By: Ikramullah | March 18, 2013 .

One can only understand an issue, in its comprehensiveness, by looking at the whole picture; for parts are merely deceptive. Pakistan’s political leadership after the death of Quaid-i-Azam failed to grasp what ailed the country. We went adrift, failing to determine the strategic goals of the new born state and could not set national priorities to be achieved within a given timeframe. For the past 60 years, our national leadership just groped in the dark. Pakistan could not evolve a constitution till 1973 after attaining independence in 1947. For 26 years, this nation wandered in wilderness and in the process we lost our eastern wing. Even then neither the leadership nor the people learnt any lesson. The present gathering storm enveloping our national life reflects a desperate state of affairs in which the citizenry is yearning for peace in the face of the government’s failure to provide security.

Whereas change is the key to progress we keep rigidly following the colonial pattern in all our affairs without reforming domestic or foreign policy. Against the dictates of commonsense we endlessly repeat our follies. It seems the same old 100-odd families are set to enter the parliament and provincial assemblies after the general elections. The same political parties who have been tried and test continue to wield power; they are out to establish their dynastic rule. The election commission is doing its best to implement the code of conduct for the elections whose success lies in the maintenance of peace before and during the election period.

All eyes are set on the armed forces to assist in the maintenance of internal peace and safeguarding Pakistan’s eastern and western borders which are both under threat for the first time in our history. The army has recently changed its military doctrine underlining internal security. The recent terrorist attacks in Quetta and Karachi, the latest Lahore (Badami Bagh) inferno, the menace of terrorism coupled with drone attacks highlights the state of security in the country. The Supreme Court has warned that the law enforcing agencies including the police and the rangers, have failed to enforce law and order. This implies failure of the government which must do something to the conduct of polls in a peaceful environment. This would be a big challenge for the caretaker government. The choice of the new caretaker Prime Minister although only for two months or so is of great importance because of the need for holding timely and free, fair and transparent elections. This will have a great impact on the future shape of the representative government that one would very much wish turns out to be of the people, for the people and by the people.

Those concerned with the restoration of law and order should go to the root of the problem. We have so far been casually alluding to foreign hands without pinpointing the sources and have failed to plug the flow of funds and arms into Pakistan for use by terrorists network. This has necessitated a major shift in our security paradigm which is beyond the capacity of the status-quo forces. But an indication of change has come from a quarter least expected to say that US drones have been violating Pakistan’s sovereignty. Ben Emmerson QC the UN’s special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights has made this point. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon ought to take suitable measure against their recurrence by impressing upon the US to stop the practice. Pakistan has done well to go ahead with the Iranian gas pipeline and hand over the Gwadar port to a Chinese company, the moves of great strategic importance in the security paradigm of the region.

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

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...urity-paradigm

By: Javid Husain | March 19, 2013 . 11

The ground-breaking ceremony of the Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline performed by the Presidents of the two countries on March 11 was the latest reminder of the vast potential that exists for bilateral cooperation between Pakistan and Iran, and the innumerable opportunities for regional cooperation that exist for our country within the framework of the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO).

It is a measure of the short-sightedness of our leaders and senior officials that it took the shock of an energy crisis to wake up to some of these opportunities. We could have exploited them much earlier and, in the process, could have avoided the acute shortage of gas from which we are suffering if we had set the right priorities and adopted a well considered long-term policy to develop cooperation with Iran, Turkey and other member states of the ECO.

There cannot be two opinions about the imperative necessity for Pakistan to import natural gas from Iran to meet its fast growing requirements. Our authorities had anticipated as early as 1998 that our demand for natural gas would outstrip our domestic gas supply roughly around 2008.

Unfortunately, the Musharraf government during the nine years of its tenure hardly did anything for the realisation of the IP gas pipeline project, obviously under the US influence. The alternative Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline suggested by the US is not practicable as long as the armed conflict in Afghanistan continues.

This leaves us with no choice in the immediate future, except to go for the IP gas pipeline. However, we should keep open other options like TAPI gas pipeline and the possibility of import of LNG from Qatar.

Our decision to go ahead with the IP gas pipeline project is likely to subject us to intense pressure of the US, which is currently at loggerheads with Iran because of the latter’s nuclear programme and its defiance of the American hegemonic objectives in the Persian Gulf region. The US sanctions against Iran are based on American laws and executive orders, and are not legally binding on us.

Fortunately, they are also either irrelevant to the IP gas pipeline project or can be avoided through barter arrangements with Iran. Thus, on the whole, the existing US sanctions are not a major impediment in the implementation of the IP project. It is also worth mentioning that the US has exempted several countries from the application of its sanctions against Iran.

The crucial point, however, is whether we have the political will to face the US pressure and the resources to finance this project. The possibility that the US may withhold bilateral development and security assistance meant for us and may influence international financial institutions not to provide any financial relief or assistance to Pakistan, although remote, cannot be totally ruled out.

We should, therefore, be ready to tighten our belts and improve the management of our economy to face such an eventuality.

It remains to be seen whether the next elected federal government will have the political backbone, and the necessary diplomatic and economic skills to come up to the challenge of completing the IP gas pipeline project.

If the US, indeed, goes out of the way to pressurise us, it would once again underline its unreliability as a friend and an ally.

In view of the importance of Pakistan-US cooperation for peace and stability in Afghanistan and the region, smooth US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the fight against terrorism, just to give a few examples, the US would have to weigh carefully the pros and cons of extreme steps against Pakistan.

The fact of the matter is that the Pak-US relationship is characterised by possibilities of mutual cooperation in various fields as well as negative factors, which limit the extent and depth of such cooperation.

Our goal should be to optimise our relations with the US by accentuating the positive and minimising the negative factors. We should, therefore, work out with Washington new and realistic parameters of bilateral relations so as to make this relationship sustainable and mutually beneficial.

The initiation of the IP gas pipeline project has once again driven home the importance of the ECO as a vehicle for regional economic cooperation and integration for Pakistan. While regional cooperation per se is desirable, it is a mistake to assume that any regional association of states can evolve on the lines of the EU or can achieve results similar to those of the EU.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the SAARC has failed to make headway, as it remains mired in political disputes among member states such as Kashmir and bogged down by fears of India’s hegemonic designs in the region.

The resultant lack of trust does not create propitious climate for the promotion of regional cooperation. Cultural divergences among the member states, particularly between Pakistan and India, add to the list of negative factors militating against the success of SAARC.

Additional obstacles in the way of the success of SAARC arise because of the differences among its member states regarding their world outlook and their vision of the future.

The SAARC can definitely play a useful role in defusing tensions among member states, promoting regional trade on a level playing field and encouraging cooperation in such fields as water management, environment, cross-border crimes, communicable diseases, etc. But for Pakistan, it is not the ideal organisation for establishing an economic union or for bringing about regional economic integration.

If Pakistan makes the mistake of relying on SAARC for these purposes, it would either be frustrated in the achievement of these objectives as is the case currently or it would be gradually submerged in the bigger Indian economy losing its autonomy in the economic field.

For Pakistan, the ECO has a vast potential for regional cooperation leading to economic integration because it meets all the prerequisites for this purpose such as economic complementarities, common cultural heritage, geographical proximity and the absence of serious disputes and hegemonic designs among its member states.

These factors also provide the basis for a community of interests, that is, a feeling of common destiny and a shared vision of the future among the ECO member states. Economic complementarities hold the promise of an enormous expansion of intra-regional trade and cooperation within the framework of ECO.

For instance, Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan are major oil and/or gas exporters, while Pakistan and Turkey need to import oil and gas in large quantities. Pakistan and Turkey are textile exporters; whereas, Iran and some other ECO member states are textile importers.

Pakistan is a major rice exporter, while Iran imports it in large quantities. By way of contrast, in all these areas, the economies of Pakistan and India are competitive rather than complementary. Thus, the possibilities of the expansion of trade and economic cooperation among the ECO member states are far greater than those available within the framework of SAARC.

Pakistan should, therefore, pay greater attention to ECO than it has done over the past few years to reap fully the economic and commercial benefits of regional cooperation, leading to regional economic integration that this organisation offers.

The ECO member states must redouble their efforts to achieve the targets contained in the “ECO Vision 2015”, particularly the establishment of a free trade area among them. According to one study, such a free trade area would increase eightfold the intra-regional trade among the ECO member states that was estimated to be $40 billion in 2008-09.

The writer is a retired ambassador and the president of the Lahore Council for World Affairs. Email: javid.husain@gmail.com

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...gional-options

March 21, 2013 . 1

The Pakistan military’s top bosses put their heads together to review the prevailing security environment on Tuesday, after having recently announced the new doctrine declaring internal threat as its top priority. They were unanimous in resolving that the armed forces would pursue a comprehensive strategy to eliminate the menace of terrorism from every nook and corner of the country. All services chiefs were present at the meeting held under the chairmanship of Gen Khalid Shameem Wyne. Besides terrorism, the top commanders also reviewed the operational preparedness of the armed forces with regard to national security, internal security situation and regional geo-strategic environment. They felt satisfied at the standard of preparedness of the armed forces to meet these challenges, and believed that they were also in a position to take up challenges that appear in the future.

But the main issue is how the army plans to deal with the continuing drone strikes and the terrorist threat: whether to undertake military operation against those responsible for terrorist activities, Pakistani Taliban and splinter groups involved in kidnapping for ransom and similar other heinous crimes or not? COAS Gen Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani is on record having said that the local ground realities in the tribal region would be taken into consideration before taking any decision. But what this decision will be and how soon will the army reach it, if at all, is the real question. Speeches will not solve the problem, action will.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...y-preparedness

The importance of regional alliances cannot be overstressed for an embattled and – for the moment – ‘government-less’ Pakistan. At such a critical moment, with relations with its long-term ally, the US, strained over the go ahead to the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, President Zardari’s two-day visit to the International Conference on Nauroz in Turkmenistan is a welcome omen.

The President went in with a specific agenda, to underlie the potential strategic importance of Pakistan as a bridge between the Central Asian states and South Asia, and shared it with the heads of participating countries, including Turkmenistan, Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. It was indeed important to reiterate Pakistan’s priorities as it has committed to building two key projects: the Gwadar Port and the Iran-Pakistan pipeline.

In his address to the conference, President Zardari underlined the geostrategic importance of the region and the need for regional alliances based on economic cooperation. He stressed on the need to build robust road and rail links to enable the countries to fully exploit their natural resources. The President delivered three key statements of intent: willingness “to facilitate the transport of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Central Asia to South East Asia and other world markets,” “the Gwadar [port] is the shortest route for Central Asian states to the Arabian Sea,” and “provide safe transit of piped gas to neighbouring countries.” The underlying message was that Pakistan was still keen on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline if the other countries were interested.

Addressing a conference attended by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Tajik President Emomali Rehmanov and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Zardari could have made an important strategic move in the long-term. Projects like the Gwadar Port and the Iran-Pakistan pipeline make no sense without strong regional cooperation between Pakistan’s immediate neighbours in both South and Central Asia. Trade and economic development are the best routes to long term regional peace. More so, the conference came at a timely moment for Pakistan, facing criticism for its strengthening relationship with Iran. Zardari’s choice to attend the Turkmenistan conference was an indicator that threats will not force Pakistan to act against its own interests. But it is important to note that while the verbiage was all positive, no major agreements were signed at the moot. Regional cooperation in the Central to South Asian corridor is still walking its early footsteps. Peace in Afghanistan and the end of terrorism in Pakistan appear to be the two key determinants. But the question is: does peace come first or a commitment to cooperation? It appears President Zardari, for now, has made the right choice.

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013...at-conference/

National security

By M Zaidi
Published: March 23, 2013

National security can be empirically defined as protection of core national interests from external threats. Even though security can easily be defined as physical security, economic prosperity, and preservation of national values, institutions, and political autonomy, the contexts of these can vary tremendously at different times, according to the grounding of these issues in real-politik. For instance, if a state conceives its national security to be threatened by encroachment upon a territory not actually in its physical control but to which it lays a claim to, the context of physical security, for instance, can be expansive and is sometimes not easily accepted by the competing states in their own contextual paradigms. National security doctrines, on the other hand, are the institutionalisation of national security by not just contexts, but also by the physical, socio-economic, military and other means to serve these goals. Such national security doctrines are usually sustained over a period of time by the state and it is rare to see a paradigm shift that totally changes the way that national security is institutionalised by some particular state. There are, of course, incremental adaptations, the tinkering of the system to cater for changing times, so to speak. The paradigm shifts only happen after a major change in the national identity of the state, as for instance after defeat in a war, or the sudden fading away of a threat. For example, the threat of war in post-World War II was replaced by a need for economic integration in Europe, spurred on by the end of the cold war.

Then there is the issue of threats to national security that can be termed ‘the national security uncertainty environment’. These are the ambiguous threats, ones that have not been properly understood because they tend to operate outside the paradigms of a conventional national security strategy, since any such strategy would have to be against an opponent. Thus, in framing strategy, one needs to have an opponent, a conflict, a competition, or a situation where an individual or a group is trying to achieve a goal against somebody else. Uncertainty arises when the threat is so diffusely interspersed that it can no longer be recognised by a clearly identifiable opponent, but by a more confusing pattern. Historically, in political literature, such uncertainties usually arise after major wars such as World War II, implosion of a rival such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union, or reconciliation transforming the enemy into a friend or at least a neutral. Any tensions that arise after such major shifts may not be immediately recognisable clearly.

However, perhaps the biggest national uncertainty producer of modern times is terrorism, which has changed the entire context of national security uncertainty. When there is a clearly defined opponent, it is easier to plan, since one can go about preparing to meet him head on, based on one’s own capability thresholds. Put simply, if the opponent is big, the preparation to meet him face to face is big as well, and vice versa. Terrorism circumvents this symmetrical logic precisely because it is asymmetric. Terrorism vies against a national strategy by adopting niche tactics that can offset the larger resource base of the state with lesser resources. Terrorism as a political philosophy does not need to defeat the national security strategy of the state in outright battle, but to fatigue it with the war of a thousand cuts. Thus, terrorism seeks to invoke a state of national security uncertainty by exposing the vulnerability of the conventionally based national security strategy paradigms, thereby causing the state to make changes to the latter. These changes are what the terrorists will also try to manipulate, as these can sometimes be quite predictable. For instance, the terrorist will sometimes try to encourage a heavy backlash by the state in the form of military reprisals, which seems illogical as these would wipe out more terrorists.

However, at the same time, uncoordinated and hasty operations may also sometimes cause more collateral civilian casualties, thereby turning the opinion of the citizenry against a state, and vindicating the terrorists’ stance that the state is tyrannical. This may increase the indoctrination base for terrorists, which offsets the losses accrued due to enhancement of military operations. I have used just the example of terrorism; there are certainly many other factors which cause national security uncertainty, but terrorism is the most troubling in the 21st century. Its inherent asymmetry implies that it is not easy for any state to be always ready to roll out a preconceived plan of engaging in negotiation, long or short war, counterinsurgency, engagement, or any other strategy. In other words, since terrorism is not predictable in any given scenario, the responses cannot simply be programmed into a national security strategy, but have to be modulated for every terrorist stimulus in its own right. Whatever the rationale and causes, a state of national security uncertainty is always dangerous and finding the balance continues to be one of the biggest challenges for national security in this century.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 24th, 2013.

Miangul Abdullah

Domestic violence plus separatists’ pressure, Pakistan is plunging into a perfect storm of threats on the two fronts—internal and external. The internal threats are economic stagnation, growing poverty and inequality, lawlessness, the pervasive corruption, regional conflicts, ethnic divides, sectarian killings and clash of institutions. The external threats are the imposed conflicts with the ever ready enemies to destabilize the country by organizing themselves against Pakistan on Eastern and Western fronts.

A close look into the prevailing situation makes all too clear that Pakistan is passing through one of the most troublesome periods of instability in its history. The rising extremism, failing economy, political instability and chronic underdevelopment are intensifying feelings of hatred among the masses against injustices meted out to them in almost every field of public activity, which are resulting into unprecedented political, economic and social disorder.
The country seems to be on a downward course due to the fact that its leadership is not adequately addressing either internal violence or the needs of the people. The governments’ policies are self-serving and far from meeting needs or expectations of people, due to which there arises problems on all levels of national development.

The internal wrangling always mired efforts of dysfunctional civilian governments to control the situation. The elites give preference to their interests over population and help institutionalize deep-rooted patronage networks, widespread corruption and significant structural distortions in tax collections etc. And it is because of their willingness to exploit ethno-sectarian divides for political gain that caused further violence and instability.
Thus the government reforms are impeded by strong organizational resistance, which continues to exert pressure all time. As a result corruption, service politics, nepotism and favoritism, power brokers, entrenched feudal interests, and a marked civil-military imbalance continue to hold influence at the cost of public interest.

The external threats have also taken its toll no less than the internal wrangling when both combine to affect the structural reforms. Due to its involvement in the war against terror, Pakistan faces challenges virtually in every aspect of its external relations.

As regards the fluctuating relations with India, there can hardly be traced any period where one can assess that both Islamabad and New Delhi have shown enough maturity to decide the major issues between them in better interest of the people of the two countries. The Indo-Pak border, which is secured by the two countries through nuclear weapons, is one of the most tense borders on the planet. Cross border violence causes escalating the prospect of full-scale war between the two sides.

Besides, the role which the two countries have to play in Afghanistan is another episode that causes escalation in the fluctuating relations between Pakistan and India. Actually Pakistan has different perception and national interests on Afghan security and stability, which further escalate its relations with the United States and causes cross border violence.

To weigh all factors we can conclude that the increasing security concern causes diversion of massive amounts of resources for defence purposes, living a little room for internal problems to be resolved. Pakistan currently invest a major portion of its resources in the name of security as the anti-state forces are combining themselves on all fronts to weaken the country by dividing people along political, ethnic and religious lines besides fueling the flames to turn the already volatile conditions into a major flare-up.

An in-depth study of the factors involved behind the fiasco in broader context shows that the anti-state violence and sectarian intolerance is increasing with the growing demands of the society and consistent failure of the government to meet the needs of people over a period of decades. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening and there exists nothing in reality to plug the gap except official rhetoric without any real-world performance.
That’s why despite robust military operation and improved counterinsurgency efforts, there seems a little success and the gains are likely ephemeral because the root causes of militancy remain unaddressed that is political instability, lack of administrative control and economic stagnation, all poses a major threat to the future stability of the country.

Every government that came into power tried to approach the problems with selective attempts to address public grievances, which could not work to alter the fate of people. Instead these threats kept on increasing and left governments with a little breathing space to accomplish the much desired objectives of peace and progress, besides they led to the fear of disintegration along political, ethnic and religious lines, which poses a danger to everyone and may turn into a huge collapse to the unity of Pakistan.
Actually the efforts of governments were always faltered and many reform programs ended up remaining rhetoric due to political opportunism with the government making only superficial attempts to rectify many of its deep-rooted structural problems. The government of course spent money, but it has placed too much emphasis on allocating resources with little emphasis on ensuring a meaningful outcome.

What is in fact needed is a comprehensive strategy to invest on people through public welfare activities, besides urgent planning for ending the ever increasing crisis in order to bring peace and stability.

Therefore, the need is to devise a national policy that could bring peace in the country. And the same would be possible with open mindedness, which can be expected when the country’s political leadership comes up with some consensus decisions and strategy to deal with militancy that has severely affected the national economy and caused huge losses to human lives.
Now there should be a major shift in policies to tackle the situation like this. The leaders must focus on investing in its peoples welfare to address their core grievances.

They should give priority to internal needs over dealing with external threats by devoting themselves to the welfare and future of the people. As such there must be a better planned and well managed stabilization strategy to address the causes of extremism, which would need a large scale reforms.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/

April 03, 2013

In a meeting with Isaf Commander General Joseph F Dunford, COAS General Kayani conveyed his concern over cross-border attacks from Afghanistan. This is the least we could do, since these atrocities happening over the years have become dangerously frequent and have resulted in a massive loss of life.

The Nato and Isaf forces’ presence along the border is one factor that ought to have curbed such activity. As satellite technology and human intelligence gives them details of such movement, it is but unacceptable that Isaf which often calls itself an ally of Pakistan should be just watching this phenomenon passively. Islamabad’s longstanding demand has been to initiate action against the militant networks including the one led by Mullah Fazlullah, responsible for mass-casualty attacks across Pakistan. It was his outfit that carried out the assassination attempt on Malala Yousafzai for standing up for girls’ education. The role of the Afghan government too has been far from satisfactory; recently it refused to hand over some of the terror suspects wanted by Pakistani officials.

Under no circumstances, should Isaf let the militants blitz their way into Pakistani territory. As this complicates the job of the Pakistan’s military engaged in eradicating extremism from its tribal areas, at the end of the day this would add up to the collective failure of the fight against terror.

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

April 04, 2013



Nothing could, perhaps, pose a more dangerous threat to a country at war than the fifth columnists and, beyond doubt, Pakistan has been fighting, for years, an enemy that is adept at striking surreptitiously, which makes the enemy within all the more dangerous. The revelation, as reported in the Nawa-i-Waqt on Wednesday, that a fairly large number of personnel working with the country’s security agencies have been consorting with the banned organisations has come as a great shock to the people. These anti-state criminals, so far identified are 105 in number, mostly belong to the police but 11 are Frontier Constabulary personnel. They belong to different provinces. The report about the federal police is, it appears, under preparation and would be forwarded to the concerned quarters when ready. Under the so-called Islamic agenda, that espouses a doctrine utterly alien to the fundamental principles of the religion of peace – they are rightly viewed as harmful to the interests of Pakistan. In matters sectarian and with their coercive means of enforcing wide acceptance of their version of Islam, these banned outfits terrorise and viciously propogate an agenda to usurp power under religious garb.

As a result of the machinations of these treacherous elements the country has had to bear a huge financial loss running into billions of rupees and human loss of thousands of citizens, civilians as well as army men. Although the attacks of such terrorist organisations are generally indiscriminate in nature, their major focus has been governmental assets, especially of the security forces. Most striking incidents that readily come to mind are the attacks on the Mehran base at Karachi and Kamra aeronautical complex near Taxila, where the terrorists succeeded in destroying vital national assets, mainly because of the presence of sympathisers at these sites, who facilitated planning, timing and execution of the attacks. Of course, there were other incidents directed at fellow intelligence and security agencies as well. Only last Tuesday they charged at a power grid station at Peshawar with a sizeable force, damaging the installations, disrupting power supply to a large part of the country, killing eight persons, including officials, abducting four, and causing the loss of an immense amount of money. Of course, one cannot ignore the most barbarous slaughter of Hazaras (Shia) at Quetta.

Obviously, to have fifth columnists in the security services, the challenge of defeating militants and anti-sectarian religious zealots would be much harder and would tantamount to setting a thief to catch a thief. They have to be weeded out and given condign punishment. The intelligence must continue to keep a watchful eye on such elements in the future as well.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...e-enemy-within

Once again, the local police and herds of the security agencies were asleep when dozens of daring militants raided Sheikh Mohammadi Grid Station in Peshawar suburb on early Tuesday morning with rockets and sophisticated weapons, leaving three persons dead and kidnapping nine others. Later the militants killed five of the hostages and threw their bodies a few meters away from the grid station. Having no fears of the retaliation from any quarters concerned, the militants fired at least 14 rockets and planted several remote-controlled explosive devices at the grid station, which exploded with big bangs. The militants, on mission, also torched important installation beside setting ablaze seven vehicles. On Wednesday, the relentless militants attacked a Rangers’ vehicle, killing three personnel and injuring three others in Karachi. Militants’ strikes is a routine affair in Pakistan, hardly a day goes by when militants are not making their presence felt. The frequency with which the militants are striking across Pakistan gives rise to feelings that entire military might coupled with herds of police and other agencies are aliens, having no clue about the state of affairs of the country. All what is being repeatedly said is just a lip service. Unfathomed sadness is that police patrols and check posts are just meant to mint money from innocent local residents not for the surveillance over the movement of the terrorists. Indeed, it is a matter of shame for the police force that was on duty on that ill-fated night. Immediately the entire night patrol that failed to detect movement of dozens of the armed people should be sent home. Their negligence is no more digestible and tolerable any more. Earlier, the militants in disguise of suicide bombers used to strike their targets but now they have changed their modus opendi, from suicide bombing to raids on the important installations-a development that should have sent ripple amongst ranks of the security forces. Expected it was yet the anticipation by the security agency has been found wanting of countering the retaliation of terrorists being battered in various parts of the country. The deteriorating administrative control over the country strengthens the point that the militancy has made inroads in the society beyond the anticipation of the power-that-be, and the indications are; it may deteriorate further to the extent that may jeopardize the next elections. The strategy of the targeted operation has gone down the drain.
The law enforcing forces need to review their contingency plan against the militants and the extremists. Reports are buzzed in Lahore that the relatively peaceful Punjab is next in line; after being hammered in Quetta, Karachi and the KPK, the immigration of the terrorists to the Punjab is quite obvious and the natural outcome hence they can pose all sorts of security threats at their will. The caretaker Punjab Chief Minister Najam Sethi is well aware of the militants’ tactics thus should take nothing for granted particularly in south Punjab. A proactive strategy should be put in place to flush out terrorists from the province before it is too late.

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/46/

As reported in a national daily, the Pakistan Government has formally awarded a multi-billion dollars contract for construction of more berths and operation of Gwadar port to a state-run Chinese firm namely China Overseas Port Holding Company (COPHC). According to the contract the Port will remain the property of Pakistan and will be further developed up to 20 berths as well as operated by the COPHC. Previously, the contract to operate the Port was given to the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA).

According to media reports PSA had abandoned the project for the reported reason that Pakistan had failed to meet its obligations under the agreement although it was highlighted in the media reports that PSA failed on its commitment of investing an amount of $525 million in the project in five years on the excuse that its demand of providing land worth Pakistani Rupees 15 billion was not met. Under this back ground, in 2012 the Supreme Court of Pakistan had issued a stay order on the contract of Gwadar Port constraining PSA on transferring immovable property of the Port to a private party. The Supreme Court also allowed the Government of Balochistan to become a party to the case.

In view of Supreme Court’s decision on the subject, based on an offer made to the Balochistan Government in 2010 by China that if given contract of the Port it will construct 20 more berths and make it fully operational, and considering huge economic benefits for Pakistan, China and other regional countries for transportation of trade able goods and hydrocarbons if the expansion and operation of the Port was hastened and made more robust, the contract of the Port has now been awarded to the COPHC.

Awarding of contract of Gwadar Port to COPHC has caught lot of media attention both in Pakistan and abroad. While in Pakistan wide number of members of media, think tanks, business community, government officials and civil society have largely appreciated Government’s this decision due its potential substantial economic benefits for the country, some of the foreign government representatives, think tanks and commentators have shown apprehensions that probably China was interested to use the Port for projecting its naval power in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean in the coming decades. As published by the Express Tribune, Pakistan of 18 February 2013, the Indian Defence Minister A. K. Antony commented on 6 February 2013 that India was concerned on Pakistan’s decision of handing over operational control of Gwadar Port to China which has interests in a string of other ports encircling India. According to the New York Times of 31 January 2013, some US strategists have described the importance of Gwadar Port for China as the westernmost link in the “string of pearls”, a line of China friendly ports stretching from mainland China to the Persian Gulf, that could ultimately ease expansion by the Chinese Navy in the region, with Gwadar being close to Strait of Hormuz, an important oil- shipping lane. Andrew Small said that most likely Gwadar Port will be developed by China for naval use.

In fact, as is being understood in Pakistan and China, such perceptions and apprehensions have no relevance since development and use of Gwadar Port is basically meant for trading activities directed to the benefit of all mankind in the region around Pakistan and other regions interested to trade through this Port. In an article written by Declan Walsh, published in the New York Times dated 31 January 2013, Assistant Professor of Asian history at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, Hasan Karrar says, “There may be a strategic dimension to the management transfer of the Gwadar Port to China, where the Chinese want to mark their presence in an important part of the world, I would not go so far as saying this implies a military projection.”

In the real sense the development of Gwadar Port by China for commercial purposes is an indicator that both Pakistan and China prefer the policy of primacy of geo-economics over geo-politics in this part of the world. In this respect it is being thought by both countries that expansion and smooth operation of the Gwadar Port carries major economic benefits not only for Pakistan and China but also for other regional countries such as Central Asian states and even Russia. Therefore both countries’ keenness in Gwadar Port is meant to advance their commercial interests and strengthen their economies. Pakistan is more inclined to draw economic benefits out of operation of this Port quickly with a view to addressing its already fragile economic situation. Therefore for advancing their economic interests both Pakistan and China are aspiring to strengthen regional peace and stability.

For this common objective in mind both countries are interested to develop this Port as an economic hub of the region and not as a naval base. That is the reason that in his remarks at the occasion of contract signing ceremony President Zardari expressed that award of contract to china was a major development in Pakistan-China relations adding that the decision would create new economic opportunities for Pakistan and Balochistan.

The analysts are of the view that the expansion and efficient management of Gawder Port carries lot of advantages for Pakistan and China. Development of the Port and infrastructure around it will create lot of jobs for the people of Balochistan. It will also provide business opportunities for transport, construction and hotels management sectors of Pakistan.

However real benefits could be earned only if the Port city can be connected with country’s main road and rail net works by developing communication infrastructure up to Quetta and Indus Highway. While these projects will provide wider opportunities for investment to China there will also be a requirement to complete the planned widening of Karakoram Highway and construction of railway line from Chinese border to Hasan Abdal.

The completion of expansion of the port and communication infrastructure will also open up lot of vistas for Pakistan’s domestic trade and trade with China’s Xingjiang province and also trade with Central Asian states and Russia as well. Gwadar will be very beneficial for trade of western part of China with the western part of the world since, as compared with the distance of about 10000 kilometers from Gwadar to Arumqi via Straits of Malacca and Shenghai, distance from Gwadar to Arumqi via Gilgit, Pakistan is only approximately 2500 Kilometers. While the development projects related to Gwadar can bring massive China’s investment in Pakistan it will also open up immense commercial activities to the benefit of Pakistani people.

A fully developed Gwadar Port and related infrastructure will provide full impetus to international trade passing through this Port to and from Pakistan, China, Central Asia and Russia providing substantial trade transit revenues to Pakistan which will facilitate its economic development. However for these plans to succeed there will be a need to bring an early peace in Afghanistan and Balochistan.

As an immediate measure Pakistan will have to make fool proof measures for the security of the Chinese citizens working on Gwadar Port as well as on other related development projects in Pakistan.

Since peace talks with the Afghan Taliban are already in progress it is hoped that peace will come in Afghanistan leading to sustainable stability in that country and Pakistan which will facilitate economic development in both countries and also open up trade avenues for the regional countries.

(The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute)

http://www.thefrontierpost.com/category/40/