By: Imran Malik | March 24, 2013 . 2

The armed UAVs (drones, in common parlance) are fast becoming the weapon systems of choice in the latest wars being waged by the US/Nato in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Mali et al. Its pursuit of al-Qaeda though understandable is simultaneously raising very serious issues of strategic, ethical, moral and legal dimensions across international borders.

The US drone campaigns are characterised by a criminal disregard for international law. They ruthlessly violate sovereignties of nations and wreak indiscriminate death and devastation in their target zones. For every moderately worthwhile terrorist leader that they take out, they also kill a disproportionately large number of innocent men, women and children - who are arrogantly and heartlessly dismissed as mere “collateral damage”.
The humans, who comprise this “collateral damage”, however, get buried unsung.

In our regional context, the UN, the US and Pakistan have all been complicit in creating and sustaining this human tragedy.

The UN has been a mute and callous observer of this gross injustice. It could have raised its voice and mounted a potent diplomatic initiative to deter this human tragedy. It chose to remain criminally silent; and all that while the “collateral damage” continued to rise exponentially. Only now has the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, Ben Emmerson, deemed it necessary to state that the US was, indeed, in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. He also negated the US contention that these drone attacks had Pakistan government’s tacit approval(?). But is it not a case of too little, too late? The tragic “collateral damage” may have already brutalised the vengeful tribal societies of Pakistan’s northwestern frontier regions beyond redemption.

The UN could and should have intervened to save innocent lives. It could and should have proffered non-military solutions to the issue. It chose to do neither.

‘The UN has a case to answer’.

The US is in a relentless pursuit of terrorists across the globe, in particular al-Qaeda. It has assets on ground to search, identify, report and indicate targets to the distant operators, who guide these deadly weapons systems stealthily to their unwary quarries. The execution is generally silent, quick, ruthless and indiscriminate, and gives rise to some very serious issues.
How credible is the intelligence on which these strikes are based? Is the target a legitimate one beyond reasonable doubt? Has the correct target been identified and engaged? And do its crimes justify the penalty?

Furthermore, are the ends of justice truly being met? Does the US President have the authority to assume the roles of the prosecutor, jury and judge all by himself? What about the “distant operators”? They are killing people in countries against which their own country (US) has yet to declare war. So where does this place them? Are they too like their country on the wrong side of international law? And finally if the US violates a country’s sovereignty (Pakistan, for instance) by using deadly force against its people, then does it amount to an act of war? If not, then how do we justify the “collateral damage”?

The implications of this form of warfare in the near future are extremely explosive. Till now the US has been the sole user of this technology. It has yet not made public any doctrines, parameters or defining paradigms that regulate the employment of such weapon systems. It is but a unilateral decision of the US President, which is remorselessly executed by the CIA (responsibility being shifted to the Pentagon soon) with scant regard for international law or even a modicum of morality or justice.

There are other powers on the horizon, which are fast catching up on this technology. They too could soon be following the US in unilaterally pursuing their own national interests or chasing “terrorists” across international borders. China has, reportedly, acquired the technology and Russia cannot be lagging by much. Could India and Israel, both committed allies of the US, be far behind?

That would make for a very dangerous global strategic environment, indeed. International covenants, UN-led, need to be put in place to establish regimes and to define paradigms to regulate the development and employment of these and similar technologies in the future.

The US could and should have chosen alternative solutions to the problem. It could and should have prevented the dastardly “collateral damage”. It chose to do neither.

‘It has a case to answer’.

The Pakistani rulers of those times were, perhaps, the worst of the lot. They were complicit in waging a war against their own people.

It did not matter whether it was the dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf or the democratic government of PPP’s Zardari and Gilani; they all displayed a criminal and disdainful disregard for Pakistani lives - lives, they were honour and duty bound to secure. Their servile attitude towards the US was shameless, unbecoming and undignified. They showed a despicable eagerness to serve US interests, even “beyond the call of duty.” National interests were blatantly ignored. They obviously had other selfish priorities. Their spineless appeasement of the US literally endorsed the “collateral damage”.

Wikileaks laid bare their diabolical betrayals of the luckless Pakistanis they led. The lack of a political will to save Pakistani lives, the (ab)use of Shamsi Airbase, the absence of a military response to the drones and the abject acquiescence of Pakistani leadership to US pressures contributed in no small measure to the “collateral damage”.

What else would have ever made them angry, if not the deaths of innocent Pakistani men, women and children?

Though the desired end states of the US and Pakistan in the GWOT were similar, yet the Pakistanis in power could have insisted upon other ways and means to achieve them. They could have saved Pakistani lives. They chose not to do so.

‘These Pakistanis have a case to answer’; in particular in this election season.
Does the human issue of the “collateral damage” warrant a suo motu action by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?

Does it feel too that it might have a…….!

The writer is a retired brigadier and a former defence attaché to Australia and New Zealand. Currently, he is on the faculty of NUST (NIPCONS). Email: im_k@hotmail.com

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...case-to-answer

March 25, 2013
Iftikhar Ahmad Yaqubi

Pak-Iran gas pipeline is the subject of hectic debates in media and foreign policy making elites these days. The point of debate is not that Iran is selling gas and Pakistan is going to buy it. Such type of business is considered to be a matter of routine between two sovereign countries.

The controversy has arisen due to the US sanctions against Iran due to the latter’s nuclear program which the former alleges is for weapons purposes while the latter denies such an objective. The sanctions allegedly prohibit foreign companies and governments from doing any kind of business with Iran. The main purpose of these sanctions is to prevent it from diverting its nuclear program to weapons purposes. The US applied tremendous pressure on Pakistan to back out from this deal with Iran. It used both carrot and stick for this purpose.

As a carrot it dangled cooperation in the field of energy and as a stick it threatened Pakistan with sanctions which would cripple its already faltering economy. But it withstood all this pressure and started construction on the pipeline on its own side.

Analysts in both Pakistan and the US fear that the construction of the gas pipeline would trigger crippling sanctions against the former by the latter. But this approach seems too much legalistic which presume that the US laws, so for as dealings with the foreign countries are concerned; apply automatically without taking note of their impact on the geo-strategic interests of their country. But if history is a guide to looking into the behavior of states, then we may presume that the US will not apply sanctions against Pakistan because by doing so it will jeopardize its own interests. Pakistan is still very important in the calculations of the American strategists. The war in Afghanistan is in final stages and Pakistan is expected to play a key role in any settlement for peace in this country.

The US wants pull out of its forces from Afghanistan by 2014 at any cost. Pakistan’s role is very crucial for any peace settlement and stability in its aftermath in Afghanistan.

Any US sanctions imposed against Pakistan will have adverse effect on the Afghan peace process and may forestall Pakistan’s support in this respect which the US cannot afford at this juncture and in the near future. The US will think twice and thrice before imposing sanctions against Pakistan at a time when they need its support for the withdrawal of their forces from Afghanistan and ensuring a settlement of the issue which cater for their legitimate interests in this country.

There is another factor also which goes against the sanctions regime to be tightened against Pakistan. Any sanctions imposed against Pakistan will strangulate its already shattered economy which will leave it with no other option but to cooperate with Iran or any other country in the field of nuclear technology which may do harm to nonproliferation efforts.

So the fear that imposing sanctions against Pakistan might instead of halting Iran’s nuclear program further promote it will always haunt the Americans. And Pakistan will be justified in adopting such a course for it will feel being punished for an act which it undertook for addressing its acute energy problems. The US will also run the risk of losing an important country like Pakistan which in addition to being a nuclear power and located in a strategically vital region is and has always been ‘’ the most- allied-non-NATO-ally’’.

The drifting away of such a strategically important ally is in no way in the US interests. The Americans also understand that Pakistan is facing grave energy problems which it cannot overcome without importing gas from Iran.

The transportation of gas from Turkmenistan through pipeline remains un-materialized due to unsettled situation in Afghanistan. So Pakistan has the only option of importing it from Iran.

Pakistan should go ahead with this project. The US is unlikely to impose sanctions against it.

If it has to do it at all it will impose only nominal sanctions just to fulfill the minimum requirements of the law and at the same time to protect their strategic interests by letting Pakistan stay with it as a friend. It will not dare lose an ally for the sake of tightening noose around an enemy. It will be a strategic blunder on its part and the US is not so stupid to commit such a blunder.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/article/213598/

March 26, 2013 A. R. Jerral 2



After keeping mum for the last nine years, the United Nations has broken its silence on the subject of killings in the Pakistani tribal areas by the US drones.

It calls these attacks a “violation” of Pakistan’s sovereignty and classifies killings a breach of human rights. One wonders where this champion of human rights violation was these past nine years.

The USA commenced drone attacks on Pakistan’s Fata territory sometime in June 2004; the data collected by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a London-based not-for-profit news organisation composed of journalists who produce investigative reports for the press and broadcast media, has determined that till February 2013, there have been 350 strikes that have caused 3,461 casualties.

These are just estimates; however, the exact figures of the dead and wounded are not known. There is no data that can determine the number of the wounded and the cost of property destroyed.

The data about the ratio between alleged militant and innocent civilians, including women, children and the elderly, killed by these attacks is also unknown.

During all this slaughter, unfortunately, the conscience of the United Nations and the international community remained asleep.

But now that the USA’s projected withdrawal from Afghanistan is nearing its deadline, the United Nations has suddenly woken up to champion the cause of human rights.

Pakistan and Pakistani nationals have suffered the most by the killings and damage to property, yet during these past nine years Pakistani government - both civilian and military - officials or its political leadership only ritually voiced objections to these attacks. Nevertheless, there were some isolated voices that were marginalised and thus were ineffective.

Despite parliamentary resolutions and the APC’s declaration, no official protests were ever made. Our Foreign Office failed even to move the United Nations in these past nine years.

Along with the United Nations, the people in Pakistan’s establishment too have, of late, realised that that the drone attacks are a violation.
Anyway, the United Nations has broken its silence when the USA has announced its intention to withdrawal from Afghanistan and is engaged in negotiations with the Taliban.

It seems that the United Nations’ sudden realisation is on a silent nod from Uncle Sam; otherwise, these attacks and killings have been going on without any objection or observation for the last nine years. Its attitude or conduct in such matters is obvious.

We are familiar with the United Nations inability and helplessness in keeping the world peace; Palestine and Kashmir are obvious examples of its failures. Its role in the events taking place in Syria also indicates its lack of interest; it is effective only in areas where the USA and the World Jewry has a stake.
Needless to say, it is just an international forum where the poor and weak nations are given false hopes of peace and prosperity, and lulled with promises. But the United Nations’ anti-Muslim conduct does not cause as much pain as the conduct of our own leaders.

A UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, for instance, was in Pakistan to investigate the casualties caused by the US drone attacks over the years. He met our political representatives, Foreign Office officials and other senior government functionaries.

All of them, including the (ex)Prime Minister’s Advisor on Human Rights and the Chairman Senate Committee on Defence, told him that Pakistan’s government “does not consent to the drone attacks.” Indeed, it is like rubbing salt into our national wounds.

We all know this assertion is incorrect. Immediately after Pakistan was forced into an alliance for the war on terror, its political leadership and its military were closely co-opted in the planning and conduct of this war.

After General Pervez Musharraf stepped down, this cooperation continued with the PPP-led democractically elected government and the military high command. Drone strikes on suspected hideouts of alleged al-Qaeda operatives and militant Taliban in Fata area were part of this strategy.

Pakistan even provided the Shamsi Airbase from where these attacks were controlled; some even allege that these attacking drones took off from this base. This base was closed down during the stand-off after the Salala attack by the US forces in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed.

President Asif Zardari is quoted by Bob Woodward in his book, entitled “Obama’s Wars”, that he told the CIA to aggressively attack al-Qaeda leaders in his country. “Collateral damage worries you Americans. It does not worry me,” was the assurance he gave to the CIA. With this available knowledge, the denial of consent to carry out drone strike is an insult to our national integrity.

The question, however, is: why had the PPP-led democratically elected government taken this stance one day prior to its stepping down?
Whatever the reason, it cannot absolve itself from the responsibility of protecting the lives and property of those who voted it into office; those who ran the affairs of the state have now to account for their failures. This belated declaration that their consent was missing sounds hollow and untenable.

Further, if one recalls that the former Chief of Air Staff had publicly stated that the Pakistan Air Force had the capability to intercept and destroy the drones provided the government ordered it to do so. But the government of Pakistan never tasked it for this. This too implies that there was tacit approval and consent for the drone attacks that killed innocent Pakistani nationals.

So those who are enjoying farewell parties and making speeches to highlight their “achievements” of the last five years are slated to face the people of Pakistan to seek fresh mandate for another term. They should know that the people are going to ask some very serious and painful questions.

The Fata voters will definitely question about what these representatives did to stop the killings and lessen their miseries. Like many others, this scribe is also sure that the outgoing politicians will have no satisfactory answer.
Add to this, if these attacks were without consent, it was an act of war and those in the government failed to protect the lives of the citizens as well as national sovereignty.

As a final word, the United Nations does not figure in the national picture; its policies do not impact us directly; whether it wakes up or remains asleep affects us little. However, the conduct of our political leadership directly affects our national integrity, sovereignty and status in the world. Belated denials do not change realities.

The writer is a retired brigadier. Email: arjerral@hotmail.com

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...nally-wakes-up

Raza Khan

In a surprise shift of policy, the United States has declared that launching a military offensive in the North Waziristan Agency (NWA) is Pakistan's domestic security issue and Washington has nothing to do about it. The shift in the policy was evident from the recent statement by the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Richard Olson, in Peshawar recently. Olson told journalists, "North Waziristan is a domestic security issue of Pakistan and the decision whether or not to conduct an operation (there) is entirely up to its government." This change in policy will have significant impact on the security situation, not only in Pakistan but also Afghanistan, as well as the Washington-Islamabad relationship.

It may be mentioned that for many years the US has been asking Islamabad to launch military operations in North Waziristan, in particular against the dreaded Haqqani Network, as the latter has been launching unabated attacks on coalition troops across the border in Afghanistan causing heavy casualties. One of the group's attacks included the high-profile assault on the CIA forward base Chapman in Khost province on December 30, 2009, destroying the facility and killing several agents and the September 2011 attacks on the US embassy and NATO headquarters in Kabul.

However, despite almost irresistible pressure from the US, Pakistan did not launch the offensive against the Taliban and affiliated militant groups in the NWA.

The Afghan Haqqani Network, which is headed by Sirajuddin Haqqani, the son of well-known anti-Soviet Afghan Mujahideen commander, Jalaluddin Haqqani, operates a strong web of fighters in the eastern Afghan provinces of Khost, Paktia and Paktika. The Network is believed to be based in Danda Darpa Khel area of NWA located on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border adjacent to Khost, the ancestral home of the Haqqanis. The Haqqani Network is also believed to have received strong support from elements within Pakistani intelligence agencies as the latter consider the former as the main vehicle of Islamabad political and strategic interests in war-ravaged Afghanistan once international forces leave. This is usually cited as the reason for the country's inaction in NWA. The tribal agency is the only part of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where no full-scale military offensive has been launched so far to drive out local and international terrorist and militant groups.

Islamabad has defended its reluctance to launch an offensive against hybrid militants based in North Waziristan due to lack of resources and overstretching of its security forces. Pakistan has deployed nearly 147,000 troops in entire FATA.

In the past, Islamabad's hesitance to launch a military offensive in the NWA might have been due to resource constraints or because of 'good' Taliban, but in recent times Pakistani authorities have been shying away from the operation due to a critical security threat such action would most likely to pose to the country.

Sources are of the view that Islamabad fears that if an offensive is launched in the NWA, the repercussions for the country and its security forces would be very difficult to handle. There is a lot of substance in this argument because apart from the Haqqani Network, the NWA is the base of al-Qaeda remnants, Pakistani Taliban group of Hafiz Gul Bahadur as well as smaller groups of Central Asian and European fighters, including Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and Islamic Jihad Union. So if a military operation is initiated in the NWA, all these groups, which already have had working relationships with each other, would turn all their guns towards Pakistan. Against this backdrop it has been a good decision by Pakistan not to launch the offensive as it would be tantamount to putting a hand in a hornets' nest.

It may be mentioned that in case Islamabad had decided to launch an offensive in NWA it would have estranged Commander Hafiz Gul Bahadur, who is considered as a pro-government militant leader, who has not conducted any terrorist attacks inside Pakistan. Bahadur's group signed a peace agreement with the local authorities in September 2006 which is still intact. This is, perhaps, the only successful peace deal inked by the government with different shades of militants in FATA. However, the militants have flagrantly violated the terms of the agreement specifically the one regarding expulsion of foreign fighters.

Islamabad's apprehension of large-scale terrorist attacks in case it initiated a military operation in NWA can be gauged from the fact that it desisted from the offensive despite that on a couple of occasions during the 'Strategic Dialogue' with the US, it agreed to launch an offensive in the NWA.

On one occasion, when Islamabad was about to mount the offensive, militants had sounded a stern warning to the country's authorities threatening an "endless war". The militants had even threatened that if the Pakistan Army launched the offensive in NWA, the local people would migrate to Afghanistan and then an endless war would begin. The militants by threatening to go across to Afghanistan had very shrewdly used the psychological war tactics on Pakistan keeping in view Islamabad's traditional feeling of vulnerability from its hostile western neighbor Afghanistan.

Afghan rulers traditionally harbored separatist Pakistani Pashtoons and Baloch ethnic community members including militants. Former Afghan ruler Sardar Daud Khan (1973-77) was the architect of the 'Pakhtoonistan Movement' eyeing wrenching Pakhtoon areas of Pakistan i.e. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly NWFP) and FATA to form 'Greater Afghanistan.'

On its part, Pakistan since 1973 pursued the policy of cultivating Afghan mullahs on its soil as counterweight to hostile Afghan nationalists and the policy continues to this very day. Therefore, Islamabad supports the Afghan Taliban, Hizb-e-Islami of warlord Gulbadin Hikmatyar and the Haqqanis.

The shift in the US policy regarding the NWA offensive would allow Islamabad a sigh of relief from the irresistible pressure from Washington. The move, although, is surprisingly but understandable on the part of the US, because it is gradually withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and will have to pull out all its troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. In this situation, pressurizing Pakistan to launch the NWA offensive and militants response in this regard goes against US interest. Because this would make withdrawal of troops and military hardware through Pakistan extremely risky. Washington knows that at least the militant networks like the Haqqani group would be happy to see the US troops withdraw and would not disturb the process. Moreover, the US also knows that it is election season in Pakistan and the law and order situation has already raised serious question marks on the electoral process. Therefore, if Pakistan launches an offensive in the NWA at this point in time, holding of elections, particularly in the KP and FATA, would become impossible.

Although a shift in US policy may have given Pakistan a much-needed reprieve, but Olson's argument that NWA is an internal security issue of Pakistan is profoundly correct. This threat would become full-blown once the US will have withdrawn all its troops from Afghanistan. Therefore, either way Islamabad has to negotiate this threat with great care and foresight.

http://www.weeklycuttingedge.com/national03.htm

March 27, 2013

Hours after the US Secretary of States John Kerry landed in Kabul on an unannounced visit, a senior US official said that he (Kerry) wanted to visit Islamabad as well but did not because Pakistan "enters a very historic period on this electoral process and we wanted to fully respect those institutions and the ongoing process." The United States does not want to return President Zardari to power or block Nawaz Sharif or Imran Khan from winning the forthcoming election. For the first time, the US officials are enthusiastically denying the general perception in Pakistan that the US government wants to influence the electoral process in Pakistan to bring in a friendly government. Indeed, It is a listening pleasure that the US has decided not to side with any of the political parties contesting elections. The State Department, spokesperson Victoria Nuland at a briefing went on to regret that "the Pakistani people don't have good information" about US policies towards their country and stressed the "need to work harder to put across the message that the United States has no favourites among Pakistani politicians and we are looking forward to work with whoever is elected on May 11". To the total amazement of many, Ms Nuland strengthened her claims saying that although under the Kerry-Lugar arrangement, the US has set aside about $6.5 million for helping the electoral process, the fund remains unused because Washington awaits a request from Islamabad. Indeed, it is a welcome sign and many Pakistanis will take a sigh of relief that the internal and foreign interference has been diminishing that will leave the political arena in Pakistan open for the people to decide their fate of own and that of the country.

Another good sign emerging from Washington is that the perception of the Americans about the future leadership is a bit positive rather the US believes Nawaz Sharif or Imran Khan had links to the Taliban and if they are elected, they will bring in the Taliban. The US, with the passage of time, has come to the conclusion that the Washington should take Taliban on board in a bid to establish a durable peace in Afghanistan. Similarly, at some point in time, Islamabad too has to deal with Pakistani Taliban. The Pakistani armed forces are pitched against Taliban to eliminate the terrorism, and in the process, the army has suffered a huge loss of men and material.

It has managed to keep Taliban phenomenon partly under control. The army's success against Taliban in Pakistan must have been far bigger had the US and her allies helped stop foreign funding that Taliban are receiving even at this point in time. The regret that the people of Pakistan cherish against the Americans is that the US abandoned Pakistan in the post-Soviet war crisis management, and then again the Americans sidelined Pakistan after failing to stamp its authority in Afghanistan rather her allies are financing TTP. Having been economically ruined, isolated Pakistan has been pushed to the wall. Thus the conspiracy theories are ripe that are giving rise to anti-American sentiments. Pakistan leadership in the past is squarely responsible for its follies that aggravated situation, and today Pakistan is virtually on the brink of collapse. Yet all is not lost. Still Pakistan can successfully manage its affairs provided the outside interference ceases to continue. Actions speak louder than words-the US Secretary of States John Kerry, instead of skipping Pakistan, should visit the country not necessarily for monetary help rather for showing solidarity with the people of Pakistan in the crucial time to make a public display of friendship. The Americans' undue presence coupled with her tendency to back up her stooges in the country has always been perceived as hiccups in the nation to nation cooperation. The Americans support to military dictators Ziaul Haq and thereafter Pervez Musharraf has distracted the people of Pakistan from the useful work and cooperation more often than not, making them believe that the US is friend of her stooges not the general public-an impression that the US government needs to rectify. Never in the past any extremist parties made it to the Prime Minister House or the Presidency and even future holds no promise for them. Nawaz Sharif or Imran Khan-no matter who wins, there is nothing worry about. The Americans must think of establishing their endurable friendship ties with Pakistani nation not with any individual sitting at the top. In the absence of internal and external interference, at least the nation stands a good chance to exercise their sovereign right to franchise thus the US should look forward to deal with the Government of the people's choice. Nonetheless, the US non-interference policy in the political affairs is more than welcome here.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/article/213901/

March 28, 2013 11


The war on terror, now in its 12thyear, has entailed a financial cost that runs into, according to some estimates, trillions of dollars, but, perhaps, more important and, in fact, more painful is its multidimensional impact on human life. Looking at, for instance, the Pakistani scene, one would feel aghast at the devastated families, which were leading a happy, comfortable life when their breadwinners were alive and earning; their suffering now renders one speechless. While the dead are often buried in mutilated shapes, the injured, far greater in number, bear the scar of the bomb blasts for life not just on their bodies, but on their minds as well. Similarly, the destruction caused by the terrorist attacks is too difficult to measure, both in physical and psychological terms.

Leaving aside Iraq and Afghanistan where the local population witnessed hundreds of thousands of their kith and kin killed in the war on terror, Pakistan, of all other countries that are ranged against the militants, has suffered the most. According to the figures placed before the Supreme Court at Islamabad on Tuesday, the total number of casualties in Fata alone has been frighteningly high and the fight continues. At a hearing of the missing persons’ case by the apex court, the joint report of the Military Intelligence and the Inter-Services Intelligence put the total number of both the dead and the injured at about 49,000 and that includes the members of the armed forces as well as the civilians since Pakistan became an ally of the US in the war. As the militants had, in 2007-2008, challenged article 265 of the constitution by raising private armies and launched terrorist attacks, the soldiers took them on and, in the process, 1,479 of them have laid down their lives in defence of the country from 2008 to 2013. Other 5,745 have been wounded during this period. The number of victims belonging to the Frontier Constabulary comes to 675 dead and 1,978 injured. The confirmed casualties of the terrorists have, in these less than five years, been 4,279. They launched 233 suicide attacks, fired 9,257 rockets and made 4,256 bomb attacks. The economy lies in a shambles.

The above figures would send a chill down the spine of the people even those living away from the scene, making them realise that the country is at war. Thankfully, by their indiscriminate attacks, alike on the fighting forces and the civilians, the terrorists have alienated themselves from a large section of the country’s population in the country. With their support base having thinned out, the agencies believe that the intensity of their assaults has come down. The greatest fear at this point in time is that they might pull themselves up and manage to carry out a spate of suicide attacks in order to obstruct the general elections. Thus, the urgent need is that the intelligence agencies step up the information gathering work and the rest of the security forces get ready to respond to the challenge.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...remendous-loss

March 29, 2013
M A Niazi 0



While the caretaker Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers have been appointed, moving the country inexorably to the elections, it must be noted that Pakistan’s elections are by no means the only ones taking place and thus it is hardly a stand-out. So the task of navigating the shoals of government involve a complication; this complication is hardly limited to Pakistan. If we are to look at the difficulty that Pakistan faces, all its interlocutors internationally have either faced an election, or will do so.

The USA has had its third election only last year, since it invaded Afghanistan. It has re-elected its second President. Afghanistan itself will go to the polls next year, in an American presidential-style election, which will not just be the last election under occupation, but will have a new President, since President Hamid Karzai is coming up against the two-term limit.

India, which has grown so close to the USA, is due to have an election not later than next year that might mean a different Prime Minister even if the Congress again manages to form the government, which is by no means a certainty.

Other US allies that experienced changes of government were Japan and South Korea. Japan elected the Liberal Democratic Party back to power, which formed a government headed by Shintaro Abe, a former Foreign Minister. South Korea not only elected a woman President in Park Geun-Hye, but also the daughter of Park Chung Hee, a general who had taken over in 1961, before himself being assassinated in a coup attempt in 1979.
Daughters of dead rulers have been tried elsewhere in Asia, most notably in South Asia, where Indira Gandhi of India, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan and Hasina Wajid of Bangladesh all not just reminded their nations of famous fathers, but preceded Megawati Soekarnoputri of Indonesia, who was the Muslim world’s first female President.

Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi provides another example of the daughter of a national leader achieving political prominence, being the daughter of Aung San, Myanmar’s fist leader after independence in 1948, though she has not been her country’s chief executive, but leader of its opposition.

However, one of the results that the USA was most interested in, was that of the Israeli election, in which Benjamin Netanyahu was re-elected Prime Minister. That he, himself pro-settlement, headed a government which pushed harder for Zionist settlements in the occupied West Bank, was probably something the USA, and certainly its legislators, found helpful, though it would retard the peace process with the Palestinians.

One of the main differences for the USA lies in that between the British parliamentary-style and the American presidential-style elections. While both India and Pakistan are former British colonies, with parliamentary-governments, Afghanistan has a presidential government.

Similarly, Japan has a parliamentary form, whereas South Korea a presidential. However, since prime ministers produced by the parliamentary system have grown into president-style chief executives, rather than the originally conceived cabinet chairmen, whether a prime minister is elected or a president, it does not seem there will be any substantial difference in dealing with a fully empowered chief executive. Any differences will be national, not systemic. The rule of thumb seems to be that if a country has a parliamentary system already, it will be allowed to retain it, but it will have a presidential system if it has been conquered by the USA.

Another US ally with a parliamentary system and a recent election has been Italy, which might have to go to the polls again soon, because the poll has not yet yielded a government that could do what is required of it by the European Central Bank.

This is the dilemma already faced by Greece, another US ally with recent polls after it had threatened to pull down the euro, and with all the economies of the Euro Zone. Mexico has a presidential system, with a president just elected in the middle of a crime wave because of drug smuggling into the USA.
Nevertheless, where leaders have been re-elected, and thus apparently face no further electoral pressure to behave in a certain manner, their parties remain, and need candidates for the next election. This can be observed in Afghanistan, the USA and South Korea (which has a one-term limit).

In Pakistan, the situation is complicated. One of the advantages of a presidential system over a parliamentary is that the chief executive on offer is clear. One of the factors that has made the parliamentary system more presidential is that parties have needed personalities to lead them in campaigns, and thus in government.

Aspirants to the prime ministership have stepped in with natural consequences when any of them actually won office.

In Pakistan, the PPP does not have a candidate for the prime ministership. ‘Nominee of Asif Zardari’ was what the party had to offer last time, but that is hardly a prospect to enthuse the workers when coming off a less-than-distinguished tenure of government, especially when the nominees seemed more devoted to preventing President Zardari from being faced with the corruption cases against him than with solving the nation’s problems.

If it was sure which party would win if the PPP lost, at least then it might be clear who would be the next Prime Minister. In 1997, it was crystal clear that if the PPP lost, only the PML-N would win, and if it did, then Mian Nawaz Sharif would be Prime Minister. It was reasonably clear all along that Benazir Bhutto was the PPP’s candidate for Prime Minister.

At this point, however, there is no certainty which party will take office, because the PPP faces two candidates to replace it. While it may not have a natural prime ministerial candidate, both Mian Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan have their hats in the ring as replacements. For all the advantages of electoral democracy, it is not clear who are the possibilities for the prime ministership.

While the USA may be inconvenienced by this change at this point, it is also the first step heralding the end of the US occupation of Afghanistan. It even precedes the impending retirements of the Chief of Army Staff and the Chief Justice.

If the PPP retains office, it is unlikely to see Raja Pervaiz Ashraf remain PM. Though President Zardari will, probably, be re-elected, and will nominate the next PM, at this point it seems that the electorate will punish it for failing to control inflation or end the energy crisis.

The issues in the election are plentiful, and the PPP seems restricted to pleading that it is not the PML-N. From an out-and-out leftist party, it has evolved to one that is left of centre, but which has adopted the capitalist agenda wholeheartedly. As such, it might have an uphill task differentiating itself from the PML-N, which has also adopted that agenda, or the PTI and its reform agenda.

Worldwide, however, the USA seems in the process of having its allies re-elected. That is, perhaps, the only factor that allows the PPP some hope. But the US knows that the policy it is really interested in is determined by the army, not the elected government. So, perhaps, it will not mind a civilian change of guard.

The writer is a veteran journalist and founding member as well as executive editor of TheNation. Email: maniazi@nation.com.pk

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...inions/columns

A secret deal between the ISI and the CIA over drone strikes is the subject of a new book by Mark Mazzeti, “Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army and a War at the Ends of the Earth”. The Pakistan army would agree to the strikes but first the CIA had to kill their enemy number one, Nek Muhammad, the elusive militant who had been carrying out deadly attacks against the army. The CIA kills him in 2004 and as a result is allowed to start the drone programme, says the book. It was part of the deal that the responsibility for killing Nek Muhammad would be shouldered by Pakistan.

Pakistan’s Foreign Office has rejected the story as baseless. It maintains that it considers the use of drones a violation of its sovereignty. This is not the first time that someone has pointed attention to covert deals allowing drone warfare. Since such shadowy business has no record as such, reports about them can be easily concocted or rejected as baseless. What is, however, obvious and which even the UN has accepted as true is that drones constitute a gross violation of human rights; on an average they kill 30 to 40 innocent humans for every militant and hence there is no law in the world that can allow such atrocities. The Pakistan government’s duty to its citizens of protecting their lives necessitates that it stands up against the strikes.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...ons/editorials

the skeptics of the US-led drone attacks have been provided more ammunition. The gist of an analysis of the drone strikes in FATA proves: innocent people were targeted. This goes against the claims of US President Barack Obama, who in September last year said that, “the goal [of the drone strikes] has been to focus on al Qaeda and to focus narrowly on those who would pose an imminent threat to the United States of America.” The first analysis of drone-strike victims based on top-secret US intelligence reports has pointed out that the Obama administration has not been honest about who has been targeted. Using US government documents, the report shows that the targets go beyond those Al Qaeda officials that “pose a direct threat to the US,” as Obama claimed.

The US intelligence reports which covers the 12-month period ending September 2011, at least 265 of up to 482 people killed by the CIA-led drone attacks were not senior al Qaeda leaders but “assessed” as Afghan, Pakistani and unknown extremists. Only six top al Qaida leaders were killed in those months. Forty three of the 95 drone strikes reviewed for that period hit groups other than al Qaida, including the Haqqani network, several Pakistani Taliban factions and the unidentified individuals described only as “foreign fighters and other militants.” The descriptions of those killed just kept getting vaguer. The evidence belies the legal foundations of the US claim to, what senior US officials have continued to point to, as the UN Charter’s right to self defense as the legal basis for the legitimacy of the drone strikes. However, those following the drones strikes, which began in summer 2008 under the Bush presidency, have known that drones have targeted members of all forms of militant groups in the Northern Regions. The report further suggests that the US was conducting some “side payment strikes” on behalf of Islamabad to eliminate threats to Pakistan, going against the claims of the Pakistan government and military.

On the one hand, the Pakistan government can use the new report to dispute the legal basis of the drone strikes using US documents and take the legal action it has promised against the US for so long. On the other hand, as the Obama administration unveils its promised and overdue targeted-killing reforms in the next few months, one needs to keep in mind the disconnect between who the United States claimed it was killing and who it was actually killing. The drone’s lie has finally been busted. And while the militant threat has not gone, the facts on the ground suggest drones are a failed strategy that incenses populations more than rid them of dangerous terrorists. Will the next Pakistan government take the US to task or tow the line is the question.

- See more at: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013....6qfFWmeN.dpuf

April 15, 2013
Ikramullah


Since 2004, the CIA-led drone attacks on Pakistan’s tribal areas have caused huge losses of life and property. Apparently, successive governments have strongly condemned this gross violation of the state's territorial integrity.

But for the first time, it has come to light that the condemnations and denials of sanctioning US drone strikes by Pakistani governments were phony and only for public consumption.

According to CNN, Former President General (retd) Pervez Musharraf recently acknowledged that his “government OK'd US drone strikes…….only on a few occasions when a target was absolutely isolated and no chance of collateral damage.”

He further added: “Pakistani leaders would allow US drone strikes after discussions involving military and intelligence units and only if there was no time for our own military to act.” This report, therefore, clearly highlights that the Foreign and Defence Ministries, and also the military and intelligence units, were involved in permitting the drone attacks in Pakistan
Against this backdrop, our Foreign Ministry and Foreign Office since 2004 have protested against the strikes, describing them as a violation of Pakistan’s independence and sovereignty. In the light of Musharraf’s latest confession that everybody in the government, including the then Prime Minister, was on board on the issue, all those who were in power then owe us an immediate explanation.

According to the New America Foundation, thousand of innocent civilians, including women and children, have been killed in the drone campaign in Pakistan. Moreover, Wikileaks revealed that in a cable sent in August 2008, US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson “mentioned a discussion about drones during a meeting” with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Interior Minister Rehman Malik. Patterson wrote: "The PM…….said that I don't care (about the drone strikes)…….We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it.”

Whatever maybe Musharraf’s objective behind disclosing the secrets about drones, it is the right of the people of Pakistan to know the whole truth and the lies being fed to this nation before the upcoming elections so that they can choose the right representatives. It is obvious that he has unfolded only a part of the story that may serve his purpose, while the rest, perhaps more ugly, remains hidden.

It is, however, unfortunate that Musharraf’s admission has come at a time when the nomination papers of many prospective candidates, who were part of the government when the drone attacks started, have already been cleared by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

However, the ECP has rightly stated that a candidate even after wining the elections can be disqualified if credible evidence is provided that he or she does not meet the criterion laid down in Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution.

The question, however is: will the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Chief Election Commissioner take notice of the drone Pandora box opened up by General (retd) Pervez Musharraf? It is quite obvious that he has no intention of sinking alone, but is determined to pull down many other stalwarts with him.

The writer is president of the Pakistan National Forum. Email: ikramullahkhan1@yahoo.com

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...inions/columns