Islamabad’s political incorrectness

Note: Karachi's grave situation and some suggestions
The Federal Interior Minister is urged to read this article not as a rebuttal to Islamabad’s incumbent government and its recent peace process initiative for Karachi. In fact this article offers an alternate
policy option on the issue based on commonly accepted democratic practices and an adequately
politically correct approach to conflict resolution.
Leading social-psychologists all over the world are in complete agreement that political actors, the majority of them, tend to fall victim to “Group-Think” when faced with a conflict situation and led by a strong central leadership. This is exactly what happened at the recent APC held in Islamabad at the invitation of Nawaz Sharif’s government. Nearly all political players were in consensus on nearly all political issues confronting the nation including the Karachi dilemma; a city of lights turned into a nightmare of existence gradually over a period of the last 25 years. The question is: Did the APC participants analyze the root-cause of the ever-expanding problematics of this city that has grown into a metropolis of diverse population and greatest business hub of this country?
I can state this with absolute conviction that significant conflict resolution deliberations and a thoughtful analysis were not conducted with utmost seriousness. Here are my reasons for stating so:
a) Almost all the participants in the APC were the same political identities who have been “part of the political game” ever since Karachi became a problematic issue. They all hold the same old political affiliations, the same mindset, the same political attitudes and the same identical political views that have, in fact, become irrelevant to the present day socio-economic-political problematics of a large metropolis.
b) The APC was conducted, in large measure and in essence, to gain political legitimacy in the eyes of the masses. It was a political thriller organized with the explicit purpose of public diplomacy and well-intended political declarations for public consumption. The APC was skillfully crafted to convey the message: Look, this government cares. This government is on the move. This government is democratic. This government is committed to democratic participation and consensus. And yet, the results and the process set into motion for conflict resolution do not seem to be promising. They cannot be – because they do not address the root-cause of the prevailing conflict.
c) The political incorrectness of the APC’s conflict resolution process and initiative is obvious: The “Rangers and Police” operation is a cosmetic solution to a complex problem rooted so deeply in socio-economic-political factors that a “Rangers and Police” clean-up cannot effectively deal with it. Indeed, “Rangers and Police” will eliminate some elements, some miscreants will be arrested, some criminal players will disappear, some will hide and take safety measures until opportunities arise for a renewed resurgence of their criminal activities at a later date. After all, “Rangers” cannot be deployed to run and govern a large metropolis forever, specifically when it has the presence of strong and powerful political parties involved in conducting the business and the political processes in the city supported by their massive public mandate respectively.
The point I am trying to make is that the democracy we are practicing and have been practicing is flawed and has become irrelevant to our times. We fail to understand that our ruling class’s excessive political rhetoric conceived in our traditional political culture and its manifestation of giving rhetoric solutions to serious societal problems has, in fact, become outdated. This specific brand of contemporary Pakistani lip-service democracy absolutely devoid of issue resolution is irrelevant now in an age of massively large societies and complex humanitarian problems. The need is to manage these complicated human issues by expert scientific, technological and political management skills.
Karachi is a case in point. The situation in Karachi is grave; the future of the city is murky and so is the entire country, being connected to the prevailing conditions there. We cannot colonize Karachi by Rangers.
The incumbent government, instead of calling an APC, should have organized a conference of social scientists, social psychologists, political scientists, economic experts, human behaviorists, cultural anthropologists, social behaviorists, town planners, urban psychologists, lawyers and town planning administrative managers to seriously understand and resolve the city’s present day problematic existence.
There, indeed, are democratic alternative solutions to the city’s problems other than deploying “Rangers and Police” to clean-up the city. Take for example a fundamental factor: Karachi now is a city largely controlled by various highly organized vicious and violent “Mafioso” interests patronized by different parties’ political leaderships. They do business in millions and billions of rupees on a daily basis. The question is: Will these “Mafioso” organizations cease to exist when a “Rangers and Police” operation starts? One would be naïve to believe so. They will disappear momentarily and re-surface again – so will the city’s problems.
A “Rangers and Police” action is not the solution; the solution is in the democratic political management of the city. Let us discuss one such possibility here.
Urban psychologists would advise dividing Karachi into several “zones”. Each “zone” would be placed under the direct supervision and management of a political party’s representative with the largest public mandate in that area. Each respective political party’s “Zone Manager” would be responsible for cleaning-up their area of criminal elements by coordination with law-enforcement agencies including the judicial system, restoring peace in the zone by directly involving the residents of the area, arranging safety and security of the residents and the entire business community in their area and coordinating with other “City Zones” for bringing the city back to its normal civilized existence and usual business activities. Karachi could be turned back into a “City of Lights” once again.
In practical political management terms, my suggestion to Islamabad is to momentarily declare Karachi a “Democratic Administrative Entity” separate from the rest of Sindh province. This arrangement would have to be temporary until peace and stability is restored in the city.
Obviously, my plan for Karachi as a “Democratic Administrative Entity” would automatically place the city under MQM political management – it being the party with the largest public mandate. However, it should be noted that where other parties have a strong public mandate, it should be their domain of political management.
Let us give a chance to a new “out of the box” democratic experiment. Islamabad must learn to overcome its resistance to change – it must legitimize democracy as it should be legitimized.
Let MQM bear the responsibility of liberating Karachi from its political-economic-social abyss!

The writer is UAE-based academic, policy analyst, conflict resolution expert and author of several books on Pakistan and foreign policy issues. He holds a doctorate and a masters degree from Columbia University in New York.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...-incorrectness

The nuclear question

Note: Nuclear Energy can be used for genration of energy and Nuclear's securities issues discussed by PM of Pak and his gestures to disarmament

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif generally spoke with responsibility and sense while addressing a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in New York, also attended by other heads of government and the UN Secretary General. Pakistan’s own nuclear weapons have, of course, in recent years come under a degree of international scrutiny, regarding their security and the alarming possibility that they could fall into militant hands. In this context Sharif’s well-chosen words signalled maturity and should as such help reassure the outside world and those of us at home too. The prime minister spoke of the need for disarmament, non-proliferation and the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. These are all words that are good to hear. He was also quite correct in pointing out that an agreement reached for this purpose some 35 years ago at the UN had frittered away.

A revival is vital, especially in a world where we see so many tensions arise over matters such as Iran’s or North Korea’s nuclear weapons. Here the main point of concern is the equitable treatment of nations, and Mr Sharif did well to bring up this point strongly, stating that within a fair order Pakistan favoured disarmament. The position, of course, is a fair one. There is no reason at all why some nations should possess weapons and those of others should bring so much angst. There are moral issues attached to nuclear weapons. The same morality should apply to all.

The prime minister in his address also brought up the matter of Pakistan’s energy crisis and nuclear technology to solve it, saying that he felt the energy deficit was one of the most serious crisis facing Pakistan. We would all benefit from this but, perhaps, we also need to accept that the help we seek for this may be easier to obtain if we can put to rest concerns about terrorism. Essentially, Pakistan needs to do this so it can move out of its current state of international isolation and more convincingly persuade the world to side with it and help it tackle the range of issues it faces. This is a challenge the prime minister and his government must take up for the future.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 28th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/610247/t...lear-question/

Dialogue, but with whom?

Note: Dialogue's scenario and some conditions from, plus historical background and Quaid e Azam's quotations for the nation.

Pakistan came into being following a historic struggle of the Muslims of the subcontinent. Addressing the newly-found nation, the father of the nation, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had said that “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the State”. It is unfortunate that the ideals of the Quaid-e-Azam were quickly brushed aside soon after his death and a group of vested interests took control of power. This group brazenly used religion to perpetuate its hold on power.

The Afghan war pushed the country into the raging fire of war in the late 70s. The fire continues to burn with intensity even today as people of Pakistan across its length and breadth are falling prey. There are no visible signs that the country could be pulled off from this fire and put on the path of progress and prosperity. Extremism is beginning to stifle the spirit of Pakistan and the dreams of the founding fathers are turning into nightmares.

Thousands of lives have been lost in bomb blasts and suicide attacks. This includes officers and men of country’s armed forces and paramilitary forces as well as thousands of innocent civilians. Despite this, a recently held All Parties Conference (APC) gave the government the mandate to hold talks with these extremists and militants. The main spirit behind this mandate was to give peace a chance. The militants, however, continue to strike relentlessly. A serving major general of the army was martyred in an IED blast after the offer of dialogue to the Taliban. Militants spurned the offer by carrying out two suicide blasts in a church in Peshawar killing scores of people, including women and children. They have made it clear that they would continue to strike in future as well.

These recent acts of terrorism have provoked a huge wave of anger in the country and some quarters are demanding that the dialogue offer with the Taliban should be withdrawn forthwith. In response to this anger, some pro-Taliban parties are arguing that these recent attacks were carried out by some fringe groups and not the Taliban. They are also claiming that there are nearly 25 groups within the Taliban and some of them are still not in favour of talks, thus the possibility of their involvement. This argument throws the whole question of talks into deep complication: if the Taliban is not a unified body and lacks the ability to control other militant groups, would it be fruitful to talk to it? Should we talk to the Taliban or these fringe yet powerful groups or both?

There are some politicians in the country who maintain that the issue can be resolved by holding dialogues and some even suggest that the militants should be allowed to open an office for this purpose, thereby recognising them as a legitimate stakeholder.

This is a dangerous idea. A country has its own well-defined stakeholders: armed forces, the police, bureaucracy, economists, major political parties, ethnic and religious groups, etc. These stakeholders play positive and constructive roles in the process of nation-building, thereby strengthening the country. On the other hand, there are elements that work for weakening the country by engaging in destructive activities. It is these non-stakeholders who are commonly termed anti-state actors or anti-state elements.

Those who claim to be the most patriotic people in Pakistan but consider these non-state actors as the integral part of the state seek to legitimise what is patently illegitimate. We all want peace in the country and we all want to see the country emerging as a modern democracy among the international community. We all recognise the importance of holding dialogues for resolving issues but I would like to put a question to leaders, scholars and academicians. Dialogue but with whom?

Published in The Express Tribune, September 28th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/610225/d...but-with-whom/

Crucial to justice

Note: Witness protection against Terrorism

IN the investigation and prosecution of crime, particularly the more serious and complex forms of organised crime, it is essential that witnesses, the cornerstone for successful investigation and prosecution, have trust in the criminal justice system.

As the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has pointed out, witnesses must have the confidence to come forward to assist the law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities. They need to be reassured that they will receive support and be guarded from the threats that criminal groups may hurl at them in their attempts to discourage witnesses from or punish them for cooperating.

According to a recent study carried out by the crime investigation department of the Punjab police, more than 80pc of terrorism cases resulted in acquittal of the accused before the anti-terrorism courts due to the witnesses having resiled from their earlier testimony during the trial or simply declining to appear in court because of the pressure applied by hardened criminals.

Many examples demonstrate that in witness protection there are no easy solutions. However, the Sindh government must be complimented for getting the Witness Protection Act passed by the provincial assembly recently.

It is indeed a historic first and a landmark move as claimed by the provincial law minister. It has been finally recognised that it is a key duty of the state to provide assistance and protection to persons who can be harmed by criminals because they are cooperating with the justice system.

Witness protection became a legally sanctioned procedure in the US in the 1970s and was seen as crucial to meeting the challenge of dismantling mafia-style criminal organisations. Until that time, the unwritten ‘code of silence’ had held sway. The threat of death loomed for anyone who cooperated with the police. The Organised Crime Control Act of 1970 empowered the US attorney general to provide for the security of witnesses who agreed to testify truthfully in cases involving organised crime and other forms of serious crime.

It was after the ghastly murders of witnesses, especially in the case of the January 2011 killing of TV journalist Wali Babar in Karachi, that the government of Sindh finally realised the significance of protecting key witnesses. There are scores of cases of sectarian murders and targeted killings in which the witnesses have been violently silenced.

According to the chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, the law is a good move. However, she also pointed out that, “it is a trend in Pakistan that laws are designed and approved but their enforcement remains ineffective”.

Witness protection is particularly important in fighting against terrorism. The secret nature of militant groups makes it difficult to apply the usual trial methods. Other measures are often required.

Examples show that protection can be given in a variety of ways. A police escort could accompany the witness to the courtroom or the witness could be offered temporary residence in a safe place. Modern communications technology (such as video-conferencing) for testimony is another way to protect those giving crucial testimony. There are some cases, though, when cooperation by a witness is hampered by the powerful reach of a group. In such cases, extraordinary measures may be required to ensure the safety of the witness.

Often such cases see the witness being given a new name and settled in an undisclosed location either within the country or abroad.

Victims have a central role in the court process. They may be the complainant who start the proceedings or they could be witnesses. Because of the victims’ vulnerability, there is general consensus that they should receive assistance at every stage of the trial as well as before and after it. Victim-witnesses should be given preference in a protective programme in the case of critical testimony, the absence of other effective measures of protection and in the presence of a serious threat to their life.

The effects of witness protection programmes are maximised when a multi-pronged approach is adopted starting with the application of temporary police measures, continuing with the use of secure evidentiary processes during court testimony and culminating, when all other measures are deemed to have proved insufficient, in identity change and relocation procedures.

The Witness Protection Advisory Board headed by the home secretary in Sindh must realise that staffing is a crucial element for the success of the protection programme. Witness protection officers must have particular qualities and skills for their role as protectors, interrogators and investigators. So the first task of the advisory board is to decide where to find people with such qualifications.

Some of the most important elements in the successful operation of witness protection programme are: a clear legal basis for designing a methodology; adequate financing that is stable and continues for several years; strict personnel vetting procedures; protection of the programme’s integrity; close coordination with judicial and other government authorities who are responsible for law enforcement and intelligence, prison administration, housing, health and social welfare departments; obligation of all stakeholders to provide appropriate assistance; and safeguarding the information disclosed to them.

The success of the programme is dependent on upholding the following principles: operational autonomy from the regular police; secrecy and security of information; and shielding from political and other extraneous influences in the work of the programme. Even though a witness protection programme can be expensive, the costs prove minor when compared to the programme’s contribution to the effectiveness of prosecution in cases of serious and organised crime.

Finally, even when such measures have been legislated, implementation remains less than satisfactory. Therefore, it is for the policymakers, legislators, legal practitioners, senior law enforcement and justice officials involved in the protection of witnesses to translate this excellent initiative into a successful model. The federal government and other provinces can emulate it and make a difference to the efforts to promote the rule of law and ensure justice.

The writer is advisor on rule of law and criminal justice to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1046823/crucial-to-justice

‘Operation’ losing steam: Resurgence in Karachi killings


Note: Insurgency in Karachi and some suggestions to tackle Terrorism
FOLLOWING the prime minister’s visit to Karachi last month, the general impression formed subsequently was that the ‘targeted operations’ initiated by the police and Rangers had begun to yield results. The number of daily killings in the city was down, while reports suggested that criminals and militants were being tracked down not only in the metropolis, but also in other cities of Sindh and beyond the provincial boundary. However, as the number of people killed — at least 13 — on Monday shows, the mission is far from accomplished. The same kind of killings that were occurring before the state swung into action are happening again. In fact, not a single illegal weapon is reported to have been turned in to the authorities despite a much-publicised media campaign warning the public to give up any illicit arms in its possession. As expected, the results since then have not been encouraging either. Although officials have made excuses for the deweaponisation drive’s lack of success (people have failed to hand over their guns because it was the weekend), we had commented earlier that violent elements were highly unlikely to surrender their weapons simply because of a media campaign.


Suggestion to to demolish criminals and militants
As far as action against criminals and militants is concerned, there needs to be consistency on part of the state. After initially showing enthusiasm to pursue criminal elements, the drive and energy to get the job done by the Sindh administration is definitely missing. Such lethargy will fail to have any permanent impact on reducing Karachi’s bloodshed. Hence the state needs to keep its focus on pursuing criminals and not leave the job half done. Where deweaponisation is concerned, as pointed out earlier, good intelligence coupled with raids to recover illegal arms, as well as busting gunrunning rackets, is likely to produce better results.