Friday, March 29, 2024
08:29 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > General > News & Articles

News & Articles Here you can share News and Articles that you consider important for the exam

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #41  
Old Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default America’s recent diatribes

What could be the possible motives for America’s recent diatribes?
By
Shahzad Chaudhry

It isn’t really all a conspiracy theory but I don’t mind if we begin with this premise. What has befuddled analysts as well as non-analysts in recent times is the question that what has America gained by its adventure in Afghanistan, which has also cost it over a trillion dollars?

Let’s detail some of these gains: Al Qaeda has undoubtedly been weakened and is no longer a significant force in the AfPak contiguity. The flip side, however, is that al Qaeda now has its tentacles spread on newer shores: in Yemen, the Arabian peninsula, Southeast Asia, the Maghreb and also various cells reported to be presented in Europe.

It all began with George W Bush’s “smoke ‘em out” determination. Of course, no one will deny the need to commiserate with the Americans on the dastardly 9/11 tragedy, but the invasion of Afghanistan only seems to have ended up spreading al Qaeda to other regions of the world. Instead of containing it, it has been transformed into a geographically diverse movement, and one cannot rule out that it will not plan or carry out further attacks. Furthermore, the result also has been an overly indebted American economy, the threat of another recession, a fracturing polity and, all in all, a humiliating drawdown of American stock in the world. Nations pay for a long time after their leaders make poor decisions and bad choices; in the case of superpowers this is even more acute.

The next sin, and an opportunity lost, was when Barack Obama chose to stay the route in Afghanistan. He shunned Iraq because he had a choice, but never got the nerve to dump Afghanistan. He may continue to explain that to his grandchildren with grand moral overtones and religion-draped patriotic zeal, but he will find it hard to explain to his Democratic Party Caucus, how he lost the magical superiority that he and his party had achieved in the 2008 elections. Perhaps he was too weak to answer the call of his conscience and do what he always knew was the right course, but he could not appear as a wimp to the American electorate.

That meant that the US would remain embroiled in Afghanistan. Let us assume that Afghanistan’s key strategic location as a saddle amidst energy-rich Central Asia, a deviant Iran, and a nuclear and religiously polarised Pakistan, was the underlying objective. It certainly would have been a laudatory objective worthy of both time and treasure for the lone superpower of the time. There are two ways for America to entrench itself in Afghanistan to achieve any of the above interests as well as to checkmate China and Russia from making forays into the mineral-rich region. One would have been to convert Afghanistan to an entity that would mirror America and create socio-political identities that would keep both in a natural embrace — a kind of America away from America. That was not to be though; initially the US diverted its focus back to Iraq, and then when attention went back to Afghanistan, a lot of time had elapsed and the US economy was unable to support two wars at the same time. That is when the counterinsurgency mission scaled itself down to counterterrorism. As such Afghanistan hasn’t morphed into a mini-America and has not developed socio-political linkages that would have given the US a natural parking slot and pervasive presence.

The next option, and that still is very much on the cards, is to sign a strategic agreement for a prolonged presence in the country. Under this, Afghanistan would have control and ownership of military bases that the US may occupy at any time of its choosing. That would clearly need a multi-partisan acquiescence in Afghanistan and a long surviving political structure that will continue to honour the agreement. So in case there is a future coalition government in that country with a Taliban presence, this arrangement, of the US having access to bases, may not materialise.

An extended formulation of the same concept, to enable America to revisit the region at the time of its choosing, is to leave enough turmoil behind for Washington to say that it believes that its vital interests, vis-à-vis energy-rich Central Asia and strategically important Iran and Pakistan would remain threatened, and hence it would be able to invite itself to justify a prolonged presence. Even Karzai isn’t game for the longer-term bases deal and is insisting that any such proposal be decided by a loya jirga.

Hence, America’s most credible way out of the quagmire it finds itself in, is to leave a sustaining chaos behind instead of a sustained peace and a political order that will keep creating conditions where US intervention may be necessary from time to time.

Enter the Haqqanis, and America’s wrath for both Pakistan and the Haqqanis. If the Haqqanis, as the more formidable militant group, can continue to cause this region and Afghanistan to be engulfed in conflict, that should foot the bill. What better if Pakistan, too, can be coerced into taking on the Haqqanis and create a wider zone of a continuing conflict. Perhaps that may put into perspective the outbursts from America’s military and political leaders, all pinning blame in recent days on Pakistan.

It was interesting to hear an American analyst say on an Indian television channel, that all of America’s and India’s “pains” could be removed if the Pakistani military were brought under civilian control. That’s insidious: not only would they like the military to take on the Haqqanis, they would like the politicians to push the military to take on the Haqqanis, and in doing so both would be at odds with each other. That way the turmoil would be just about perfect. Add to that what goes on in Balochistan and Karachi, and you have a coalescing set of conditions inviting foreign (read American) intervention on humanitarian grounds — to ward off a possible ethnic and/or civil war (the latter threatening the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear assets).

Of course, much of this is conjecture and some may call it a conspiracy theory. In any case, it awaits the test of time. Till that happens, however, it is worth remembering that what remains supreme are interests and that altruism in global politics is a misplaced notion.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 27th, 2011.
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
Shikva (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)
  #42  
Old Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default Pakistan in peril

Pakistan in peril
By
Javid Husain

Pakistan is steadily being sucked into a vortex of internal and external threats, which, if not handled properly, carry the possibility of dire consequences for the future of the country. Externally, the country faces a threatening situation on its western frontier because of the continued fighting in Afghanistan between the US-led forces and the Taliban with both Washington and the Afghan government alleging ISI’s support to the Taliban. The charge levelled by Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on September 22 that the Haqqani group, which had carried out an attack on the US Embassy and other targets in Kabul about a week earlier, was a “veritable arm of ISI” was the latest example of the mistrust which persists between Pakistan and the US. The admiral also threatened action against the Haqqani group, if it continued killing the US troops. More recently, the Afghan authorities have alleged that the plot to assassinate former Afghan President, Burhanuddin Rabbani, was hatched in Quetta with the involvement of ISI.

Of course, Pakistan has denied these charges and declared its unequivocal support to the restoration of durable peace in Afghanistan through an Afghan-led process. The unexpectedly strong Pakistani reaction has forced the White House to moderate its stance. The White House spokesman refused to endorse the language used by Admiral Mullen while reiterating that the Haqqani network’s continuing safe havens on Pakistani soil and the links between the Pakistani military and the Haqqani network were troubling for the US. President Barack Obama himself pointed out on September 30 that the intelligence about the relationship between the network and ISI was not very clear. However, the US pressure on Pakistan to “do more” to deny safe havens to the Haqqani network continues, as do the efforts by both Islamabad and Washington to defuse the tensions, which had been created by Mullen’s charges. The question, which still remains unanswered, is how far the US is prepared to go to implement its threats against the Haqqani network.

Internally, Pakistan is mired in serious economic difficulties marked by economic stagnation, high rates of inflation and unemployment, and widespread poverty. The energy crisis keeps getting worse by the day. Rampant corruption and blatant violations of the law of the land on the part of the high and the mighty have generated feelings of despondency and helplessness among the masses. Terrorism shows no sign of abatement. The federal government has virtually abdicated its responsibilities of ensuring the security of the masses, promoting economic growth and looking after the welfare of people. The rich are getting richer, while the poor are being drowned in the rising tide of unemployment and inflation.

The challenges facing the nation internally and externally demand a carefully formulated strategy enjoying the support of the people of Pakistan and various stakeholders. The All Parties Conference (APC) held on September 29 was the first attempt to work out such a strategy. It demonstrated national unity in the rejection of the US allegations against Pakistan. Beyond that, the conference called for increased emphasis on peace and reconciliation, presumably both in our tribal areas and in Afghanistan. It urged the initiation of dialogue to negotiate peace with our own people in the tribal areas. Significantly, it also underlined the importance of the policy of self-reliance as well as the need to carry out economic reforms and curb corruption. While these recommendations were in the right direction, it is unclear whether the federal government has the resolve and the capacity to implement them.
The most vexing and urgent foreign policy issue facing us right now concerns Afghanistan. Unfortunately, since the days of Ziaul Haq and the Afghan jihad of 1980’s, this issue has become the exclusive preserve of the Pakistan Army and ISI. This remained the case even after the restoration of democracy in 1988. The overemphasis on the military, as against the diplomatic aspects of our Afghan policy, led to serious blunders whose price the nation is still paying both internally and externally.

One of these blunders was the blind support that Pakistan extended to the Taliban from 1995 to 9/11 in enabling them to consolidate their control over most of Afghanistan and the rejection of overtures from Iran, which was supporting the Northern Alliance in 1998 and early 2001 for a compromise solution of the armed conflict in Afghanistan. These decisions isolated Pakistan at regional and international levels, tarnished the image of Pakistan, severely damaged Pakistan-Iran relations, and intensified the tidal wave of extremism and terrorism sweeping the country. The responsibility for these decisions lay squarely with the army and ISI, which were in charge of our Afghanistan policy. However, the leadership of our Foreign Office during that period must share its own part of the blame for submitting tamely to the military’s diktat.

Afghanistan’s history since the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 provides ample evidence, if any evidence was needed, that durable peace in the country requires a broadbased government in which the various ethnic communities, including the Pakhtuns, the Tajiks, the Hazaras and others have their due share in power. Thus, neither the Taliban, who are mostly Pakhtuns, alone nor the present political dispensation in Afghanistan from which the Pakhtuns feel alienated can restore durable peace in the country. The Americans, therefore, must initiate negotiations with the Taliban without any preconditions if they wish to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan gracefully leaving behind a peaceful and stable country. Pakistan must also impress upon the Taliban the imperative of a negotiated solution leading to the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan and the establishment of a broadbased government in the country. Pakistan should not repeat the mistakes of pre-9/11 period in Afghanistan and should disabuse the Taliban of the notion that they alone can rule the country.

The American attempt to bludgeon the Taliban into submission through military means is doomed to failure. The military effort in Afghanistan must be accompanied by political initiatives to open the doors for national reconciliation and a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. It also follows that Pakistan’s role must be limited to encouraging the Taliban to go to the negotiating table in the interest of durable peace in Afghanistan. Thereafter, the Afghans themselves must take charge of their destiny free from foreign interference. Further, it does not make any sense for us to launch military operations against the supporters of the Afghan Taliban in our tribal areas, while we are encouraging the Afghan parties to go to the negotiating table. We must, however, distinguish between the Afghan Taliban, who constitute a legitimate Afghan political group struggling for power in Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda which is, undoubtedly, a terrorist organisation with international agenda. Our cooperation with the US to root out Al-Qaeda and its affiliated terrorist groups should be continued with greater vigour than before.
In short, our Afghan policy should be rooted in an objective analysis of the ground realities, continued diplomatic engagement with the US and abstinence from provocations. The policy of self-reliance is a prerequisite for such a policy. It remains to be seen whether our political leadership has the sagacity and courage to come to grips with the internal and external challenges confronting the nation. Their failure to do so, and rid the country of corruption and the economic ills from which it is suffering, will condemn it to irrelevance in the emerging global scenario.

The writer is a former ambassador to Iran.
Email: javid.husain@gmail.com
-The Nation
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old Friday, October 07, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default US gains in Afghanistan

US gains in Afghanistan fragile, uncertain
By
D. Parvaz

Most Americans – indeed, most of the western world – are done with memorialising the anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The presenters have left the Ground Zero site in New York, and interviews with family members of those killed in the attacks are no longer on prime time.

For another country, half the world away, it was nearly a month after the attacks that their skies turned dark. As of October 7, it will have been a decade since the US and its allies invaded – and by some accounts, occupied – Afghanistan.

But what has been achieved?

George W Bush, then in his first term as US president, ordered the attacks on Afghanistan because, he said, of the Taliban’s support of al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, seen as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks.

The primary goal of the campaign, according to President Bush, was to show “the oppressed people of Afghanistan… the generosity of America” via aid for the “starving and suffering men and women and children”.

But 10 years after the start of Operation Enduring Freedom, with Bin Laden finally killed in Pakistan, Afghanistan is still considered a failed state. The war, now considered the US’s longest, continues with civilian deaths increasing and attacks -suicide bombings or assassinations of officials – still part of daily life in the country.

President Barack Obama announced in June that the US would withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2011 and pull out an additional 23,000 or so by the end of the following summer. Withdrawing troops in the midst of conflict seems an odd strategy for victory. But the idea is to transfer security duty to Afghan forces by some point in 2014.

Whether the struggling Afghan security forces are ready for the handover – crucial to maintaining delicate gains – remains unknown.

US now aims for ‘managed instability’

The US public’s interest in the war continues to decline as the years wear on – according to the Pew Research Centre, the percentage of Americans closely following the war has dropped from 40 per cent to 25 per cent over the past two years. As the war continues, at great fiscal and human cost, the question of what the end of it will look like and what security goals have been met remains open.

Ronald Neumann, who was the US ambassador to Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007, told Al Jazeera that the notion of deteriorating security is “a popular impression”.

“[But] that is an overgeneralisation of situations that are very different from one place to another.”Still, he concedes that it’s “hard to make sense out of what’s going on”.”Things are more secure now, in some areas that saw heavy fighting, than they were two years ago. The attacks and targeted assassination attempts have more of a psychological effect than [an] actual impact on security since they rarely reach important people or institutions,” said Neumann.

Obama’s decision to pull out a significant number of troops by next summer will increase the risks of a failed handoff, Neumann said. “I think people are acting as though the strategy has already been tested and putting it on an automatic timetable… Conditions matter more than timelines.”

Robert Grenier, the former director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Centre, said that while he feels the US has “largely succeeded” in its aim of removing a terrorist safe haven, he thinks that it “has greatly scaled back its aspirations for Afghanistan, although it hasn’t formally admitted it”.

“The new goal is managed instability.”

But even that view is more optimistic than the way many Afghans see it.

“There are concerns that after the full withdrawal of the international forces Afghanistan will again fall to the situation it was in the 1990s,” said Horia Mosadiq, Amnesty International’s Afghanistan researcher.

“But this time the civil war would be more bloody and will claim much more lives and [cause more] devastation than it did in the 1990s.”

The biggest fear, she added, is that “the international community will forget Afghanistan once again and will turn their back to the people and this is the fear of the majority Afghans there.”

The key, it seems, is to somehow strike a balance between withdrawing troops while maintaining sufficient support for Afghan security forces, said Matt Southworth, legislative associate for foreign policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a non-profit public interest group with links to Quaker peace-makers.

“Security in Afghanistan means more than just military bases and a trained Afghan army. When the US leaves, physical security in some areas of the country will improve, while in some areas security will deteriorate,” said Southworth, who recently organised an under-the-radar trip for Congressional staff to Afghanistan looking to investigate “ground truths” there.

“We must have a full spectrum transition, which includes economic and political transitions, if true – not absolute -’security’ is to be achieved.”

Talking to the Taliban

Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced in June that peace talks with the Taliban were in the works – a remarkable turn of events considering that the Bush administration refused to negotiate with the Taliban when they offered to hand over Bin Laden in 2001.

So, what changed? The country is no longer under Taliban rule, access to basic services has increased and the country’s GDP has grown. Despite this, much remains the same.

The heavy attack on key security targets in Kabul on September 13 – which has been blamed on both the Taliban and the Haqqani network – is just the latest reminder that anti-government groups continue to flex their muscles in the Afghan capital.

So can the US deliver on its promises of freedom and democracy for Afghanistan with the Taliban, who Bush equated with “barbaric criminals” for supporting al-Qaeda, having a legitimate role in the country’s governance?

“As an Afghan educated and working woman I really don’t feel safe under Taliban,” said Heela Barakzai, a human rights worker from Kandahar.

“Giving a seat to Taliban in government is really a big concern to Afghan women and we don’t feel secure and confident for having our basic rights to education, employment, health and anti-harassment and violence under the Taliban.”

Mosadiq, meanwhile, points to incidents such as last year’s stoning of a couple in Kunduz as well as the execution of a widow in Badghis province as reasons why the thought of giving the group legitimacy is alarming to some Afghans.

But it looks like the options are limited at the moment.

“The Obama administration has concluded that we are unable to produce permanent stability in Afghanistan at a price that the American public is willing to bear. And so rather than pursuing an ideal outcome, we’re trying to avoid a disastrous outcome,” said Grenier.

“The 2014 presence will be designed to ensure that the Taliban cannot defeat the regime in Kabul, and secondly to provide the US with a platform to strike at terrorist bases.”

When asked if he thinks that the US can achieve bringing security, democracy and more rights for women in Afghanistan while considering dealing with the Taliban, Neumann simply replied with, “Would you settle for a very strong maybe?”

Pakistan’s security threat

Upon leaving his post as the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff last week, Admiral Michael Mullen said what has been obvious to many for years – that stability in Pakistan holds the key to stability in the region.

“I continue to believe that there is no solution in the region without Pakistan, and no stable future in the region without a partnership,” Mullen said. This followed what he said last week, which was that Pakistan exports instability and violence into Afghanistan.

The country shares what can at best be described as a soft border with Pakistan through which fighters and weapons seem to flow, including support for the fierce Haqqani network.

If by some chance Afghanistan does not fall into some sort of tribal civil war after the troop drawdown, destabilising forces in Pakistan will wreak havoc there, Neumann said.

“If the state collapses, not only will you have a civil war, but Pakistan’s fear of India [the two countries have been locked in a bitter dispute over the Kashmir region] will lead to increased support for extremists,” said Neumann.

“So you not only have destabilisation of Afghanistan, but further destabilisation in Pakistan,” Neumann said.

Indeed, Grenier, who was also Chief of Station in Islamabad from 1999 to 2002 (where he had responsibility for Afghanistan until the fall of the Taliban) said that there is a direct relationship between the spikes in violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“Events in one place have an immediate effect in another,” said Grenier.

“Militants are launching attacks back and forth. The army in Pakistan is concerned with groups that pose an immediate threat to them as opposed to in Afghanistan.”

In other words, over-extended Pakistani security forces are reluctant to take action against a group of fighters if it could prompt further cohesion between anti-government groups there and in Afghanistan.

A decade’s worth of tough lessons

Just what the US should glean from its drawn-out experiences in Afghanistan is up for debate.

Barakzai and Mosadiq place emphasis on things like the need to improve how information is collected on insurgents – who they are and where they really come from – as well as focusing on urging the Afghan government to improve women’s access to healthcare and education while restoring justice and accountability there.

Southworth also feels that the US has failed in what he calls “the soft side” of its operations in Afghanistan, such as “development and human needs projects”.

“I hope the US has learned that an adequately funded State Department not under constant threat of budget cuts is the key to fulfilling these kinds of obligations,” said Southworth.

Grenier takes a more tactical view of US missteps in Afghanistan.

“The major mistake that the US has made in Afghanistan was in thinking it could fundamentally change the nature of the Afghan social and political system very rapidly. We’ve been trying to produce an American solution rather than an Afghan solution,” he said, adding that such a solution would be a decentralised, not necessarily coming from the capital.

But when did things start to go wrong?

“I think two things happened. I think the initial victory over the Taliban came too easily. Our victory was deceptively easy. And slowly, as the Taliban came to reassert itself, US impatience with the limited abilities of the government in Kabul lead the US military to try to take the lead itself, and that was a huge mistake,” said Grenier.

Despite having varied opinions of what could be learned in the fog of war that has been a decade – thus far – in Afghanistan, everyone interviewed by Al Jazeera for this story agreed that the US did not properly articulate its goals in Afghanistan to Afghans themselves.

In fact, 10 years on, they’re still not sure what the US is really doing there, so much so that Neumann recalled how on a recent trip to Afghanistan, Karzai said to him, point-blank, “we don’t know what you Americans are planning.”

“So what you really have is a question of where Afghan will is going to be over the next year or two … it is confused by fact that a lot of Afghans have difficulty figuring out what our intentions are,” said Neumann.

Some Afghans see the US as occupiers, while others believe “they are here as donors and relief workers and some think of them as peace keepers,” Barakzai said.

If looking back for lessons seems difficult, its nothing compared to trying to figure out how things might shake out in the future. But whatever happens, there will be more pain for Afghans.

“It’s very hard, especially from a distance, to measure this…Afghans have been through so much blood that there’s a pretty high pain threshold,” said Neumann.

“What do you do about hope? Foreigners are always excessive in their judgment of other people’s hope.”

Source:---Al Jazeera
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default 10 Years of War

10 Years of War
By
Peter Bergen , Andrew Lebovich


On October 7, 2001, the United States began conducting bombing raids in Afghanistan, eventually unseating the Taliban government and marking the start of America's longest war. The war has had a profound impact on Afghanistan and South Asia, and it will continue to shape the region long after international forces withdraw. The AfPak Channel asked a group of 10 experts and practitioners to reflect on the war, and look ahead to the prospects of a post-American Afghanistan and the broader South Asia region. We have also substantially updated our "Ultimate AfPak Reading List" in the hopes that students, soldiers, and statesmen may be better informed about this important part of the world.


1. Jason Burke, Lessons from the 9/11 Wars

2. Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell, IV, The Afghan National Security Forces: A Progress Report

3. Omar Samad, Afghanistan at a Critical Juncture

4. Andrew Exum, Struggling to Build Afghan Security

5. Scott Worden, The Past as Prologue, Without Afghan Political Reforms

6. Shamila Chaudhary, The Ideological Failings of the Afghan War

7. Jenna Jordan, Killing al Qaeda?

8. Shashank Joshi, India's Strategic Calculus in Afghanistan

9. C. Christine Fair, Mapping U.S.-Pakistan Relations: Past, Present, and Future

10. Derek Reveron, Afghanistan and the Future of U.S. Foreign Policy

click the following address in order to access the above articles.
10 Years of War | The AfPak Channel
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
samreenhassan (Tuesday, October 11, 2011), sultanakbar (Sunday, February 12, 2012), SYEDA SABAHAT (Friday, October 14, 2011)
  #45  
Old Friday, October 14, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default Food security

Towards greater food security
By
Syed Mohammad Ali

The Mahbub-ul-Haq Centre has launched its latest annual report on the state of human development in South Asia. This year’s report takes a closer look at how the problem of food security, impacts broader human development concerns. At a conference organised this past weekend at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, a panel of experts discussed the various contours of this problem from the human security, climate change, economic and governance angles.

Although the report itself draws attention to a broader South Asian context, let us focus here on the case of Pakistan.

The present food security situation in our country is increasingly serious. Hunger is now a major problem for nearly half our population. Drawing upon findings of recent surveys, it was illustrated how food insecurity hits poor households the hardest, causing them to sacrifice basic needs such as health and education.

Despite this serious situation, it is surprising that Pakistan has no food security policy. It was thus rightly suggested that food security should be accepted as a fundamental right in the constitution, as education was accepted as a basic right of every citizen under the 18th Amendment.

India has been deliberating legislation for food security to be implemented using its extensive rationing system. Pakistan, however, began favouring cash grants during the 1980s, at the behest of World Bank advice. Unfortunately, current cash grants schemes such as the current Benazir Income Support Programme are too bogged down with beneficiary selection criteria problems and accompanying political nepotism, to effectively provide adequate food security to all those threatened by malnutrition.

While our leaders like to boast about the prominence of our agrarian sector, the fact remains that agricultural growth remains lackluster since many years. Due to lack of adequate investment in irrigational infrastructure, a significant proportion of our freshwater is being wasted before it can reach fields.

The continuing mismanagement of our available food stocks, and the inability of the government to curb rising food prices, is further making the fundamental need of obtaining food an increasingly difficult proposition for the poor.

Conversely, climate changes are also impinging on the food security situation in our country. Pakistan was described as being the most drought and flood prone area in South Asia, according to one food security expert. The extent of damage to crops, cultivable land and livestock which has been wreaked by consecutive flooding over the past two years provides ample illustration concerning the reality of this threat.

Food security can’t be secured without adopting a multi-pronged approach. Band-aid solutions of providing free meals for a limited duration, to calamity hit displaced people, or inefficient subsidy schemes such as ‘sasti roti,’ will not do much to address the hunger problem in the longer term. Doing so requires squarely dealing with structural reasons for prevailing inequality, and correcting institutional biases preventing the poor from access to resources needed to boost food productivity. There is also need for rethinking myopic policies which place undue emphasis on maximising cash cropping and agricultural exports, which may serve the limited interests of large landowners, traders, industrialists, and bureaucrats; but they seem to be diminishing the food security of many poor, urban and rural households.

Source ---The Express Tribune
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
Hira Jamal (Friday, October 14, 2011), Shoaib Mirza (Wednesday, December 07, 2011), sultanakbar (Sunday, February 12, 2012), SYEDA SABAHAT (Friday, October 14, 2011), zahragurmani (Thursday, December 08, 2011)
  #46  
Old Saturday, December 24, 2011
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default Iran Pak relations

Iran’s strategic orientation with Pakistan
By
Madiha Safdar Abbasi

Apart from being a neighbor, Iran is the only country with which Pakistan has “had age-old relations, based on cultural, ethnic, and spiritual links”. Pakistan shares over 900 kilometers common border with Iran. Traditionally Pakistani frontiers with Iran have always been peaceful, safe, and secure. Iran and Pakistan has a long history of cordial and friendly relations. The history of Pak and Iran relations goes back to the earliest days of Pakistan’s independence. Iran was the first country that accorded official recognition to the independence of Pakistan in August 1947, and its diplomatic mission began to function in and security cooperation only. Economic and technical cooperation was established within Karachi in the same year. During those years, the bilateral relationship was not limited to political the framework of the Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD), which was set up by Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey as an economic grouping. RCD remained in existence from 1964 to 1979.there was need to establish good relations between both countries.

There were three factors mostly important. Firstly, it was the co-membership of Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) which facilitated active cooperation in certain fields. The second factor was the agreement between Iran and Pakistan regarding their unsettled boundary. A joint Iran and Pak Boundary Commission was appointed in 1956. According to the understanding reached by the Commission, Pakistan and Iran signed an agreement on February 6, 1958, through which Pak-Iran border definition was established. The third factor was Iran’s efforts to bring about re union between Afghanistan and Pakistan, after destroy in their diplomatic relations. The emergence of a none-Arab Muslim country on its neighborhood provided her reprieve and reinforced its security. Whereas, Pakistan, otherwise agonized of Indian aggression and hostile Afghanistan, took Iran as its strategic partner that was amply demonstrated by Iran during 1965 and 1971, Indo-Pak wars. It also militarily assisted Pakistan in the initial days of its independence. Both became partners of Western backed defense pacts during the initial days of the cold war.

First Pakistani Premier Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan visited Iran in 1949 and Iranian Shah reciprocated that in 1950, as the first foreign head of a state. It is worth mentioning that, Pakistani National Anthem was played first time in the honor of Shah Iran in 1950. In a way there established a relationship of interdependence between both brotherly Islamic countries right from the inception of Pakistan. Thereafter both countries maintained their bilateral relationship in an atmosphere of Islamic brotherhood and as good neighbors, with mutual acceptability. Along with Turkey, Pakistan and Iran established Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD), an inter-governmental organization for socio-economic development in the member countries in 1964. The organization was renamed as Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) in 1985 and its membership increased to ten in early 1990s by including Central Asian States and Afghanistan. Iran is a rich source of natural resources like oil gas and many others and the other side Pakistan depends on imports of oil and gas.post 9/11 Iran developed their relations with Pakistan. Pakistan’s imports of crude oil from Iran have increased. Also since December 2002 Pakistan has begun the import of electricity from Iran for consumption in Baluchistan. Regarding the future gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan, Pakistan has conveyed its written approval to the project and undertaken to provide international guarantees for the security of the pipeline to India. Many security issues also involve for bad circumstances.

In either of its form, the organization further reinforced the bi-lateral and multi-lateral relationship between Iran, Pakistan, and other regional Muslim countries. Following the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, Pakistan was the first country, which recognized Revolutionary Iranian Government. Pakistan sent a high-level delegation under Foreign Minister to assure Iran that, it intends further cementing its traditional relations with the later. It welcomed the Islamic Revolutionary Government in Iran. President General Ziaul Haq was among the first few heads of states, who visited Iran as a good will gesture in 1980 and again in 1981. During Iran-Iraq war, Pakistan made hectic efforts to negotiate a deal between two Islamic countries to end the war. Indeed, Pakistani suggestions later became the basis for ending the war in 1988. Moreover, Pakistan provided morale and diplomatic support to Iran even during the critical stages of the war that annoyed Iraq and Arab world with it. Pakistan also persuaded Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries to normalize their relations with Iran that at times was viewed with suspicion by these countries. Moreover, it convinced United States not to become hostile to Iran on the issue of its hostages. US indeed wanted to launch a physical attack on Iran to end the crises of its hostages in Iran.

Unfortunately, both countries developed minor divergences over the interim setup in Afghanistan upon withdrawal of Soviet Union and later on the issue of the support to Taliban by Pakistan and Northern Alliance by Iran and India. Considering these differences, Iran did not support Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, once the later was presenting a resolution in United Nations on Human Rights violations in Kashmir in 1996. It was a serious setback to Pakistani efforts and India which had already developed its relations with Iran, got an opportunity “to fish in trouble waters,” for its own strategic interests. Thereafter, Indian spying agency RAW, made inroads into Balochistan and other parts of Pakistan for causing internal destabilization, which is continuing unabated even today.

On its part, Pakistan however, continued maintaining its brotherly relations with Iran. Pakistan always has persuaded Iran on a number of occasions for the reconciliation to shun the differences. Pakistan also tried to convince Iran that the enemies of both have spread these misperceptions, may be for the time being portraying as their friend. It whole-heartedly supported Iranian viewpoint on the issue of its controversial nuclear programmed. Through a progressive reconciliation and diplomatic efforts, both countries come closer to each other in last few years. Regretfully, on October 18, 2009, a suicide attack allegedly of Jundallah militant group killed over forty people including senior commanders of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) in Sistan. In Sep, 2011 Iran closed gate for Pakistan because of 26 killed in terrorist attack in Baluchistan .its impacts on businessmen and trade centers.

The people and the Government of Pakistan strongly criticized the attack and shared the grief and sorrow of the Iranian people over the massive loss of innocent lives. Regretfully, immediately after the terrorist attack, a number of Iranian leaders and high-level officials including supreme leader pointed fingers at Pakistan. Pakistan Government however strongly negated its involvement in the attack and assured Iran for an all out support to trace and punish all those responsible for the attack if found on Pakistani soil. The incident however deteriorated the steadily improving relationship between two brotherly Muslim countries.

Madiha Safdar Abbasi is DDS student of FJWU, Rawalpindi. The article is contributed to pkarticleshub.com
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
azeegum (Sunday, December 25, 2011), Billa (Thursday, January 26, 2012), sultanakbar (Sunday, February 12, 2012)
  #47  
Old Friday, January 06, 2012
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default Afghanistan beyond 2014

Afghanistan beyond 2014: hopes and concerns
By
Bashir Ahmad Gwakh

Even though Pakistan, Afghanistan’s key neighbour and a foremost player in the war on terror, did not participate in the Bonn II Conference, the international community pledged its long-term commitment to Afghanistan. However, the absence of the Taliban and its alleged backer — Pakistan — was felt greatly. Pakistan is believed to have been helping insurgents in Afghanistan and is considered a crucial part of the Afghan conflict.

Nonetheless, their nonappearance did not stop the US and its allies from assuring continued financial aid for Afghanistan after 2014, the year many NATO member countries’ combat soldiers will leave the war-torn country. The US has stated that its troops will only work as military trainers post-2014, a time when Afghanistan is supposed to have around 350,000 army and police personnel.

There are several concerns about this plan though. Many issues have to be solved before handing over the full range of responsibilities to the Afghans. First of all, there is a vital need for speeding up peace talks with the Taliban and other armed Afghan groups. For this purpose, the Afghan authorities have asked for international support. Former key Taliban members such as Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef and Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil along with other experts have numerously stated in the media that the Taliban need to have a political office and visible address where they can be reached for talks. For this purpose and to make things go smoothly, Afghan officials recently named Saudi Arabia or Turkey as the ideal countries for a Taliban liaison office. Considering their neighbours’ pivotal role in ending the 10 long years of devastating insurgency, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has stressed Pakistan’s support.

So what will Afghanistan look like after 2014 when the foreign troops have left the country? It is as simple as this: if Afghanistan reaches a peace deal with the Taliban before 2014 and overcomes the armed groups to a certain extent, the Afghan forces — despite their small number — would be able to keep their country secure. The Taliban confirmation of willingness to have a political office in Qatar seems a huge success and the first real step forward in a potential political settlement. However, if this major breakthrough is not explored further and does not end the insurgency, Afghanistan will remain as vulnerable as it is. As a result, the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police will be an easy target for the Taliban. In other words, the Afghan troops will not be able to defend themselves against terrorist attacks. To assure some success in persuading the insurgents to lay down their weapons, the US has to somehow force Pakistan to stop helping Afghan armed groups and ‘allow’ them to participate in negotiations.

Even if peace talks prevail and Afghanistan reaches the goal of having 350,000 national security forces, concerns over its finances will remain. The Guardian reported that Afghanistan estimates it will need outside contributions of roughly $ 10 billion for defence expenses. According to the World Bank, Afghanistan’s current GDP is $ 17 billion. Although Afghanistan is planning to expand mining and agriculture and increase exports to increase its income, looking at the incapability of Afghanistan’s financial management, that goal is hard to achieve. Many fear that corruption in Afghanistan will spread wider after 2014 when there will be less accountability due to the reduced presence of the international community. That means Afghanistan will not be able to keep up economic growth and therefore will have to rely on foreign aid. For that reason, Afghanistan’s allies have to focus on political and governance reforms to expand the Afghan economy.

Many Afghans believe that the 2014 US exit strategy is premature. American withdrawal means leaving Afghanistan at the mercy of its antagonistic neighbours. In such a case, Pakistan will support the Taliban. Afghanistan could once again turn into a place where terrorists can have safe havens and host al Qaeda. I am sure this is not what the Americans or any other nation would desire to get as the end result to a decade-long war against terrorism. Thus, the international community must take these steps before leaving: train the Afghan security forces that can counter insurgency, boost regional cooperation and reach for a fruitful political settlement with Afghanistan’s armed groups.

The writer is an Afghan journalist working with Radio Free Europe’s Radio Mashaal in Prague and is an expert on insurgents’ media propaganda, Pakistan tribal areas and Afghanistan politics. He tweets at
Twitter

Source----Daily Times
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
Billa (Thursday, January 26, 2012), candidguy (Sunday, January 15, 2012), naina khan (Saturday, January 07, 2012), sultanakbar (Sunday, February 12, 2012)
  #48  
Old Sunday, January 15, 2012
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default Imran, Jinnah & Pakistan

Imran, Jinnah and Pakistan’s problem
By
Aakar Patel

In his short but magnificent speech of August 11, 1947, the Quaid-i-Azam begins by instructing his government to settle the chaos of Partition. He ends by revealing his beautiful, humane side, telling us he sees people without noticing their religion.

In the middle, he lists Pakistan’s problems. According to him, these are three: corruption, black marketing and nepotism (Jinnah uses the quaint term ‘jobbery’). Was he correct in assuming these were Pakistan’s problems? This question is important because Imran Khan also believes that Pakistan’s problems are the same. Corruption is his primary theme and he ended his Karachi jalsa by promising his supporters never to succumb to chamchagiri. If he were asked to name a third problem, he would likely say loss of Pakistan’s sovereignty. As a Pathan, he feels loss of honour in fighting America’s war and in asking for aid.

To return to Jinnah’s list, were these Pakistan’s real problems? No. Pakistan’s breaking up, 25 years after being formed, was not because of corruption. The decades of military rule and the rise of the jihadis are not because of nepotism. Pakistan’s economic condition is not the doing of black marketeers.

What are the problems then? To the outsider, it appears there is only one. The orientation of the Pakistani state is wrong. And it isn’t aligned correctly because of its ideology, whose prenatal trait is more pronounced each passing decade. This flaw produced the state’s resolve to defy India at all costs and the subsequent dominance of the army, which has led to the emasculation of its political parties and made politics irrelevant. The successful penetration of this ideology has resulted in the population’s rejection of its own ancient culture. Indians are as corrupt as Pakistanis, as nepotistic and as poor. Most Indians don’t like their politicians. However, they don’t have a crisis of the state and no need for a saviour like Imran. Why? Simple. India’s secular constitution is accepted by all its parties, right, centre and left. Even the BJP insists on secularism.

India has one of the world’s most bigoted societies, true. But it has outstanding laws and a constitution as good as if not better than any in Europe. The state is aligned correctly, the orientation is right. In such conditions, progress is possible and despair is held at bay.

The equality of human beings is not something we should waste time debating in 2012. It can be argued that some articles in Pakistan’s constitution are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, the second amendment (which apostatises Ahmadis), Article 41-2 (which excludes non-Muslims from being a president) and Article 91-3 (excludes non-Muslims from being eligible to be elected prime minister). Article 227 permanently keeps Pakistan unstable because its power to strike down anything interpreted as un-Islamic is open-ended.

As an example, we have before us the Supreme Court’s opinion this week that Prime Minister Gilani may not be a good enough Muslim to hold office. Absolute purity of their faith is something that seems to be the exclusive concern of Pakistanis.

Imran defines a welfare state as one that gives free medical treatment, free education, free justice and unemployment benefits, as in Europe. He doesn’t seem to understand that Europe’s progress is the result of its secularism. The individual’s religion is irrelevant. This equality is the basis of their welfare state. Change cannot come to Pakistan without reorienting its state, its army and its culture.

This is Pakistan’s only real problem. It’s settling down can come only from a change in ideology, not a change of governments. Building an ‘Islami falahi riyasat’, even by well-meaning saviours, is likely to cause more confusion.

In that sense, Zardari is a better leader than Imran because he understands the problem. He wants to normalise the state, soften its ideology.

Unfortunately, Pakistan’s army and media vetoed his no-first use and open trade policies with India. Now its courts are working on getting him out.

It’s possible that Imran Khan will take power in Pakistan. At the Mazar-i-Quaid, he promised to finish Jinnah’s work.

So long as he tilts at the old windmills of corruption and nepotism, not understanding that the problem really lies elsewhere, his messianic fervour will come to nothing.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 15th, 2012.
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
Billa (Thursday, January 26, 2012), candidguy (Sunday, January 15, 2012)
  #49  
Old Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default Talkin’ ‘bout a revolution

Talkin’ ‘bout a revolution
By
NIMRA KHAN

The word of the day is Revolution, and it’s amazing how the same word can mean so many things to so many people. Talk to the Jamaat-e-Islami and you’ll hear loud calls for an Islamic revolution. Ask Altaf Hussain and he’ll opt for something closer to the French variety. The PPP’s revolution never quite made it beyond the ‘roti, kapra aur makaan’ stage, while the PML-N’s version is really not much more than a counter-revolution. By which I mean a revolution for the sole purpose of countering the much — heralded Imran Khan tsunami.

As for Imran Khan, he claims that Pakistan is more ripe for a revolution than either Tunisia or Egypt, saying that “never in our history have we had such levels of corruption and such bad governance.” The comparison with the poster countries of the Arab Spring is inevitable, as the toppling of the Arab ancien regimes was perhaps the single most important event of the past year — leaving many in Pakistan watching the dominoes fall feel a mixture of hope and envy. But spring never came our way, let alone an Indian summer. Instead we continue to languish in the winter of our discontent.

Surely the factors that have historically caused revolutions throughout history also exist in Pakistan? Corruption is now part of our daily lives and culture. Inflation and unemployment are rising consistently, while the gap between the rich and the poor grows ever wider. General unrest due to the lack of electricity, gas and even a necessity as basic as food spills out into the streets with increasing regularity and the underprivileged majority suffers, while the rich manage to wade through their lives unaffected. But somehow, the leaky ship of state sails on, and the voice of the people is only briefly heard in news bulletins in between the breaking news. Somehow, the revolution never comes. Why?

For one thing, we do not have a common enemy to rise up against, which appeared to be the case in the Middle Eastern and African countries. “Unlike Egypt or even Tunisia, there is a lot of fragmentation in Pakistan, both political and religious, and the situation is too polarised,” explains political analyst Hasan Askari. “The possibility of a nationwide uprising that involves all sections of the population — all political, ideological and ethnic groups — is very limited.”

Another reason is that freedom of expression was stifled in those countries to the extent that even a small crack led to the bursting of the dam. In Pakistan, by contrast, the media is relatively free. A multitude of private news channels are filled with the voices of the general public expressing their disenchantment with the government, condemning the politicians, and crying over the sad state of their lives. Thus a safety valve is created, allowing popular discontent to find an outlet. But despite its shrillness and conceits, expecting the media to act as a harbinger of revolution is unrealistic. “The owners [of TV channels] are usually the policymakers, thus the objectives of the free press are stifled to mere profit making which in turn affects the standard of journalism,” claims historian Dr Mehdi Hasan.

The result is that, instead of helping people unite towards a revolutionary cause, the ‘activism’ of electronic journalism has only created uncertainty and fear whilst demoralising and confusing people. “Instead of informing them about the realities, it has gestated speculations, rumours and desires,” says Mehdi.

He also points to a factor other than the lack of cohesion and a common enemy: the fact that Pakistan’s dysfunctional political system, believe it or not, has a built-in safety valve: democracy.

“There were no real political parties in either Egypt or Tunisia, whereas in Pakistan, political parties, both before and after Partition, have been working towards democratic and constitutional change,” he says.

But by and large, democracy has thus far failed to deliver the goods, and while we may have no Qaddafi or Mubarak serving as focal points for our collective rage, the entrenched political class and mafias do certainly serve as our personal targets.
To Raza Rumi, the editor of The Friday Times, the failure of democracy is not simply due to the failings of the civilians. Laying blame at the doorstep of the military establishment, he argues that “the civilian government is still not fully in charge; factors like foreign and security policy doled out by unelected foreign bodies with vested interest control the workings of the country.” On some level, it seems that we understand these factors and thus never come out on the streets en masse.

Author and journalist Masud Mufti argues that this is because “the army hijacks the situation in favour of perpetuating its own rule, direct or indirect.” According to him, the army typically manipulates the agitation of the common man for its own advantage, which is why the promised change never comes about. Even a successful revolution, Mufti argues, would only lead to a situation of complete anarchy, resulting in civil war. “Ultimately, our fate would be in the hands of yet another martial law, rather than a revolution moving us towards a truly democratic beginning.”
Whatever the reasons, and whoever we choose to blame, the fact remains that thus far we have only seen false dawns, and that the winds of change that have blown across our political landscape have petered out too soon.
Mufti points to the 1968-69 revolts in Pakistan as an example of an unfulfilled revolution. He actively participated in the riots in Lyallpur and recalls how the movement had electrified society. Recounting the burning hope in the masses, who had all reached their pinnacle of frustration due to the regime of Ayub Khan, he says Yahya Khan was welcomed with open arms as Pakistan was desperate for a change.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s subsequent electoral victory brought along with it another wave of exuberance, but hope soon started fading as even Bhutto and his Peoples Party did little to help those it promised to serve. “Bhutto was a modern man by education but by temperament he was a feudal,” says Mufti.
In an article published in Newsweek, former foreign minister, Yaqub Khan says, “Feudalism is inimical to democracy. Let’s recall the reign of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The man said he was a champion of democracy‚ but he acted autocratically and this showed he was a true feudal. You must understand that feudalism is not merely the fact that someone has large landholdings; it is a state of mind.”

Skip a few decades, and the 2007 lawyers’ movement that helped in the restoration of Iftikhar Chaudhry, followed by the ousting of former president Pervez Musharraf, was seen as a big win for democracy. The same glimmer of hope that shone in the eyes of the people in 1968 could be seen once again. But what ensued afterwards? Asif Zardari became president and we saw one of the most ineffectual governments in all of Pakistan’s history muddling from crisis to crisis. Meanwhile the lawyers’ movement itself degenerated into farce, with many of its leading lights and foot soldiers displaying the same autocratic behaviour they had fought against when Musharraf was in power.
It’s no surprise then that many are sceptical about the hopes people have pinned to the new rising political ‘hero’ of Pakistan, Imran Khan. The question is whether this predicted tsunami will wash the nation clean of corruption and other diseases or whether we will rebound into yet another cycle of disappointment and despair.

According to Dr Mehdi, “All the successful movements in Pakistan have been so due to the sacrifices of the people, but the following governments are ineffective in bringing about any productive change afterwards.”
Indeed, despite the efforts for real change and freedom, and the heroic events of the past months, so far none of the revolutions in North Africa have secured a certain victory. In Egypt and Tunisia, where dictators were ousted, the ruling classes are making desperate attempts to hang on to their wealth and power. In Pakistan, Mufti feels that even though a revolution in Pakistan is inevitable, right now there is no direction in the country. “Revolution is just being used as a slogan rather than a programme,” he says. Even though the need and desire for change has reached insurmountable heights, the notion of a revolution is merely being glorified rather than used as a tool for bringing about actual change.

So perhaps it is now time that we stopped dreaming about revolution and instead focused on evolution. Until and unless we take it upon ourselves to bring about a change, nothing can be achieved as our history teaches us not to count on heroes who hold out false hopes. Unless the people of the country unite against sectarianism, fundamentalism, corruption and all the other maladies plaguing us, the future of Pakistan will always seem bleak. Unless we build a strong foundation, a solid structure cannot be built atop. And if we can succeed in doing so, without leaning on demagogues, bayonets and utopian visions, then we will have achieved the greatest revolution of all.

Published in The Express Tribune, Sunday Magazine, January 15th, 2012.
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Asif Yousufzai For This Useful Post:
Billa (Thursday, January 26, 2012), mastspidy (Wednesday, January 18, 2012), sultanakbar (Sunday, February 12, 2012)
  #50  
Old Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Asif Yousufzai's Avatar
Senior Member
Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: DreAm LanD
Posts: 583
Thanks: 173
Thanked 1,078 Times in 408 Posts
Asif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really niceAsif Yousufzai is just really nice
Default Instability and economy

Instability and economy
By
Dr Ashfaque H Khan

There exists overwhelming empirical evidence across countries and across time that political instability is negatively related with economic growth and performance. Political instability lowers private investment, slows economic growth, and gives rise to unemployment and poverty. Political instability breeds corruption, mis-governance, shortens policy-makers’ horizon, inconsistency in policies, and creates volatility in economic performance.

Pakistan is witnessing a prolonged period of political instability (almost five years) and as such its adverse consequences for the economy are quite visible. Despite a free, fair and relatively peaceful election of Feb 2008 and smooth transfer of power, the present government failed to find its feet on the ground and continued to lurch from one crisis to another. Political instability persisted throughout with a heavy toll on economy.

The government found itself clueless in addressing socio-economic problems in general and external shocks in particular. For a protracted period there were no finance, commerce, petroleum and natural resources and health ministers. It gave the impression of having little sense of direction and purpose. The government continued to change its economic team frequently and continued to appoint weak and frivolous economic teams with serious consequences for the economy.

It is strange that the current government, claiming to have a strong majority in the parliament, failed to generate political stability in the country. People within and outside the country had a lot of expectations about political stability, strengthening of democracy, rule of law, and respect for judiciary. The present coalition government thoroughly disappointed the friends of democracy within and outside the country. Print and electronic media continued to highlight the stories of corruption and bad governance which certainly have weakened the government and the writ of the state.

A series of events over the last four years followed by their inept handling contributed to the persistence and acceleration of political instability in the country. The refusal to restore judges of various courts including the Supreme Court, the widespread criticism from almost every walk of life against the insulting language and the conditionalities attached with the Kerry-Lugar Bill, the judgment of the Supreme Court on the National Reconciliation Ordinance, the Abbottabad incidence and the Memogate to name a few, continued to weaken the government and breaded political instability.

Why political instability is bad for the economy? Because it weakens governance as the government continues to strive for its survival with economy getting the least attention. Political instability shortens the horizon of the government, disrupting long-term economic policies conducive to a better economic performance. The government is forced to take short-term but populist measures to win the heart and mind of the people. Such short-term populist measures never improve economic performance and hence, economy continues to suffer.

Political instability is associated with greater uncertainty regarding future economic policy, it certainly affects investment adversely, slows economic growth, increases unemployment and poverty, which in turn, further fuels political instability by giving rise to violence, civil unrest, and strikes. A higher degree of political instability is associated with lower productivity growth, lower physical and human capital accumulation thus weakening the foundation of long-term economic growth and prosperity.

Pakistan’s current state of the economy is the mirror image of the adverse consequences of political instability. Over the last four years, Pakistan witnessed its investment rate decelerating, economic growth slowing, unemployment rising, millions slipping below the poverty line, women and children dying in stampedes for a few kilogrammes of wheat, inflation persisting at double digits for 50 months in a row, public debt doubling and exchange rate depreciating and fuelling inflation and contributing to the surge in public debt.

Pakistan also saw its relations with international financial institutions deteriorating, the Friends of Pakistan showing reluctance in providing financial support and hence overall balance of payments turning negative, foreign investors losing confidence on Pakistan’s economy and on its economic managers with consequent nosediving of foreign investment. In short, a relatively stable and resurgent economy has been destroyed in the last four years owing mainly to mis-governance breaded by political instability.

Pakistan’s current state of the economy and political instability raises many questions. When a strong coalition government like the present one fails to bring political stability, what is the guarantee that a new government (most probably a coalition one) would bring political stability in the country after the elections? Given the nature of politics in Pakistan which has evolved over the years, it appears that political stability would continue to be a distant dream for the people of Pakistan. With political stability not in sight even after the election, what would happen to the already fragile economy? Is there anything wrong with the structure of our political parties or political system? Do we need wide-ranging political reform along with economic reform?

The political parties must sign a Charter of Economy before going for election. They must agree on certain economic policies and reform agenda for the future of economic growth and prosperity of the people of Pakistan. In particular, they must agree on widening of the tax base, bringing every sector and every person earning above the threshold level under the tax net, rationalising and prioritising of expenditure bringing the budget deficit down to 3 percent of the GDP in the next three years, making the NFC Award work for fiscal stability, privatising the bleeding PSE, handling of power sector reform, addressing energy issues, to name a few.

No political party alone can undertake these reforms. It requires commitment from all the major political parties under the Charter of Economy. They must remember that economic stability and political stability are deeply interconnected. No amount of foreign assistance will propel growth unless conditions like a stable and honest government, market-oriented policies, and willingness to undertake reforms are in place. Aid that goes into poor policy environment does not work. Instead, it contributes to debt and restrains future economic growth.

The writer is principle and dean of NUST Business School, Islamabad. Email: ahkhan@nbs. edu.pk
Source----The News
__________________
When Problems are so Big & Your Strength is no Longer enough to CaRRy them, Don't Give uP; Because where your Strength Ends the Grace of Almighty ALLAH Begins
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Globalization of World Politics: Revision guide 3eBaylis & Smith: hellowahab International Relations 0 Wednesday, October 17, 2007 03:13 PM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.