Friday, March 29, 2024
01:36 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
  #1  
Old Friday, March 16, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
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: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default Pak-US Relations (Important Articles)

Audacious Propels Drones, Cowardice Perishes Intone!
February 6, 2012

Maimuna Ashraf

A verity well recognized has been officially acknowledged now; President Obama has admitted that US drone aircraft have hit Taliban and al Qaeda targets within Pakistan. In October, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged the CIA’s drone program but without specifically indicating where they were used in Pakistan, however now Obama has indicated that most of the strikes were in Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA), ‘Pakistan’s lawless tribal zone, a region where the capacities of the military in that country may not be able to get them’. The all lately said by Obama about use of drones in a chat with web users on Google + and YouTube, tells about Obama’s endeavour to better the notorious status of drones, to justify the ‘blind weapon’, to tell its people that drone is perfectly hitting the extensive targets and to give an impression that American strategies and soldiers are really showing upshots. Nevertheless other than these, there are numerous other pros and cons implied by several queries.

It is said by Obama “drones are the targeted focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit Americans facilities, American bases and so on.” If it is such an American centred strategy, then are we supposed to express joy that these drones are killing American enemies and securing Americans? What’s about Pakistan’s security? The drones are falling on Pakistan’s territory so what safety it is bringing for Pakistan? These drones are stated as targeted focused effort, so have these drones always focused its target and never killed any one beyond its target?

Drone is an Unmanned Aircraft System or a remotely piloted aircraft. It functions either by the remote control of a navigator or pilot autonomously, as a self-directing entity. However using a pilotless machine to execute terrorists is a scariest move as drone warfare is becoming more automated and the lines of accountability becoming less clear. Many familiar with robotic warfare are incredulous about this claim. It is estimated that in near future drones with artificial intelligence would be able to take decision about a human whether the person is terrorist or not and to shoot the target or not. It will be indeed a dangerous escalation, as the human error in any machine can’t be neglected. It is said by a robot expert that ‘Some critics have worried that UAV operators – controlling drones from half a world away – could become detached and less caring about killing, given the distance, and this may lead to more unjustified strikes and collateral damage’. Isn’t the drone domination fanning the blind and dirty war? The man versus machine antagonism will be resulted in unpardonable, unlawful human homicides?

In last year, 64 US missile strikes were reported in Pakistan’s tribal belt, down from 101 reported in 2010, according to AFP tallies. Aren’t these drone strikes less meddling than troop’s incursion? Isn’t it a cross border violation? Aren’t they infringing national and international law? Pakistan’s Foreign Office in response to Obama statement has called the strikes unlawful, counterproductive and hence unacceptable, however just condemning the act shows the dubious position of Pakistan on drones. Pakistan’s Prime Minister in a recent TV interview stated ‘it’s a wrong impression that Pakistan is supporting drones attack, we have never said US to throw drones on us’. Does the PM statement somehow alternatively means that we have told them not to throw drones on us? Did we ever respond their infringement? Obama’s statement has somehow unveiled double standards of Pakistani government that kept on silently nodding on US drone attacks. Pakistani government that seems verbally assertive for making new provinces, why don’t make FATA a separate province and try to practice the writ of government and some laws so the others may not find any reason to say that ‘Pakistan’s lawless tribal zone was the target’. US is targeting lawless zone but by violating international and domestic law, a fact internationally highlighted as well, recently The Sydney Morning Herald published a column of Justin Randle, that criticized United States spy agency CIA’s drone attacks inside Pakistan as illegal and outside the law. Likewise New York Times reporter, David Rohde who was kidnapped for seven months in Pakistan, avowed drones as a ”terrifying presence”.

Obama stated ‘drones had not caused a huge number of civilian causalities’. The statement strongly contradicts the reality. The lethal drones outfitted with Hellfire missiles mainly operates in north-west Pakistan. According to their own New America Foundation, an unbiased think tank in Washington, has figured out that these drone smacks have immensely shoot up under Obama’s administration, over past eight years the drone strikes in Pakistan have massacred at least 1,715 people, and as many as 2,680 people. Another report published last year by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism demonstrated the figures killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan from 2004-mid 2011, it showed, between 392 and 781 killings were civilians and 175 were children (estimates a 32 per cent civilian death rate), while the CIA made claims that approximately 45 civilian were killed only. However the agency claimed ‘we never make mistakes’.

People of Pashtun tribal belt have also spoken about the constant fear of death due to ongoing drone presence. Some months back, a 16-year-old Tariq Aziz with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan, were blown up by drones while they were travelling in car. Tariq was accumulating photographic evidence of the damage of drones’ strikes for the UK legal charity Reprieve. Was Tariq a militant or threat to Americans? Did he make a mistake to choose this work to do? Was he killed for some self-interest? When CIA relies on the reports of ground operatives and informants, chances of unreliable reports and innocent fatalities grows double. Study tells about many of such informants seeking their own interests by naming their opponents. Hence this strategy is not reliable, as said by a former director of US National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, ”Drone strikes are no longer the most effective strategy for eliminating al-Qaeda’s ability to attack us.”

Defense Secretary once stated that Al Qaeda is no more stronger in Afghan-Pak tribal areas; its operational wing has been shifted to African countries, so whom they are killing here other than civilians? On one side, the US seeking dialogues with the Taliban and on the other sides seeking their deaths by drone attacks. For US, calling civilian deaths as collateral damage is not justified and on our side calling it ‘cowards’ war’ is not justified too, US drones cannot be a coward action; the US Military is impudently fighting its wars as designed. Cowardice lies nearer home, we need to charge our own establishment with cowardice and treason for foreign invasion and death of Pakistan’s citizens. Nonetheless, our weakness is frequently turning them more audacious and piercing us persistently.

-The writer is a freelance columnist
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post:
agentontheduty (Wednesday, September 04, 2013), Bozdar Iqbal (Tuesday, May 15, 2012), comm786 (Friday, March 08, 2013), iranibilly (Thursday, May 16, 2013), isha saeed (Sunday, March 24, 2013), zafar498872 (Thursday, March 14, 2013)
  #2  
Old Friday, March 16, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
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: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

No Pains No Gains
February 9, 2012
By Mahjabeen Mehboob Raja

Pakistan – US relations can be divided into three distinct phases: The Cold War period; the years of crisis in the relationship from 1990 to 1993; and the current phase of repairing, rebuilding and redefining relations. As rightly pointed out by Dr. Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, that; in the international politics, “there are neither permanent friends nor permanent foes of a state”. These are indeed, the convergences and divergences of national interests of states that make them friends or enemies to each other. National interests of states are not constant, but continue changing depending upon the emerging realities from time to time. National strategies are made on the principals of national interests’ not on emotions or on personnel liking or disliking of leadership or a particular factor.

In the current phase of Pak-US relationship which indeed started after the incident of 9/11, US needed Pakistan for active cooperation in its military operations against Taliban in Afghanistan. The militancy in FATA and other areas of Pakistan indeed is the fallout of this cooperation. Even during this phase there has been vicissitudes’ at the bilateral level and Pakistan was not fully trusted. Against the ground realities, it was equated with Afghanistan through the infamous Af-Pak policy. It is also true that Pak-US relationship is indeed a history of turbulent connections, and there is no harm in admitting that Islamabad’s ties with Washington were dictated by specific politico-military interests with no deep-rooted historical and ideological union. It was the national interest of US which dictated its relations with Pakistan.

In September 2011, Adm. Mike Mullen the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate that Pakistan’s intelligence agency had provided aid to the Haqqani network members who had attacked the American Embassy in Kabul the week before. In response, the Pakistani military’s high command has rallied the country’s civilian leadership to reject the U.S. ultimatum to end Islamabad’s relationship with the Haqqanis. Pakistan’s foreign minister warns that America risks “losing an ally”. American-Pakistani relations took a turn for the worse in late November 2011 when a NATOair attack killed 26 Pakistani soldiers in strikes against two military posts at the country’s northwestern border with Afghanistan. The death of Osama Bin Ladenand the circumstances that allowed him to reside quietly in a three-story house on the edge of the Pakistani town of Abbott Abad, which houses military garrisons, have sharply increased tensions between the American and Pakistani governments.

Pakistani compulsion and its geo-political location was well exploited by US for its own strategic needs. U.S otherwise needed a partner in South Asia, which could act as a counter weight against the spread of Communism. Indian refusal to become US ally in 1949 left US with no option, but to make Pakistan as its partner. Unfortunately, this strategic convergence of interests mostly benefited the United States. US got enough space for spying and limiting the activities of its ideological opponent, throughout during the period of cold war. During the entire duration of this partnership, the gains for Pakistan however, were less as compared to its sufferance. Now, once as a twist of history, there is a convergence of interests of both countries once again, let there be a realistic Pak-US partnership on the longer terms? This is only possible once both sides will respect each other’s interests on the basis of mutuality. The major partner will have to play the major role, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured that, this time US would not abandon Pakistan.

-The writer is a freelance columnist
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post:
Bozdar Iqbal (Tuesday, May 15, 2012)
  #3  
Old Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
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: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

The Pak-US standoff

March 21, 2012
Gen Muhammad Javed

The historic truth about Afghanistan always turning into foreign invaders graveyard is going to be reaffirmed. The Afghan people deserve a royal salute for their infinite capacity to defend their liberty. Ravaged by two global wars imposed on their land, they still stand defiant. The Taliban resistance causes despair among the US sponsored security forces and igniting popular revolt against them. They are smelling blood oozing out of multiple cuts and like a pack of wolves, they are going to gather to turn the occupation forces exit into a route. The obtaining military situation is turning into a ‘strategic ambush’. The carefully crafted political and security structure is crumbling. The US/Isaf enforced vision of creating a modern Afghanistan, in their image, has proved to be a pipedream far removed from ground realities and Afghanistan psyche.

The doomsday scenario has the potential to actualise rather sooner than later. Many grey beards may shake their head in disagreement forgetting that the USSR military might also one day simply dissolved into the air in Afghanistan. The US/Isaf came for a limited objective of destroying the Al-Qaeda network, but modified their war aim to include reconstructing the Afghan society and polity, an unrealistically self-imposed and unachievable objective.

Afghanistan stands badly damaged, under the religious obscurantists sway and politically divided different than what it was in the 1970s, a vibrant, fairly liberal and internally cohesive state. One major issue is staring the US/Isaf leadership in the face. Will they be able in the remaining time before the thinning out starts, to place some sort of a compromise post-war dispensation on ground safeguarding their long-term security concerns/bases in Afghanistan? Will they be able to execute an orderly withdrawal? It is a moot question daunting the US leadership, which is totally mesmerised by the impending US presidential election. The US has itself closed many regional options through its insensitive handling of its key allies. Where did the US/Isaf plan went awry?

September 2011 can be marked as the highest level of blatant coercion when the then retiring Admiral Mike Mullen fired a broadside. This noisy crescendo almost sounded like a war ultimatum. Events moving from the Kerry-Lugar Bill disagreement, Nato supply’s disruption, Raymond Davis sordid occurrence, OBL raid raced on a fast forward mode to dastardly Salalah attack and consequent moral failure to proffer a sincere apology, election year/mood notwithstanding, have resulted in a logjam in Pak-US relations. It is to Pakistan’s credit that its people and leadership have stood their moral higher ground and did not wilt under pressure. The watershed in the Pak-US relations of the decades-long adverse equation, once reached had made it imperative for both to rethink and reinvent their respective global and regional views. Within the regional context, Pakistan has started a well nuanced independent course; be it the Afghan issue, economic relations with Iran, standstill with India, more reliance on China and warming up with Russia.

At the epicentre of this standoff was the divergent view on the war in Afghanistan, the exit strategy and post-war regional end state. Pakistan’s realistic appraisal of the military situation in Afghanistan and how it should be articulated to reach a desirable end not necessarily satisfying US subjective and exclusive objectives, but equally safeguarding the genuine aspirations of regional states, who have suffered the most, was ignored. General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani had handed over to President Barack Obama a concise, a realistic overview of the regional scenario as well as options for a sustainable end state. It was a pragmatic assessment indicating Pakistan’s centrality and lead role in evolving consensus. The stagnating leadership in the USA fixated with Tora Bora mentality of bombing people to their senses, while reading the document aridly failed to adjust to the fast deteriorating ground realities: Little realising that the time was running out.

The closure of Nato supply routes through Pakistan, the refusal to attend the Bonn Conference, the rubbishing of “do more” mantra for operations in NWA, the resolve to pursue the IP gas pipeline project and cessation of high visibility visits and futile consultative process/monologue has earned Pakistan the much needed space to firm up its position on national objectives. Conciliatory overtures and propriety in their attitudes suggest that the message – ‘that Pakistan has come of age’ – has been absorbed by the US leadership.

Pakistan should now consolidate on the strategic gains through multi-directional external manoeuvres. In the regional context, Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and even Afghanistan do not like US military bases remaining operationalised beyond 2014. A regional pro-active Turkey, sprawling across the European-Asian land divide is economically moving forward at a fast pace. Its rightest ruling party is successfully walking the tight rope of balancing its core Islamic ideals with real politics. The US/Nato alliance is more likely to lean on Turkey, as their regional surrogate. It can create a rift and competitiveness with Pakistan, a probability which needs to be addressed with sensitivity as it remains indispensable for Pakistan in the global context.

Iran is coming under severe US/Western pressure through crippling economic sanctions and prohibitive regimes. The USA is reluctant to up the ante through direct application of its military strength in view of its precarious situation in Afghanistan. Unable, at least till its withdrawal from Afghanistan, to open a new front at this critical juncture, the US will opt for an indirect approach. The US will endeavour to keep Israel on a tight leash not to allow the tail to wag the dog. Israel’s declaration of an aerial adventure against Iran – a repeat performance of similar air raid against Iraq’s nuclear facility – seems remote, as a deeply hurt Iran can block the Persian Gulf oil traffic, which can put the developed world’s economies into a tailspin. Such follies have the potential to initiate end of the time doomsday nuclear war scenario.

Pakistan has resolutely shown its steadfast support for Iran and the determination to persist with the IP gas pipeline project. Many of the troubles in Balochistan and crisis after crisis at the national level can be linked to the regional chaos frustrating the US/Western objectives in South/Middle Asia.

Presently, Pak-Afghan relations have improved, as the fragile Karzai government sensing the weakening grip of the US-led alliance seeks support of the next door neighbour. Pakistan should extend a reassuring, supportive and stabilising hand without becoming overbearing. The shape of things suggests a revival of the RCD model; this time including Afghanistan as well. This most harmonious and natural alliance should adopt an independent stance on world issues and become a force to reckon with. This solid block can stabilise the region by cancelling out conflicting interests and the over-reach of the West, China, Russia and India in the region.

Since it is essentially a global war of resources, namely the oil of the gulf, the gas and the precious material and mineral resources – uncharted, unexcavated and unexploited – have become the focus of developed countries predatory attention. None can claim exclusive rights for these resources, as the world is heading towards multi-polarity. How the events have conspired to bring Pakistan to its rightful central position is rather intriguing, as I had predicted in an article published a year ago in TheNation about the onset of an era of self-assertion. Not many takers were available then. Even diehard zealots were incredulous. What cards does Pakistan hold today?

Firstly, it has a defiant people, Parliament and politico-military leadership.

Secondly, the US/Isaf is losing hold on Afghanistan due to the ever-increasing popular resentment.

Thirdly, the US/Isaf need ground routes to be opened, both for logistic resumption and impending withdrawal through Pakistan.

Fourthly, China and Russia’s willingness to play a more pro-active role in the region.

Fifthly, deteriorating the US/Western economic affairs render them unable to sustain long-term power projection or any strategic misadventure elsewhere.

Sixthly, the US/Isaf is becoming casualty shy and its public is increasingly getting disenchanted with its oil/military industrial nexus for its vested interests in creating upheavals the world over.

The days of military adventurism seem to be nearing an end. The US attitude towards Pakistan has undergone substantial change from crass insensitivity to calculated deference. Pakistan should leverage its increasingly important position for favourable US response on drone attacks, IP pipeline, interference in Balochistan and Pakistan’s formalised role in resolving the Afghan issue.

But the US ability to manipulate Pakistan’s internal dynamics to their advantage remains potent. Its insidious leverage is to belittle and weaken Pakistan’s armed forces and the ISI, who are at the core of national defiance. The more the armed forces/intelligence agencies lose their stature within the country, the less they will be able to effectively face the external threat at this critical juncture. It is a revolving door strategic situation. The nation should forge a united front to maximise national gains.

-The Nation
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post:
Bozdar Iqbal (Tuesday, May 15, 2012)
  #4  
Old Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
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: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Re-engaging US
March 21, 2012
Ahmed Quraishi

The US has taken over Pakistani presidency. We in Pakistan may want to hide our heads in the sand. Some of us will argue we can’t take on a hyper, if exhausted, superpower. But if we are going to debate our ties with Washington, let’s not limit ourselves to the Nato supply line. Our American friends played a key role in a secret deal to decide who will occupy our presidency. They continue to quietly take sides in our politics. They are pumping money to influence our media.

It seems ridiculous that our parliament and Senate want to decide the future of a supply-road that feeds the US military in Afghanistan. The agenda, focused on trucks, containers, drones and money, appears trivial when some parts of the US government hide BLA terrorists in Afghanistan and Switzerland. Other parts of the American government continue their anti-Pakistan media war.

In its great compassion, the Zardari government has already breached our own embargo on American supplies by opening the aerial corridor on ‘humanitarian grounds.’ So much for a negotiating tactic. Our military’s media honchos released in January an excellent report on what the US military did in Salala. That report should be mandatory reading for the politicians who will be voting on the list of 30+ parliamentary recommendations on resetting our relationship with the United States.

There are stunning revelations in the report. For example, a senior US military officer was inside our GHQ in Rawalpindi a few hours before the attack and lied to our officers during a briefing. He took part in planning the attack but chose to mislead our officers.

The attack was spectacular and deliberate, where “two F-15s, two Attack Helicopters (AH)-64 Apaches, one Attack Cargo (AC) 130 and a Multi-mission Cargo (MC)-12 Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft” were used for a whole two hours. As CIA drones hovered above, the “F-15s, Apaches and AC-130 all unloaded full ordnance, including Hellfire missiles on the Pakistani Posts.”

The attack, for which no apology has been made by the US, left seven Pakistani widows, sixteen orphans, and 24 soldiers dead. This was the fifth deliberate US military attack on the Pakistan Army since 2008. Someone in Pentagon or Langley has been working overtime to drag Pakistan into a war of some sort, probably as punishment for our alleged responsibility in America’s defeat in Afghanistan.

This is not an argument to end the relationship. It’s an argument to correct it, without appeasement.

We expect our government and our military to take a stand on the BLA. We should seek an end to American meddling in our politics and media, an end to demonising our nuclear program in Geneva, and an end to covert CIA operations inside our territory. The American civilian and military aid must be put in black and white to put an end to American exaggerations about claims of billions in generous aid to an ungrateful Pakistan. While at it, we should bring forward our losses in America’s war, which are enough to humble any of our American critics.

The drones are not effective against the TTP. And our own assessment of Al-Qaeda’s presence in the Afghan border areas is vastly different to the exaggerated American assessment. The CIA has used our tribal belt to perfect its drone technology more than anything else. And there is little chance the Americans will share this technology with us if we let them use our playground.

Let’s hope our ruling elite will not waste this chance to correct the Pakistani-American relationship.

The writer works for Geo television. Email: aq@paknationalists. com
-The News
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
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: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

The changing endgame
March 21, 2012
Najmuddin A. Shaikh

AS parliament begins its debate on the resetting of US-Pakistan relations and presumably insists on laying out transparently the parameters for the relationship it should bear in mind the recent dramatic changes in the Afghan situation which are an important though not dominant element in the US-Pakistan relationship.

I say important rather than dominant because the elimination of the terrorist threat posed by Al Qaeda and its affiliates remains the principal American objective in the region and that is seen to be emanating from Pakistan’s soil rather than Afghanistan’s.

In my view, even if a reconciliation process brings a modicum of peace to Afghanistan the American interest in our region and in our own struggle against terrorism and extremism will continue for the decade or more that would be needed to change the mindset created over the last 34 years.

Unfortunately, recent developments in Afghanistan make it unlikely that peace of any sort will be achieved in Afghanistan. One can break up these developments into two parts, the first being those that have exacerbated almost to a breaking point the tensions between the Karzai and Obama administrations, between the Afghan National Security Forces and Nato forces and perhaps most importantly between the Afghan populace and the Nato forces particularly in the insurgency-ridden south and east of the country.

These include the video showing American soldiers urinating on Taliban corpses, the discovery by Afghan cleaners that Americans were incinerating copies of the Holy Quran, the subsequent riots in which some 30 Afghans were killed and 200 injured and the killing of two American officials in a high-security area by a security-cleared Afghan.

These also include the withdrawal of all Nato personnel from Afghan offices thus halting progress on developmental and training activities, the shooting rampage by an American sergeant Robert Bales in an Afghan village killing 16 people including women and children and the abortive effort by an Afghan interpreter employed by the British to use an explosives-filled hijacked truck to ram either the plane carrying US defence secretary or the VIP military delegation waiting to receive him at a military airport in Helmand.

In terms of the impact on Nato plans for completing the withdrawal of all foreign forces by 2014 and then retaining some 20,000 Americans at Afghan-controlled bases perhaps the most important of these developments are the attacks on Nato forces by the very Afghans that they are training and mentoring or employing. These ‘green on blue’ episodes are not new.
Many in the past have been talked about as resulting from personal differences rather than ideology or from poor vetting which permitted Taliban infiltrators to join the Afghan security forces. It was said that inculcating greater cultural sensitivity and more rigorous vetting would reduce if not eliminate this problem. After the two most recent incidents, however, this optimism is questionable.

The training mission already understaffed will find it difficult to find the extra people needed or to retain those already deployed from other Nato countries. Similar problems will arise for the Special Operation Forces that are supposed to train the Afghan local police, the creation of which is theoretically a key element in retaining government control of areas wrested from Taliban control.

The second set of developments relate to US-Afghan relations at the government level.

First, on March 11 President Karzai said in an interview to Radio Free Europe that he was almost ready to sign a general Strategic Partnership Agreement with the Americans (this followed up on an agreement reached earlier on the transfer to Afghan control within six months of Bagram prison and the 3,000 Taliban or suspected Taliban held there). However, he made it clear that while this agreement could be concluded before the Nato meeting in Chicago in May this would not cover an agreement on a continued US military presence after 2014. For this, he said, another year of negotiations would be needed.

Second, after the shooting rampage by Bales, Karzai demanded that American forces withdraw to their bases and leave the protection of villages to Afghan forces and that the handover of security responsibilities to Afghan forces be completed by 2013 rather than 2014. This despite the fact that of the Afghanistan army’s 158 battalions only one is deemed capable of operating independently and even that is dependent on American air support. It seemed that Karzai had backed away from this demand after a conversation with President Obama but the fact that the demand was made reflects his frustration and his perception of the public mood.

Third, the Taliban have announced the breaking off of negotiations with the Americans in Qatar. This is probably because the Americans made the release of the five Taliban demanded by the negotiators conditional on an unequivocal renunciation of Taliban ties with the Al Qaeda or any international terrorist movement.On the American end in this election year opinion remains divided but it is my view that there will a growing clamour for ‘bringing our boys home’ and for pursuing American goals by other means. Parliament must therefore bear in mind the strong possibility that Nato will be licking its wounds, leave Afghanistan earlier than expected and the Americans will abandon plans to maintain a residual presence.

Reconciliation will remain stalled and chaos will ensue as the Afghan economy shrinks, as the exodus of capital estimated at $8bn a year increases, as the Northern Alliance girds its loins to prevent a Taliban takeover and as the flow of Afghan refugees, a trickle now, becomes a flood bringing another two to five million refugees into our beleaguered country.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.
-Dawn
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post:
Bozdar Iqbal (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)
  #6  
Old Monday, March 26, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
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: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Reflections on Pak-US relations
March 26, 2012
By: Ikramullah

Recently, a report by the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS), headed by Senator Raza Rabbani, tasked to compile recommendations for “new terms of engagement” with the US in the aftermath of Nato’s attack on the Salalah checkposts that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on November 26, 2011, was tabled in the joint session of Parliament. It consisted of 40 recommendations.

Against this backdrop, the Salalah tragedy, including other incidents that had occurred earlier like Osama bin Laden’s killing in Abbottabad and CIA operative Raymond Davis’ shooting of two Pakistani citizens in Lahore, had resulted in a wave of resentment towards the West in general and the US in particular. This led to public demonstrations after which Pakistan’s political and military leadership demanded America to vacate the Shamsi Airbase in Balochistan within 15 days and stop drone strikes, besides closing the supply routes to the international forces stationed in Afghanistan and boycotting the Bonn Conference. Side by side, a committee on Pakistan’s national security was formed by Parliament to review the Pak-US relationship, which has lately presented a 40-point proposal covering several issues.

Parliament, being the sovereign legislative body of the state, is fully empowered to carry out such exercises. It is, however, unfortunate that the august body during successive governments, both civil and military, has paid little or no attention to resolve the challenges and issues faced by Pakistan. Anyway, it is “better late than never”, since the present Parliament has rightly decided to “frame new rules of engagement” with the US. It is a welcome step, as this would help to remove the road blocks or irritants causing the standoff and pave the way for a better relationship between the two countries.

Take the Salalah tragedy. The Nato helicopters penetrated into Pakistani territory from Afghanistan and continued the insane, almost barbaric, attack on two checkposts for two hours. Despite the fact that the US and Nato authorities have admitted that the tragic incident should not have happened, it is time that Washington offered an unqualified apology to end the unnecessary stalemate, as rightly demanded by the PCNS. In this way, the best interests of both countries will be served. The American administration must understand that it cannot achieve its mission in Afghanistan and the region without Pakistan’s support.

As regards the Abbottabad raid, the US needs to ponder over the consequences of violating the Pakistani territory. Perhaps, it would not dare to do this in India or any other democratic country. So, why did it underestimate Pakistan? However, it is now proved that Pakistan should not be taken lightly, despite the aid that Washington has promised to provide. The US leadership must respect its sovereignty and ensure that no Abbottabad or Salalah-like unilateral action is taken in future.

As far as the supplies to US/Nato/Isaf forces in Afghanistan are concerned, it is an issue involving almost more than 40 countries and should not be taken merely to teach Washington a lesson. Pakistan cannot afford to lose its goodwill among the international community. Therefore, no decision should be made in haste by the joint session due to be held today, resulting in an unnecessary damage to its image at the international level.

As a final word, America must realise the great losses suffered by Pakistan in terms of human lives, infrastructure and economy during the last 10 years, as a result of its role as “frontline state” in the ongoing war on terror. While the US and West is spending billions of dollars on the war, they should generously compensate for the losses incurred by it without delay. Pakistan, too, needs to review and redesign its foreign policy that is based purely on its own requirements and national interests.

The writer is President of the Pakistan National Forum.

Email: ikramullahkhan1@yahoo.com
-The Nation
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
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: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

As we make our demands
Ayesha Haroon
Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Pakistan does not trust America and Afghanistan, America does not trust Pakistan and Afghanistan, Afghanistan does not trust America and Pakistan. Given that all three have to work together to help US combat troops meet their 2014 exit deadline, support Afghanistan in forming a stable post-Isaf government, and allay Pakistan’s fears of a hostile government on its western borders, the coming months are going to be fraught with tense negotiations.

To make matters more intense, we have Pakistan and America going to elections this year while various Afghan political players are hoping to replace Karzai when the Americans leave. This means all governments will continue to make strident statements and take ‘tough’ stands even as they try to negotiate a better deal for themselves.

As it is an election year for the US, Republicans will have a field day if President Obama apologises to Pakistan for the Salala tragedy – so no apologies are expected. President Karzai knows the Taliban are likely to be recognised as a political party by the West, and, hence, cannot underestimate the fallout of the Quran burning and the American soldier’s shooting of civilians. But even while he tells them off, President Karzai is aware that his government is totally dependent on Washington for money, governance, and security.

In its deliberations, the Parliamentary Committee on National Security is likely to demand the US stop drone attacks immediately, a Reaganesque ISI-CIA relationship where there are no American boots on Pakistani soil and all local operations are conducted by the ISI, and compensation for providing passage to coalition trucks.

The above are largely military demands being made by a civilian government; of course, that is how it should be but in themselves these are not enough. And the demands should not be made of Washington only – the parliament has to make demands of itself and the army.

We have to ask ourselves why we are in this mess? The eighties were a decade of Kalashnikovs and heroin, the nineties of quick dismissals of democratically-elected governments, the new millennium brought bomb blasts and perpetual violence. All this while, we went from one economic crisis to another.

We had privatisation and liberalisation and downsizing and rightsizing because these sundry ‘-sations’ would pay off our national debt and give us economic peace. Today we have a huge national debt and every little dollar shock destroys plans of most businesses.

We were told getting IPPs and privatising electricity distribution would improve the energy sector. Today load-shedding, which sends the blood-pressure of domestic consumers shooting, has closed down countless industries and ruined livelihoods.

We were told selling off public transport companies will bring in competition and improve the transport sector. Today a daily wage-earner spends almost forty percent of her day’s wage on just getting to and from the job.

We were told privatising banks will increase efficiency, give small businesses access to money, and improve the banking sector. The now-private banks make money from their spreads and access remains limited to those who can afford the huge interest rates.

We were told ‘strategic depth’ was very important for our security needs vis a vis India and, hence, the US-Saudi-Pakistani decision to bring in hardline fighters from the Middle East was necessary. Today we have two large and insecure borders.

Let us see how we handled the war on terror. We decided to support the US else it was going to bomb us into ‘stone age’ – not the most trust-enhancing start to a relationship but the then-chief executive and COAS developed such a good relationship with George Bush that the US president even publicised General Musharraf’s book during the state visit to US.

Despite its close cooperation with the US, the army, admittedly coerced into the war, miscalculated how long the war was going to continue and did not negotiate well with Washington. The war on terror has cost Pakistan tens of billions of dollars, and yet we have to justify even the cost of services rendered. More importantly, the army horribly miscalculated how the jihadi elements will turn on Pakistan and shatter our everyday lives.

Obviously, we have problems and they go beyond the tactical; even the tactical can only be won if the right strategy is in place. Politicians have the ability to think through complex political and economic issues – and strategic defence is political issue.

We do not merely have to think who will be in power post-Isaf withdrawal. We have to decide what kind of nation we want to be. Do we want all of our people to have a decent life? Or only a few? Do we want militant groups to bully and kill others? Militant-ethnic groups to run wild?

Do we want to persecute the minorities? Did the demand for Pakistan arise because as a smaller group Muslims were having a hard time in the Indian Subcontinent or because they wanted a separate state to suppress other smaller goups?

What kind of economic system do we want to follow? Do we want to have social mobility in the country or do we want the poor to stay poor and the rich to become richer? Should we not hold those accountable who take bad and/or corrupt decisions that wreak havoc on the country?

And do we want to have a civilian government or a civilian-military government? How can there be a troika when the people’s representatives should be at the helm of affairs?

If parliament focuses its attention solely on short-term ‘military’ goals then we are going to continue lurching from one mess to another. Washington and Kabul, limited by their political compulsions will only concede what they can afford to give, not what we want or need. Only we can set and meet our demands.

The writer is a former editor of The News Lahore.
The News
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post:
Bozdar Iqbal (Thursday, March 29, 2012)
  #8  
Old Thursday, March 29, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
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: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Policy Guidelines for Pak-US Relationship
March 29, 2012
By Dr Raja Muhammad Khan
Exclusive Article

On the eve of seventy-second anniversary of Pak Day (Pakistan Resolution), the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, sent her message of felicitation to the people of Pakistan with the hope that both countries would be able to overcome their bilateral differences for a better engagement in the future. She said that, “Pakistan and the United States have a rich history of cooperation”. We are committed to continuing this engagement and support as both of our nations work to build peace and prosperity in Pakistan and the region.” In the process, she counted all cooperation and economic assistance, US has rendered to Pakistan. She however, failed to make a mention of Pakistani contributions, instability caused in the society and priced it paid in term of economic and human losses. Meanwhile, State Department has confirmed that, there would a meeting between Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani and President Barrack Obama on the sidelines of the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, the South Korean capital.

The White House hope that, “The meeting will be an opportunity for the United States and Pakistan to continue high-level consultations on areas of mutual interest. In particular, the President looks forward to reviewing our efforts to support an Afghan-led reconciliation process.” Indeed, this meeting is being held amidst a realistic assessment of Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS), about Pak-US relationship, especially after the incidents where US has violated the Pakistani sovereignty. The committee also made certain recommendations for the reengagement with US. Whereas, Pakistan always endeavoured for keeping open the diplomatic and leadership channels. It has always been supportive of peace through reconciliation in Afghanistan. There is a need that, US must be in a receptive mood, rather in a state of denial as it has been practicing in the past.

Following the closure of Pakistani transit trade route for ISAF, United States is facing a lot of difficulties in the maintenance of its forces in Afghanistan. This is mainly because of its odd relationship with Pakistan, besides, some of its recent acts within Afghanistan, which further complicated its future plans and even stay there. Maintaining good relationship between Pakistan and US would be in the best interest of both countries under the changing regional and global security environment. However, this would depend upon US sincerity and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan, the aspects; this super power has been ignoring more frequently in the past few years. Pakistani Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) has been very rational in finding out the grey areas of this inconsistent relationship and made practicable recommendations for a way forward. The crux of the recommendations is that; US should unconditionally apologize from Pakistan over the attack on Salala military post and killing of its twenty-four soldiers because of that attack in Mohmand Agency on November 26, 2011. U.S has been avoiding this apology deliberately, which Pakistan feels as another humiliation and contempt towards its sovereignty.

The PCNS recommendations also call for an “End to drone strikes, no hot pursuit by US forces inside Pakistan, strong oversight of the activities of foreign security contractors and the imposition of taxes on the supply of goods to NATO forces in Afghanistan.” Definitely, this package of the recommendations, prepared by PCNS after many deliberations would be debated in the Parliament in a joint session of both houses. The debate would bring out a consensus document, which would be able to redefine the policy options for the Government to have renewed engagement in the Pak-US relationship in the future. It is expected that, the elected representatives of the Parliament would chalk out pragmatic terms for the future engagement between Pakistan and US, which essentially have been one sided so far. The opening of routes through Pakistan for the logistic supplies of NATO and US forces would also depend upon these recommendations. Though US claims that it is using Northern Route through Russia and Central Asia, but this is a fact that, it is facing acute problems for the maintenance of its forces in Afghanistan under the current arrangements. Despite odds, Pakistan is allowing use of its aerial space for the airlift of the logistic supplies in Afghanistan, for which US must remain thankful to Pakistan.

Whereas, United States must strictly follow its drawdown plan of December-2014, for vacating Afghan soil, the super power must regards to the Afghan traditions and culture in these critical days of its engagement. US must win the consent (if not respect) of Afghan masses for an honourable exit. That would be possible only through respecting Afghans and avoiding undesired incidents as happened in the recent past, besides strictly following the pullout schedule. The recent development that, US Military would like to maintain a counter-terrorism force in Afghanistan even after 2014, as a result of likely “Strategic Partnership Agreement” would irk the already volatile situation there. US Military Commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen in its meeting on March 22, 2012 has told this to U.S Senate Armed Services Committee.

What could be the policy options for Pakistan, at a time once there is a obscure picture about US future engagement in Afghanistan and in the region. Whereas, there should be no breakdown of diplomatic channel, Pakistani leadership must be able convey the Pakistani perspective to the US leadership in the more clear term. Pakistani national interests, its concerns and reservations must be the centre of the talks for any future engagements with US. While, President Obama would like to ask for the Pakistani guarantees and facilitations on US-Taliban negotiations and opening of the routes for the logistic supplies through Pakistan, Prime Minister Gillani, must use its bargaining chip to pursue Pakistani interests and securing US guarantees for respecting Pakistani sovereignty in future.

Keeping away the begging bowl, as an excuse for the economic development of Pakistan, Mr Gillani must pursue trade opportunities between Pakistan and US, especially access for the Pakistani goods to the US markets without discrimination. Strategically, US must be asked to follow an equitable relation with the regional countries, especially Pakistan and India. Under no circumstances, should the US be allowed to cause an imbalance between the two nuclear powers of South Asia, by favouring a particular country. As an independent country, Pakistan has the right to pursue its interests both domestically as well as internationally. After all, why should US compel this nuclear power to cut-off Iran-Pakistan Gas Pipeline Agreement? Therefore, in the light of PCNS recommendations, Premier Gillani must convey Pakistani concern to President Obama on this issue of Pakistani national interest and immediate need, indeed.

Regarding Afghan future, Pakistan neither pursue the canard of strategic depth, nor desire a role for itself in the formulation of future set up there. However, being immediate and intimate neighbour, would desire a peace and long-term stability in that country for the common good of both nations. Pakistan believes that, a stable Afghanistan would guarantee a stable, strong and peaceful Pakistan. Owing to its historical linkages, Pakistan should facilitate Afghan Government in bringing together various Afghan ethnic and religious groups through an indigenous Afghan solution. While Pakistan does that, US neither should isolate Pakistan, nor should negotiate with a few Taliban away from Afghan soil and Administration. Because of its long association and affiliations with Afghans and being the most affected country after Afghanistan itself, US must value Pakistani suggestions, while negotiating a plan for the Afghanistan. The utmost, Pakistan would ask; an equitable share for all Afghans, as per their population proportion, without any discrimination to anyone.

While Prime Minister Gillani meets President Obama, in Seoul, US Special envoy on Pak-Afghan affairs, Marc Grossman will have a meeting with President Asif Ali Zardai on the sidelines of the Dushanbe Moot on Afghanistan being held on March 25, 2012. About the PCNS recommendations, Mr Grossman said that, only after the finalization of the recommendations by Parliament, US will be in a position to have “conversation with the government of Pakistan about how to go forward.” Hopefully, President Zardari will pursue the Pakistani national interests in Dushanbe Moot and will clarify Pakistani position about many misperceptions prevailing either in US or elsewhere. On its part, United States must regard and respect the outcome of the PCNS recommendations and whatever transpires in the Parliamentary debate in the light of these recommendations.

In summary, each country has the right to make laws, which suit its national interest and help her securing its sovereignty. If US Policy and lawmakers are securing American interests all over the world, should not Pakistan make laws within its own geographical jurisdiction? After sixty-five years of indistinct relationship, there is a requirement that Pakistan too have a set of thoroughly debated and well thought out rules and regulations for its relationship with other countries. This is particularly essential, once our geo-politics is being used by any external power or we rendered our services to a certain country or to the international community; as being practiced since 2001.

The writer is an analyst of international relations and can be reached at drmk_edu@yahoomail.com

The article is contributed to pkarticleshub.com
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post:
Bozdar Iqbal (Thursday, March 29, 2012)
  #9  
Old Friday, March 30, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
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: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

GHQ must take joint-ownership of US-Pak relations

Editorial By Najam Sethi

The Parliamentary Committee on National Security has taken more than two months to get cracking. Now it is faced with the prospect of being left in the lurch by the PMLN that is backpedaling on certain proposals. Thus the PPP government finds it difficult to own the proposals recommended by the military, which imply, at the very least, a reopening of the NATO supply line without absolute US guarantees of an end to the drone strikes. Meanwhile, President Obama has hissed a word of advice to Prime Minister Gillani: 'protect your sovereignty by all means but don't undermine US national security interests'.

If the US knows what is in its national security interest and will define it and fight to protect it, why is Pakistan unable or unwilling to defend its own national interest and do likewise?

Pakistan's problem is that it is not ready to define and own up to its national interest, especially in relation to the role and place of America in it. Until now, the military had defined the national interest as being synonymous with its own exclusive construction of the notion of national security and national power and articulate it both openly and secretly. The civilians were either out of the loop of decision making for long periods of time when the military was directly in power; or too dependent on the military for political survival to challenge it when they were in and out of office for brief periods of time; or too lacking in political vision and courage to fashion an alternative to it. But several new factors have compelled the military to knock on the door of the civilians and ask them to take formal "ownership" of foreign policy especially relating to Pakistan's relations with America.

The first is the rise of angry anti-Americanism in Pakistan as a powerful force dominating public policy and popular discourse. In this environment it is "wise" for the military to stand in the shadow of the elected politicians and dictate business "concessions" for America in exchange for its rentier staple of money and hardware, and let the civilians face the music for "bartering away sovereignty". The second is PPP government-PMLN opposition relations which are bitterly focused on narrow party political ends in an election year which make it difficult to stitch up an effective, pragmatic and consistent notion of the national interest vis a vis America. The third is the rise of Imran Khan who is baiting anti-Americanism and religiosity to woo voters away from the besieged PPP and embattled PMLN. In a perverse way, the military's policy of sustaining anti-Americanism by nurturing aggressive non-state actors like the Pakistan Defence Council, as well as indirect support to Imran Khan, in order to leverage its bargaining position with America has come back to haunt it. The military sought to leverage Raymond Davis and the Salala attack to obtain greater checks and balances on the CIA's footprint in Pakistan and drone strikes against its Haqqani assets in North Waziristan. What it has got instead is a deep reluctance on the part of the civilians to become an overt element of any new and revised "deal" with America even along the lines determined by the military behind the scenes.

In the transition to the Afghan endgame, America is bound to become more desperate and aggressive and the Pakistani military more intransigent and ambitious. Relations are bound to deteriorate again. The more this happens, the more the civilians will either shy away from owning up to concessions to America on behalf of the military or put up stiff resistance to the Americans and risk Pakistan's international censure and isolation.

Therefore two new internal initiatives are urgently needed. First, the military must grant bipartisan civilians an opportunity to freely debate and define the "national interest" and help change it to mean something more meaningful and substantial than "national security" and "strategic depth" as defined by the military. This will make it easier for civilians across the political divide to "own" national security policy, including relations with America, and sell it to the public. Second, the military must stand up and be counted in the public eye as supporting the new definitional policy vis a vis America rather than hide behind the coattails of squabbling politicians. This will strengthen the hand of the civilians as partners with the military in a new paradigm of "national power" rather than as "security risks and "sellouts".

General Ashfaq Kayani must openly take his public share of fashioning the new transactional relationship with America. Instead of parliament owning up to any new US-Pak relationship that smacks of appeasement to an anti-American public, GHQ must squarely take joint-responsibility for it. The ISPR can start by candidly explaining the agreement between Gen Kayani and the two top American generals who met him in Rawalpindi last Wednesday. Then it must back up Parliament's final recommendations to the hilt.

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/index.php
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Friday, March 30, 2012
Roshan wadhwani's Avatar
40th CTP (FSP)
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: CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CE 2012 Merit 101
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Islamabad, MoFA
Posts: 2,322
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,691 Times in 640 Posts
Roshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of lightRoshan wadhwani is a glorious beacon of light
Default

Choices are limited

As Pakistan reconsiders its ties with the US, it must stop confusing tactics with strategy


Comment By Imtiaz Gul

Pakistani leadership has pushed itself into a corner in the way it has dealt with the controversial issue of the transit of NATO supplies through Pakistan.

There was already mistrust between the ruling Pakistan People's Party and the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, as well as between the government and the Supreme Court. A smooth passage of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security looked difficult from day one.

The recent riots in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa over power shortage and the opposition's deadline for an end to load shedding are another big hurdle to the passage of the PCNS recommendations. The PML-N believes the power outages are meant to discredit its government in Punjab. And the government's tensions with the Supreme Court may cause new problems for the ruling party rather than resolving any of the existing problems. The issue will eventually be resolved but not without political upheaval.

The US reticence over the Salala incident couldn't have come at a worse time. Just when the Zardari-led government was positioning itself to extract as many concessions from the parliament as possible for the resumption of relations with the US and the transit of military supplies through Pakistan, the Pentagon put the blame for the Salala strike on Pakistani border forces, declining to take any punitive action against those involved in the incident that left two dozen Pakistani soldiers dead. Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar responded by saying a mere apology would not suffice any more. This obviously limits the options for the PPP-led government.

While redefining the terms of engagement in border regions (drone strikes and military operations in return for Coalition Support Funds), and reviewing the cooperation (cargo supplies via Pakistan, military to military relations) is legitimate and must be pursued, one must ask, what realistic choices does Pakistan have? Very limited, it seems. In no way can Islamabad withstand the military superiority of the US. Neither can it, nor should it, expect the US to relent pressure on issues which the American establishment considers crucial to its geo-political goals. Crucial among these goals is the elimination of Al Qaeda-led opposition - wherever it may be found. And central to the pursuit of this objective is the drone warfare. There have been over 300 attacks since June 2004, when former Taliban commander Naik Mohammad was killed in a similar strike on his hideout in Wana, South Waziristan. The drone campaign will therefore continue. The US may, and should, agree to recasting the drone strategy by perhaps creating a joint ownership, whereby Pakistan can project them either as joint ventures or exclusively their own effort.

Given the current economic adversity and the heavy reliance on the pleasure of Washington for assistance from other NATO countries as well as the international finance institutions such as the World Bank, Pakistan can ill-afford to deny these countries what they want. Nor would it want international financial and diplomatic pressures by opting for a longer confrontation.

While China may still be considered a close friend, the Chinese leadership is not likely to defend or justify any move that it may interpret as unpragmatic and rigid. There is hardly any way to draw on Chinese support because of Beijing's own crucial economic interests all over the world. Nor will the US-India-Afghan nexus provide any breather if denial and reticence continued to mark the mood in Islamabad.

What should be done? Can Pakistan afford to stick to its maximalist position? Certainly not. Pakistani leadership - both the military and the civilian - therefore must stop confusing tactics with strategy. Such advice keeps coming in various forms not only from China but also from friends in Turkey.

In very recent interactions with Turk leaders in Istanbul one could discern concerns about Pakistan's uneasy relations with neighboring India and Afghanistan, as well as the United States. Pakistan, said officials and parliamentarians sympathetic towards Islamabad, will have to rethink its external relations in a more pragmatic and realistic way.

"Pakistanis are usually very emotional about India and Afghanistan. They also indulge in finger-pointing across the border," said a very influential member of the ruling Justice and Development Party, requesting anonymity. As long as this continues, relations with India and Afghanistan will remain dogged. Similarly, the MP pointed out, Afghans may be averse to "Indian boots-on-ground" but not to the Indian money. The same is true for relations with the United States, he said, adding that codependence in a volatile region makes Pakistan more vulnerable to risks of instability.

Secondly, Pakistan must act as a state rather than as a merchant; asking for damages to infrastructure and perhaps taxing the US-NATO cargo is totally legitimate , but instead of appearing as a greedy merchant, Pakistani leaders must negotiate long-term benefits with the US. Why can they not ask the US to lift its opposition to the gas pipeline from Iran? This big confidence building measure could serve as balm to many bruised egos here and also clear the way for another valuable source of energy.

Thirdly, the Pakistani establishment must shed its romantic obsession with the country's "strategic location." This has only prevented it from thinking strategic ie long term. That is exactly what happened in the case of NATO supplies. Two-thirds of these supplies used to go through Pakistan last year. But by November, they were reduced to 50 percent as the US began to reply on the northern route. When it comes to protecting their geo-political interests, the US-led alliance will readjust and most probably absorb even higher transportation costs. Is Pakistan ready to make even minor adjustments in its stated positions? Logic dictates it should. Statesmanship requires that it takes a more dispassionate and realistic view, and seek advice from friends such as Turkey and China, rather than sticking to a policy that continues to bleed it, sullying its global image and retarding growth at home.

http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta2/tft/index.php
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
International Relations: Theories and application Fortune International Relations 0 Sunday, March 27, 2011 02:37 PM
Pakistan Relations and forign policy khuhro Current Affairs Notes 0 Sunday, August 22, 2010 09:10 PM
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.