a security threat with the US presence in South Asia. Rice’s hasty visit to India shows that US want to ‘fish in the troubled waters’ after the Mumbai attack.

“Will South Asia be a playground of superpowers in the near future? Can the leaders of South Asia do nothing more than act as good servants of the Western powers?”

Though Maoist Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda has pledged to foster friendly relations with all foreign governments, the party however is rankled by the fact that Washington has yet not lifted the terror tag it slapped on them following the start of the guerrilla ‘People’s War’ in 1996.

The Maoists had fought a 10-year underground battle against the state inspired by Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong but laid down arms two years ago to sweep the last election.

US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher was scheduled to visit Kathmandu this week, which would have been the first-ever visit by an American official to Nepal following the Maoists coming to power. However, the visit was postponed at the last moment.

China, on the other hand, has stepped up overtures to the Prachanda government, sending its foriegn minister and two high-level military delegations in quick succession.