Time to take stock of US threat

By Shireen M Mazari

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

What is with Pakistanis and the Americans? Despite over sixty-one years of independence; despite our successful struggle to acquire nuclear capability in the face of massive hurdles put in our way by these folk, despite the dismal record of our past military alliance with the US and its allies; despite the constant abuse being hurled at us Pakistanis in particular and Muslims in general, by them, post-9/11, we have continued to sustain the imperialists and neo imperialists in their misplaced assumption of the "White Man's Burden".

How else can we explain our continuing tolerance of the abuse — a form of psychological terrorisation — being meted out to us by the US? Their Administration continues with its mantra of "do more", and continues to scamper to build new political favourites as old ones lose domestic currency. Their politicians in and out of Congress hysterically threaten us with dire aid cut-offs if we do not deliver — although the only delivery they will ever be satisfied with is the handing over of our nuclear assets, Dr Khan and at least an Osama look-alike to appease their populace. As for the US media, we are definitely their bete noir, not least because our leadership is so readily accessible and prone to erring on the side of indiscretion — including our leadership-in-waiting. All and sundry make pronouncements on sensitive foreign policy issues with no thought to the implications and unintended consequences.

As for the US military, it is playing an interesting double game at the moment. The command in Washington critiques us, while at the operational level on the ground in the Trilateral Commission, they feign an atmosphere of camaraderie and goodwill which makes our local commanders adopt an unnecessarily accommodative approach towards them.

It is in this bizarre environment that our own security situation has been vitiated even as we have sought to please the US ad nauseum. Certainly, we have had a terrorist problem even before 9/11, but the US-led war on terror in Afghanistan has distorted our indigenous terrorist problem as well as aggravating it. To make matters worse, the US has adopted a duplicitous and treacherous strategy vis a vis the Pakistani state. On the one hand, it wants us to fight its designed war against terror, but it is itself supporting Baloch terrorist groups with the aim of destabilising both Iran's Sistan and Pakistan's Balochistan. The use of terror group Jundullah by the US against the Iranian state has been discussed in the US media. Additionally, the US has done nothing to push the Karzai government to close the offices of Pakistani terrorist groups like the BLA — now renamed the Baloch Republican Army, after the UK declared BLA a terrorist organisation.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. US citizens joined some Baloch expats in 2006 to launch the so-called "American friends of Balochistan" (AFB) in Washington DC with Robert Selle, apparently a journalist, as its chairman. The aim of the group is to separate Balochistan from Pakistan and its level of funding tends to show more than a passive acceptance by the US establishment. Interestingly, the group was formed a year after French diplomat Frederic Grare went to Washington and began claiming expertise on Balochistan.

Then there is the Baloch Society of North America, established in 2005, which is active against both the Pakistani and Iranian states and has access also in Canada and the UK, post the BLA ban. There is also a big question mark over the diversion of funds received from international donors by the World Sindhi Congress (WSC) and World Sindh Institute (WSI), to terrorists in Pakistan rather than for the philanthropic purposes for which the funding was given. Both these organisations have given financial support to the Sindh Liberation Army which has claimed responsibility for a number of bomb blasts in Sindh. To make matters worse, US officials even maintain contact with members of these groups in Pakistan.

The issue is why America has failed to monitor or curtail such activities emanating from its territory. After all, we all know that terrorist organisations have to have their political wings to raise funds and the US has attacked many religious groups on this count in Pakistan. We also know how Washington has emphasised the issue of terrorist financing and many Muslim charities have suffered on this count. Are we not interested in some level of reciprocity from the US?

With all these shenanigans which directly undermine our security, we have allowed US bases in the sensitive province of Balochistan, as well as in Sindh, and there is now evidence that they are also using a short refurbished runway near Tarbela for launching Predator flights. With all this logistical support offered by Pakistan, where is the US reciprocity on anti-terrorism? Of course, if we Pakistanis had even an iota of dignity, we would stop all logistical support and let Congress do its worst. What will that be? US marines coming into Pakistan? They can barely manage Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment.

Unfortunately, despite being abused all around, we continue to do US bidding — much against our own long term interests. Now we hear US military personnel are coming in to not only train our paramilitary forces but also to accompany them on missions within Pakistan. There has also been talk of the US "training" our military in counter-insurgency. What absurdities are we reducing ourselves to? Has no one studied the US's dismal record in this field — both in Vietnam and Iraq, not to mention in our own neighbourhood in Afghanistan? All that will happen with the additional influx of US military personnel in Pakistan is more acts of terror against our own security forces.

The only way to fight a successful war on terror against our own indigenous terrorist problem is to begin thinning out US personnel from Pakistan and adopting a holistic approach in dealing with the tribals. To make it a perceptually credible national effort we have to create space between ourselves and the Americans so that our security forces can become more effective with local support. Unless the locals flush out the terrorists, the state will see no success in this war. This is where the ANP victory can play a crucial role in a two-pronged strategy of dialogue, development and establishment of law and order. We have to overcome the psychological confidence deficit that prevents us from creating the necessary distance between ourselves and the US.

Is it not interesting that post the ANP victory in NWFP, when it was seen that the local people had rejected the extremists and elections had been conducted more or less peacefully in that province, and there was hope of the new political leadership using a policy of dialogue to isolate the militants and terrorists — something that went against the US policy — suddenly we have been hit with a spate of suicide attacks with even funerals being targeted — something that has not happened before.

Unfortunately, so far our ruling elite seem unable or unwilling to see the US design for what it is: a weakening of the Pakistani state and nation with perhaps a long term goal of balkanisation. After all, US scholars with close links to the establishment are referring increasingly to this end goal. Yet even here we seem to retain a strange subservience and continue to give academic space to perennial Pakistan-bashers, especially in terms of access to data and information. Such is our continuing hangover of kowtowing to old and new imperialist powers. No wonder we Pakistanis today face a double-headed terrorist threat: psychological terrorisation of the state by the US, and the physical home grown militant terrorism. One feeds on the other.


The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com


http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=99622

Looking out for Pakistan first

By Shireen M Mazari

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

As a Pakistani I am outraged at the killing of an innocent Pakistani (given that his guilt was never proven) by the Indian state and then twenty days later the dumping of his body at Wagah border -- what else can one call this concluding action on the part of the Indian state?

However, I am more angry at my own government for its lack of care regarding its citizens arrested by other countries, especially India, but also the US. Just a few days earlier, we had Mr Ansar Burney making a sickening drama about the release of an Indian prisoner, who later admitted he was a spy, when he did not have the basic decency to at least show up to receive Pakistani Khalid Mahmood's body at Wagah. For that matter, no official government representative was present to receive the body. Nor was there any demarche issued from the Foreign Office to the Indian High Commissioner. Is international publicity and kudos all that matters to our politicians and bureaucrats? Even more distressing is the state of our human rights champions who have yet to take up the cases like Khalid Mahmood's even as they make much of Indian prisoners in Pakistani jails. And what of our High Commission in New Delhi? Why were they so inactive on this count? Now one is being told that PTV, the state's propagandist network, refused to take up and project the issues raised by the killing of Khalid Mahmood. Utterly shameful, when you think of the publicity Ansar Burney garnered for himself in the case of the Indian spy's release.

So for those of our leaders who have already declared their intent to cosy up to India, regardless of issues like Kashmir, let the killing of cricket fan Khalid Mahmood be a warning about the chasm that exists between our over- enthusiastic passion for embracing India and India's continuing suspicions and hostility towards Pakistan. A more realpolitik approach to dealing with India would stand us in much better stead. Let us learn our lesson from the price we are paying as a result of coming to the aid and assistance of the US with simply no preconditions or sober considerations -- post-9/11.

As for India, apart from the killing of Mahmood, there are countless stories of Pakistani prisoners being tortured in Indian prisons without any charges being proven -- but there is a seeming apathy on the part of our state and human rights activists. That is why I suppose "disappearances" and renditions are so easy here in Pakistan -- it reflects a mindset that lays little store by the dignity and human rights of ordinary citizens. Coming back to the gap that prevails in how we perceive India and their perception of us, see the hurt many in Pakistan expressed when we discovered that India had invited over a hundred foreign dignitaries and defence attaches to witness their forthcoming exercises in the Rajasthan Desert commencing from March 19. But we forgot to read the word "from friendly countries" in the Indian statement. Clearly, Pakistan is not seen as a friendly country by India despite our bending over backwards on all issues. So our new leaders may want to rethink their desire to forget about Kashmir in order to satisfy India! Of course, we should continue our dialogue, but let us not outpace India in concessions on the ground -- as we have done with the US at a time when it needs us far more than we need them.

Which brings me to the whole issue of maintaining some sobriety and self-control in our external interactions, and resisting a proclivity towards effusiveness. Presently, we seem to be fair game for friends and foes. The latest salvo is from a Turkish general in terms of our nuclear assets. We know that Turkey is a staunch US ally in NATO, but we have emotively bound ourselves to the Turkish people for decades -- and have lent unquestioning support for the cause of the Turkish Cypriots when, apart from Bangladesh, almost all the world spurned them. If the Turks had any concerns regarding Pakistan, did they have to express them publicly at an international conference organised by the Turkish military? Incidentally, at this conference the Turks also chose to invite a BJP-linked scholar to talk on Kashmir -- so, obviously, there are new undercurrents in the Pakistan-Turkey relationship that should be a cause for concern in Islamabad. After all, it was not too long ago that the Turkish government was also found hosting a US-funded conference to discuss the whole issue of the "Durand Line."

Finally, there is the US and its continuing absurdities vis-a-vis Pakistan. Apart from witnessing the most intrusive political behaviour on the part of the present US ambassador as she continues to rush from one political leader to another -- and obviously she is not discussing their health or the weather -- we have had US personnel arriving one after another to convince us on all manner of issues. One such visitor, Harlan Ullman, gave an intriguing analysis -- as only an American can. Declaring that Pakistan's case was not well understood in Washington (perhaps we should evaluate how our publicists are spending our money on the Hill), he then added that regardless of what we do, we can neither change the US mindset nor get any money since they do not have it now! Obviously only another American can understand what was being implied here!

The crux of the issue was that we have to help the US in Afghanistan, because if they fail there, it will be devastating for Pakistan! Of course, it did not get through to him that fighting terrorism the US way was already devastating for Pakistan, and we need to have our own indigenous strategy which has to include publicly distancing ourselves from the US. Anyhow, what he wanted was to build support here for a joint Pakistan-US-NATO strategy. But the point that was being missed was that one can only have a joint strategy if our strategic goals are the same -- and in many Pakistanis' minds our goals for the long term are at variance with US designs for this region. So where is there the potential for a joint strategy? Also, there are some serious legal and political question marks relating to the NATO presence in this region.

Effectively, we are now at a crucial juncture in our cooperation with the US and the fallout that that is having not only on our polity but also on our own terrorist problem. Just as I was to conclude this column, news came of the two deadly terrorist attacks -- again in Lahore. Clearly, the Lahore attacks were well-planned especially since the two sites chosen were at a fair distance from each other -- thereby effectively dividing rescue services. In fact, it would appear that the Model Town target was chosen randomly, simply because it unfortunately happened to be across from Zardari House, but the FIA building was part of the targeting of the security structure of Pakistan.

It is only too apparent that our present strategy on the war on terror, devised by the US and focusing on the military, has not only failed, it has increased the violence and terrorism in Pakistan. Is it merely coincidental, that as the voices for a holistic policy to deal with the tribals have increased post the elections, the acts of terrorism have hit the urban centres with a vengeance? At the very least, as we mourn the loss of innocent Pakistanis, let us also pause and see where we are headed as we play the deadly US game in this region.


The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_....asp?id=100839

__________________
Marwatone.

By Shireen M Mazari

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

As a new elected parliament has come into play and a new government will soon follow, the new bonhomie between the major political parties has been welcomed by the nation as a first step in enforcing the national consensus on crucial issues such as restoration of the judiciary, civilian supremacy and a free media. However, there are two very important issues relating to external policy that will require immediate attention and some distancing from our past policies will now be possible so that our national sovereignty and lost political space can be reclaimed. Equally important, we need to reclaim the principle of reciprocity which has been lost on both counts.

The first is the issue of the terrorist threat that confronts us post-9/11. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, hurried and expansive concessions were made to the US which made us a frontline state in the US-led war on terror. Subscribing to the US's military-centric approach, we have seen an increasing space created for terrorists within Pakistan and equally dangerous, we have seen the US shift the centre of gravity of the war on terror from Afghanistan to Pakistan's tribal belt. Discussing the whole range of issues which necessitate our delinkage from the US-led war on terror to a more national strategy is not the intent of this column although one has written and spoken extensively on the issue. However, it is worth drawing attention to some aspects that are now arising in connection with terrorism. On the issue of reciprocity, the US, along with its allies in the EU, has not shown an iota of reciprocity even at a basic level of declaring certain groups wanted in Pakistan for terrorism as terrorist groups. Worse still, the US has shown no sensitivity to our relations with Iran as they continue to use parts of Balochistan to destabilise the Iranian state through Iranian Sistan.

Beyond the reciprocity principle, the US is deliberately undermining our policy of attempting to adopt a more holistic approach towards dealing with the terrorist issue by increasingly conducting predator and missile attacks on Pakistani territory -- without even notifying Pakistan let alone seeking its permission. Yet, without a holistic approach which should include dialogue with the extremists who are prepared to talk, the isolation of the terrorists cannot even begin to be achieved -- and that after all is the desired strategy of a war against terrorism. Ironically, it was the US which compelled the British government to talk to the extremists and terrorists at the time, the IRA, in order to conclude a political deal and peace in Northern Ireland. The Philippine government has been doing the same in dealing with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), so that now the terrorists on the fringe have become increasingly isolated. Yet we in Pakistan have not begun to move effectively in this direction. The result has been an increase in terrorism all across Pakistan, especially in the urban centres.

In fact, there are some interesting facts that have come to light in the case of the attacks against the FIA in Lahore and the targeting of a restaurant in Islamabad -- and these facts highlight the US linkage that is exacerbating violence in Pakistan. The terrorist attack in Model Town F block was intended to target a building which had been habited by the Punjab Special Investigative Unit (SIU). A terrorist mastermind, Qari Zafar, who had been behind the attack on the US Consulate in Karachi was being interrogated in that building but managed to escape. He had vowed to get back at his interrogators. Since the building could not be easily accessed directly from the front, the terrorists chose to go behind through the servant quarters of the building behind. It is believed that the FBI had sent a special anti-terror unit to Lahore at around the time of the terrorist attacks against the two FIA targets -- on the assumption of a close link between the FIA and the FBI, although FIA sources have denied this latter assertion.

The attack on the restaurant in Islamabad seems to have been more in the form of a targeted killing of FBI personnel since one injured eyewitness has stated that he saw something being lobbed across the wall. Look at the data available: The attack was not on the main building but on the terrace behind. The timing was precisely when the FBI personnel were eating there and the destructive capacity was just enough to target these people. The method and weapon used is not the usual Al-Qaeda hallmark, so one has to wonder whether the excessive number of US intelligence and military personnel in Pakistan are going to offer another form of targets for terrorists -- and in the process result in innocent Pakistani deaths as is happening in the tribal belt at the hands of predator attacks. Any way one looks at it, Pakistani lives are being lost in callous collateral damage. Let us hope the new government in Pakistan will do a thorough examination of the war on terror so far, our alliance with the US and more viable alternatives. At the end of the day, preservation of Pakistani lives and territorial security must be the main priorities.

Which brings me to the second issue that requires the implementation of reciprocity. The Indian government, media and civil society is building hype about the impending operationalisation of the death sentence of Indian spy Sarabjit Singh by Pakistan. Some are taking the humanitarian posture while others like the BJP are demanding that the Indian government talk "sternly" to Pakistan! What an irony. Where were the humanitarian voices in India when their government callously killed an innocent Pakistani and dumped his body at Wagah border -- this being just one instance of the brutal way the Indian state deals with its Pakistani prisoners -- even as Pakistan chose to release an Indian spy with compensation?

Now suddenly Indian MPs, including Rahul Gandhi, are opposing the execution of the Indian spy. Why have they maintained a complete silence on the treatment being meted out by their government to Pakistani prisoners and to the killing of Khalid Mahmood? Even now, as Indian voices rise in support of their spy, no one has deemed fit to condemn what their state just did to the innocent Pakistani. Under these circumstances, if the new Pakistani government -- one has little expectation of anything sensible from Ansar Burney after his grandstanding with Indian spy Kashmir Singh -- succumbs to Indian pressure it will send wrong signals to India and reciprocity will be buried as a guiding principle for future Pakistan-India dealings. Surely no new government, no matter how strong its proclivity to reach out to India, should succumb to the pressures of public relationing which will impose a heavy cost for Pakistan in future dealings with India.

Let me state that I am opposed to capital punishment in principle on a number of counts and have written numerous times on this issue (see The News, 28 June 2006). However, equally, I feel if we are to stay executions, we must not do so only for foreign nationals – as we did for the British citizen who killed a taxi driver in Rawalpindi. Are foreign lives more precious than Pakistani lives for our state? As for Manmohan Singh talking "sternly" to Pakistan, the very fact that the BJP can make such a statement shows the perception of Pakistan in New Delhi presently: Seeking concessions through diktat!

This is what we have been reduced to, thanks to our non-reciprocal mode of cooperative behaviour with the US post-9/11. Our new and assertive democratic dispensation must restore our sovereignty and national dignity by retrieving the reciprocity principle.


The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com


http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_....asp?id=102021

__________________
Marwatone.

Annihilating agriculture by design?

By Shireen M Mazari

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

While the nation welcomes a new prime minister and a new democratic dispensation, it has every expectation that its struggle for the restoration of the pre-November 3 judiciary and its desire for an independent judiciary will both be fulfilled. In many ways, this positive mood has temporarily pushed back the critical issues that presently confront the nation – including the terrorist problem, the spiralling prices especially of basics and the growing power cuts and impending water crisis. At least in the urban areas the mood presently is upbeat and full of expectation.

However, in the rural areas the mood is more sombre, notwithstanding the awareness and expectation from the new political dispensation in terms of resolution of the judicial crisis. Coming to my village after a three month period, it is crystal clear that over the years there has been an almost deliberate attempt to destroy the agricultural sector. We have seen the wheat and sugar crises in the midst of wheat and sugar cane bumper crops continuously over the last few years, so the agriculturalist can only assume that these crises were deliberate creations of powerful lobbies within the ruling elite. Now things have reached crisis level with the power crisis.

While urban dwellers bemoan the outages that range from two hours a day to almost six or more – depending on whether one is living in Islamabad or Karachi – in the rural areas, the dispensers of power are providing barely six hours of electricity per day. At least that is the case in the area of southern Punjab to which I am witness. The result is that tubewells cannot be used and as the weather turns hot, the poor farmer and his family have no respite, night or day. Even the rural elite cannot run their generators for the fifteen to eighteen hours that the power is out. Apparently, the explanation for such long power outages is that the urban areas must be supplied first and given the scarcity of electricity, as usual it is the rural population that must bear the major part of the burden. No one seems particularly pushed that if tubewells are unable to work properly, the bumber wheat crop that is standing in the fields will be destroyed; the cotton sowing that is to take place in late April-early May will be destroyed; and the sugar cane that began at the end of February will not finish in time. All this because of the power outages which prevent the functioning of tubewells at a time when the canals are also dry.

Interestingly, the sugar mills all have excess power capacity during their functioning and can easily supply this excess capacity to the WAPDA grid especially if the mill is using gas, but except in one case WAPDA has shown little interest despite the fact that this would help alleviate some of the power problem in the rural areas. The one exception has been the agreement, if local news is to be believed, between Shakarganj sugar mills and WAPDA in Jhang. Why this one exception only?

Ironically, the rural areas are confronting these problems despite the fact that there is a substantive representation of the rural areas in our elected houses -- both provincial and national. Could it be that just as our ruling elite seems overwhelmed by the US, our rural legislators are overwhelmed by their urban counterparts and forget the urgency of at least protecting the agricultural sector if not improving it? Or, worse still, is there a deliberate design to destroy the agricultural sector and make the country totally dependent on food imports despite our land's ability to produce competitively if allowed to under fair conditions? Of course, unless the present power and water shortages are rectified, some industrial sectors like textiles will also be impacted but it seems the "barons" and cartels are too powerful. At the end of the day, it seems no one is particularly pushed if we become ever more dependent on imports for all vital needs!

In our passion for all things foreign we are fast losing our sovereignty at all levels -- whether it is feeding our people through our own abundant but deliberately destroyed resources, or protecting our territorial extremities and our people abiding there, or willy nilly accepting foreign officials of dubious credentials to serve in Pakistan as their country's representatives. It is all part of the same colonised mind set that the ruling elite has not been able to rid itself of. post-9/11, this has been compounded by a seeming psychological confidence deficit.

Perhaps the most distressing aspect is that sections of our ruling elite have always deliberately undermined national priorities. After all, whenever we have had bumper wheat crops, either the state has been unable to store it, or it has been unable to pay the market price to the farmer in terms of the international market. So we have landed up buying wheat from India, while our own wheat is smuggled to Afghanistan and beyond! At a time when the international price of wheat was around Rs1000 per maund, the Pakistani farmer was getting less than Rs500 per maund. As for the issue of subsidies, the developed world especially the US and Europe heavily subsidise their uneconomical agricultural sector; yet here in Pakistan we have gone that extra mile to please the international agencies like the IMF and World Bank and moved a step closer to destroying our vibrant agricultural sector. Of course, the US needs to sell its wheat somewhere especially the excess that is produced as a result of subsidies. And the EU's butter mountains' scandal is well documented.

The same story is repeated in the case of sugar -- bumper crops but the sugar mills blackmail the farmer, and presently the situation is so bad that some farmers are destroying their sugar cane because of the low price being offered by the sugar mills. As for the sugar barons and their hoarding of sugar as well as the imports -- again from India -- the story is not new. But no one seems to want to do anything. Under the myth of the evil agriculturalist who pays no taxes, the agricultural sector is being destroyed. The reality is that like any other sector, there are black sheep in agriculture as well who pay no taxes – similar to the tax evaders in the industrial and professional sectors. The rest of us regularly pay our agricultural tax and abiana – and the former is based on holdings rather than yield so good or bad harvest, the tax remains the same. Not exactly fair but by perpetuating the "feudal mindset" theory, vested interests get away with undermining the agriculturalists. It may be wise to remember that feudalism is a mindset that can prevail anywhere -- including amongst urban industrialists. To destroy our national agricultural assets in the hope of destroying "feudalism" is a dangerous absurdity – but one that is also being fuelled by some foreign donors also.

Will our new political leadership that has a strong agriculturalist flavour reverse the trend and allow the agricultural sector a level playing field? The signals will need to be made immediately if this year's crops are to be rescued. Under present trends, it seems the agriculturalists are being seen already as a dying breed in the age of economic dependencies – only we Pakistanis seem to be seeking dependency in a suicidal fashion on all fronts.



The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com


http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_....asp?id=103040

__________________
Marwatone.

Terrorism: understanding the Pakistani context

By Shireen M Mazari

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Prime Minister Gillani’s initial 100-day programme has, for the first time, sought to undo some of the neglected dictatorial leftovers from the Zia period – especifically the ban on trade and student unions. Having taught at university for over sixteen years, I have always maintained that student unions are the proper way to educate the youth in healthy political traditions. It was the ban on these unions that allowed ethnic and sectarian associations to grow and fester intolerance within campuses. The issue is not having unhealthy depoliticised campuses, but ensuring that rules are enforced, zero tolerance for violence is maintained and there is a level playing field for all.

There is much to comment on in the context of the 100-day programme, especially in the context of agriculture, but in the prevailing national environment, the antics of the US in the context of the war on terror require greater scrutiny. It was gratifying to witness some of our political leaders do long-overdue straight talking with the Negroponte-Boucher duo. Now the prime minister has also declared that Parliament will discuss and decide on the country’s cooperation with the US on the war against terror. However, there is an urgency in moving towards a long-overdue reassessment regarding the military-centric policy of the US in fighting terrorism.

This is not to deny the terrorism problem confronting Pakistan, but we need to realise that our problem involves our own people, and therefore we cannot continue to suffer the collateral damage that results from a purely military approach. In fact, the US is a growing liability in our effort to fight terrorism. Some of us have always maintained and stated that US interests in this region are not similar to our long-term interests and so we need to create some space between ourselves and the US. Right now, while the nation and the political leadership are seeking to evolve a national consensus on how to fight the menace of terrorism, what is the US doing? Increasing its intrusiveness within Pakistan’s domestic affairs. How else would one describe the shadowy presence of US personnel all across the country seeking to deal directly with tribal leaders and militants – without even informing the Pakistani government?

The reach of the US has not been curtailed at all, post the elections. In fact, realising that they may find a hostile Parliament, the Americans have increased their intrusive activities on all fronts. So we have had rising predator and missile attacks from across the international Pakistani-Afghan border even as US-linked/supported personnel continue to occupy positions in the corridors of power. The Balusa group members, funded through an American, Shirin Taher- Kheli, are a key US investment in Pakistan’s power echelons that continue to pay dividends for the US – and this is only one of the many influence-generating channels.

More offensive was, of course, the forced-upon-Pakistan visit of the Negroponte-Boucher duo, who also took it upon themselves to visit many private individuals and groups, especially in the NWFP, often without the knowledge of the government of Pakistan. Stories coming out of the tribal areas relate how two Americans, through the US embassy, sought and met an MPA from Mohmand Agency, as well as a well-known MNA from FATA. Another MNA, from the Orakzai Agency, however, refused to meet any of the Americans. It is believed that US embassy personnel are directly dealing with the Maliks by hiring locals as intermediaries. If this is not intervention in our domestic affairs, what is? Worse still, such dealings directly undermine the state’s authority and relationship with the tribals. Undermining Pakistan’s sovereignty, the US is turning the FATA region into open ground for the highest bidder. Interestingly, where the locals have resisted this US intrusion, the level of attacks has receded – as is presently the case in the Mohmand and Khyber Agencies.

In a more threatening mode, the US has upped its missile attacks on Pakistani soil since the elections. That is why, on Feb 28, the Pakistani government lodged a complaint with Kabul. But the interesting factor for Pakistan is what the real US intent is, since many of the missiles have targeted the very people who have supported the Pakistani government and thrown out the Uzbeks, like Maulana Nazir in South Waziristan? On March 16, three missiles hit the compound owned by Nurullah Wazir at Shahnawaz Kot, in which 20 people died. Wazir was a close aide of Mullah Nazir and only three days ago the latter’s main office was attacked by a US missile. As some of us have long suspected and repeatedly stated, the Americans’ real intent seems to be to keep the NWFP and the tribal belt destabilised as they move the centre of gravity of the war on terror from Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Unless Pakistan reviews its whole strategy for fighting terrorism, we will continue to see more violence as a result of our alliance with the US. Incidentally, we also need to realise that right now the US actually does need us more than we need them. Imagine if we closed off all access to the US, including logistic support – where would they go to access Afghanistan? To Iran? This is without taking into consideration the abuse of some of our facilities in Balochistan where the US is targeting Iran rather than fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan.

The first realisation for Pakistan should be that not all our acts of terror are related to international terrorism of the Al-Qaeda brand. We do face sub-national and local acts of terror which do not require international intervention and must be dealt with locally. For instance, there is a question mark emerging over whether the targeting of the FIA office in Lahore was by Al-Qaeda or by the high-stake players of human trafficking. In any event, we need to separate our various strands of terrorism, just as we need to accept that our suicide bomber is very different in character from the Palestinian and LTTE varieties, and in my view, from the scant profiling available so far, far more accessible to being converted back from his suicidal path.

Dialogue is also of central importance and as long as the adversary is prepared to talk, so should the State be willing. We need to study Asian models like the Philippine-MNLF and the Indonesian-Aceh models, as well as the Northern Ireland one. In all these cases, militants were brought to dialogue and renunciation of arms. Interestingly, in the Irish Good Friday Agreement, deweaponisation was to follow operationalisation of the agreement and was not a precondition for dialogue. Yet who can deny the violence and death that these militant groups had perpetrated at the time they were brought into the dialogue process. So why should the Pakistani state not talk to its citizens who have adopted violence, if they are prepared to dialogue? After all, the State has to bring these people and areas into the mainstream of national life, so that the diehard terrorists are isolated, as are the foreign fighters. This is the only viable strategy of space denial to the terrorists – which should be the central strategy in any war against terrorism.

Finally, we must brace ourselves for the new terrorist threat that has developed post-9/11. This is the psychological terrorism coming to the Muslim world from Europe under the guise of “freedom of speech.” It is far more lethal and long-term in its impact on Muslims than any other form of terrorism. We have still not prepared ourselves for this assault.

The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com


http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_....asp?id=104381

__________________
Marwatone.

A multilevel threat: the US, Europe and terrorism

By Shireen M Mazari

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

The photo-op of the London meeting between the MQM's leader and the US ambassador to Pakistan should be a reality check for anyone who believes the US is concerned about its influence waning in Pakistan with the realignment of political forces. Even if one were to forget about the Balusa Group's influence in the decision-making circles, what should one make of the continuing intrusiveness of US diplomats in Pakistan's domestic political domain? Nor should one rest easy about the US now being comfortable with Pakistan's nuclear capability. Even though the Pakistan government had rejected the 11 conditions which were part of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) being sought by the US, Washington has not given up on attempting to push its agendas forward in Pakistan.

We are still not clear whether the notorious General Hood is still coming to Pakistan, as it appears no one and no bureaucratic institution in Pakistan is prepared to claim an awareness of his nomination. This, of course, raises the question of whether the US simply sends whomsoever it selects with no consultation or approval being sought from the host state, or whether sensitive approvals bypass normal channels altogether?

Perhaps the most dangerous effort at intruding into Pakistan's sensitive issue areas is the ongoing effort to gain direct access to nuclear strategic matters. This scribe has learnt that in late February, following our elections, the US State Department floated a proposal through verbal contact via an assistant secretary level official of the section concerned, that the US would like to place a permanent official in place at their embassy in Islamabad to deal with nuclear issues relating to Pakistan – with the official maintaining direct access to the National Command Authority (NCA) Secretariat. The proposal, again, was not routed through either the Foreign or Defence Ministries but a direct approach was made to the NCA! Apparently, so far Pakistan has not given any response but it would be quite appropriate to be concerned about such a US move, especially since transparency is not available at our end on such issues.

The US continues to be niggardly in its payments of dues (not aid) to Pakistan which are part of the 2003 Camp David bilateral Agreement. According to reports early this month, the US has yet to pay $500 million which was to have come to Pakistan last year. It seems all Camp David Agreements include some level of servitude by Muslim states! Perhaps this would be an opportune moment to create space between us and the US and allow the US to discover whether rerouting its supplies and logistics through Russia instead of Pakistan will be as convenient. As for the clandestine US activities which have little to do with Afghanistan, through the base in Balochistan still in use, surely it is time to put an end to these? Pakistan certainly needs to wake up to the danger in which it is putting itself, in its strategic neighbourhood, as it turns a blind eye to questionable US activities on Pakistani territory. Incidentally, if the Predator's transponder is switched off, the radar cannot detect it in flight!

Meanwhile, there is a spark of hope at least on the move towards a more holistic approach on the war against terror, with the ANP not only standing firm but also moving on its commitment to use dialogue to break the extremists' cycle of violence in the tribal belt. In this connection, the statement of the NWFP chief minister in the Provincial Assembly, in which he declared an intent of putting the political forces in the vanguard of the dialogue, with the security forces being used for the maintenance of law and order is a proactive move which will give the political dimension of the anti-terror policy the needed primacy.

As for the issue of terrorism and extremism, the United States' credibility on opposing terrorism, per se, is being exposed not only with its use of Jundullah against the sovereign state of Iran, but also with the emergence of LTTE groups in the US itself. But, then, if one remembers how many Irish groups in the US financed the IRA for years, the present US antics and double talk on terrorism should not come as a surprise. In a similar vein, the emerging psychological terrorism emanating from Europe should also be a warning to the Muslim World. Through the absurdity of "freedom of speech," the Holy Quran and the Prophet (PBUH) are being abused even as anyone even questioning the Holocaust is pilloried, fined and imprisoned. The efforts of the government of the Netherlands to disassociate itself from a Dutch politician's abusive and hate-filled film against Islam, its Prophet (PBUH) and Muslims, while taking no action against the guilty person, is yet another example of hypocrisy in the name of "free speech." As the Dutch government put it: "All people in the Netherlands have the right to express their opinions without the prior consent of the authorities." Of course, that is true of many countries, including Pakistan. But what the Dutch government failed to state was that it has laws which allow action to be taken against those indulging in transgression of "free speech" – as would have happened if the Holocaust had been questioned or Nazism praised. Even the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms places ethical and legal boundaries on these rights and freedoms in Article 10.

Ironically, the Dutch government also called on other governments (aimed at Muslim states, of course) to "uphold the principles of international law, such as the obligation it enshrines to protect foreign interests, nationals and businesses." So, first the Dutch defend the right of their citizens to freely abuse Islam and indulge in psychological terrorism of the Muslims through this abuse. And then when Muslim passions are aroused they label us violent and extremist – adding to the dimension of psychological terrorism. Now we have had, for the second year consecutively, the desecration of Muslim graves in a French military cemetery. These were Muslims who fought and gave their lives for the liberty of the French state, even while they themselves were under French colonial rule.

Nor are the Brits any better in terms of their hypocrisy vis-a-vis their Muslim citizens. Time after time they want to prove how British Muslims become terrorists simply by visiting Pakistan! Clearly the Brits are unable to accept that there is something intrinsically skewed in their society which marginalises the Muslim youth who turn to extremism and violence. The extremist mindset has not evolved from their visit to Pakistan, but as a result of their marginalisation in Britain itself. In fact, in the future the major source of extremism and violence is going to come from the marginalised Muslim populations of Europe, not from our part of the world. So, perhaps it is time for the Europeans to do some introspection also, even as they are pontificating to us on such issues.

As for Pakistan, we need to examine the terrorist issue within the domestic perspective and identify the differing strands of this problem confronting us today. Some of us have been stating repeatedly that we cannot fight terrorism the American way, just as we cannot afford to push all our domestic strains of violence and terror under the convenient rubric of Al Qaeda and international terrorism. This has only made us more vulnerable to international interventions and prevented us from moving beyond a fire-fighting mode to a more holistic, nationally-defined long-term anti-terrorism strategy.


The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_....asp?id=105818

__________________
Marwatone.

External agenda linkages

By Shireen M Mazari

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

As the Pakistan-India peace process has evolved, we in Pakistan seem to have abandoned all principled positions that may have required energetic sustenance and have allowed vested interests, primarily foreign, to gradually takeover and attempt drastic reformulations of the political disputes -- especially Kashmir. This process of what is becoming the absurd began with Pakistan's leadership attempting to disown the UN resolutions and then realising that Pakistan's legitimacy as a party to the dispute arises largely from these resolutions. Despite this, President Musharraf's four points allowed varying interpretations, although the official version finally settled on a sequential ordering of these four points -- that is, identification of the region, demilitarisation, self-governance and joint management -- which were seen as a means to eventual conflict resolution. Of course, even here, the Indians gave their own interpretation at the level of NGOs while giving no response at the official level to these proposals.

With what has become a virtual free-for-all on Kashmir, the Indians have pushed for CBMs as an end in themselves and Pakistan's Kashmir policy has become ever more murky. Taking advantage of this ambiguity, Track II dialoguers and international NGOs have moved in to further muddy the waters. So we have seen Pugwash get involved in the Kashmir issue specifically when it held a conference on the subject in Kathmandu in 2004. At the time it seemed well-intentioned because it sought to involve as wide a range of participants from Pakistan, India and both sides of Kashmir.

The same exercise was repeated in Islamabad in 2006 which brought Omar Abdullah to Pakistan for the first time. Unfortunately, at this time the intent of Pugwash became questionable as some of its core members sought to push through resolutions that lacked the support of the majority, especially the Kashmiris and Pakistanis. Eventually, these attempts at bulldozing a particular perspective were negated but the Pugwash Secretary General, an emotive Italian, Paolo Cotta-Raumsino, was displeased. Incidentally, Pugwash also drew suspicions because it sought to covertly target Pakistan's nuclear development through another conference façade. Ironically, despite lending support to Indian perspectives on Kashmir, Pugwash was refused permission to hold its conference in India in 2007. So it was back to Pakistan in 2008. However, this time the intent of Pugwash has become highly contentious because it deleted all APHC participation, as evident from its original list of invitees and the actual participants. Yet Omar Abdullah was there as were many Jammuites including the president BJP Jammu. Mahbooba Mufti also came and interestingly some of our political leaders met her in the company of the political point person of the Indian High Commission. In fact one of the participating Kashmiri leaders' is on record as saying that the meetings themselves were arranged by the Indians!

Ironically, it took an Iranian, Ambassador Moussavi, to point out the factor of non-representation of the majority of the Kashmiri people at this conference. In fact, his critical voice in support of the Kashmiri people and their suffering at the hands of the Indians became a source of concern for the latter. But, as he explained, in meetings outside of Pugwash, he felt one could not discuss Kashmir when those who represented the bulk of the Kashmiri people were left out of the dialogue -- especially since the consensus was to involve the Kashmiris in any discussion of a solution.

It appears that this time round, barring one Pakistani journalist, participating Pakistanis kept silence on human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir, while some declared in a grandiose fashion that no one in Pakistan wanted to redraw borders -- but forgot to mention that the LOC was not a border to begin with! Some others also in a mood of self-flagellation declared that Pakistan was responsible for all the troubles in Afghanistan -- a somewhat simplistic assertion to begin with. Of course, from all reports, the Indians kept a united front and only allowed two mentions of their country, despite the fact that it is one of the main reasons for the Kashmir dispute's existence.

A factor of interest is that the Pakistani Foreign Office initially refused to clear the visas of some of the participants, but a retired general used a retired ambassador to bulldoze the visas through. In 2006, the same retired general used the presidency for the visas. When will we ever have institutional policies based on principles?

What makes Pugwash of concern is that this latest meeting in Islamabad was supposedly not Kashmir-centric but was to deal with regional stability. Reports coming from the meeting point to the fact that Paolo immediately left for Kabul after the Islamabad meeting to work out a follow-on meeting in Kabul. The timing of the Paolo visit to Kabul is interesting because it was just before the Afghan Defence Minister's visit to India and Occupied Kashmir -- something the Pakistanis needed to protest more vociferously on. The Afghan minister's visit was followed by the news that the Indian military will train Afghan soldiers in counterinsurgency. Why should this be of concern for Pakistan?

Simply because we have already suffered since 1947 at the hands of an Afghan-Indian nexus and post-9/11 the Indians have increased their covert destabilising operations in Balochistan through their increased presence in Afghanistan. India has been seeking to gain a more strategic foothold into Afghanistan and then on to Central Asia and beyond. At many international conferences now Indians talk openly of a more overt role for the Indian military in Afghanistan. India is seeking this role through its idea of a "regional" solution to the Afghan problem where India is seen as a major regional player. That is why some of us had seen the move to grant Afghanistan full SAARC membership as premature and with a lot of fallout for Pakistan.

For Pakistan what should be of heightened concern is that the US establishment scholars, such as those from their National Defence University, are also seeking greater Indian military involvement in the region, arguing that apart from the US only India has the capacity for military power projection while NATO allies are hamstrung in terms of their out of area operations. The Indians are also claiming that the Afghans hate the British and Americans but love them as they have long historic links (forgetting that so did the British after a fashion!).

How does all this link up to Pugwash and its increasingly contentious agenda? Through Paolo's efforts to bring Kashmir into the ambit of a dialogue involving Kabul also -- thereby adding to the Indo-Afghan military nexus. Clearly, Pugwash is becoming ever more politicised seeking to rearrange the political dynamics of disputes to give one side a particular advantage while those genuine representatives of the people like the APHC are cast out of the loop.

That is why Pakistan has to reaffirm its commitment to the APHC and be more clear and resolute on its Kashmir policy. We cannot afford to be held hostage to short-term trade benefits -- which in any case offer more to India in terms of economic access across Wagah into Afghanistan and Central Asia -- and allow total dissipation of our Kashmir policy. Even more urgent, we need to adopt a strong position on Afghan-US efforts to bring India into the Afghanistan equation. There are many areas of substantive cooperation with India but not at a strategic cost or in a non-reciprocal fashion.


The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_....asp?id=107033

__________________
Marwatone.

NGOs: conduits for external agendas?

By Shireen M Mazari

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

The state has lost part of its national operational space to the US since 9/11 has been highlighted by some of us since that time. Unfortunately, the gains, such as they were, have been transient while the costs have been more devastating and long lasting. However, it appears that we have yet to move towards reclaiming this lost space, although a beginning has been made with the commencement of dialogue between NWFP and one of the militant groups.

There are some in our urban elite who find any form of dialogue with militants unacceptable, but they are simply revealing their own intolerance and bigotry. Perhaps if one pointed out to them that states like Britain also shifted to dialogue with the same "terrorists" who had carried out killings of their soldiers as well as of public figures like Mountbatten, not to mention the innocent who fell victim to the sectarian war in Northern Ireland, our westernised elites may find dialogue between the extremists and the state in Pakistan more acceptable! In any case, the bulk of the Pakistani populace wants peace within through dialogue and accommodation.

Unfortunately, while at one level some positive moves are being made to gain control of our external environment as well as our internal one, at another level there is a bizarre trend that seems to be privatising foreign policy. This is the unchecked activities of certain NGOs who are being funded by external players. As discussed in an earlier column, we saw Pugwash trying to distort the dimensions of the Kashmir dispute as well as seeking to forward the Indo-US/NATO policy of pushing an Indian ingress into Afghanistan.

Where the US agenda unfolds one can be sure loyal Britain will follow. So one saw a Pakistani NGO, the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development And Transparency (PILDAT) -- it is all big business for NGOs here with scant regard for national priorities and interests -- hold a conference on "Dialogue between the Muslim world and the west". Such a value-laden title should have shown what was in store for the participants. If there was no hidden agenda or subjective labelling intended, then surely there should have been a dialogue either "between the Muslim world and the Christian world" or "between Muslim states and Christian or secular states" or "between Muslim civil societies and Christian civil societies", and so on. And are there not Muslims in the "west" – whatever defines this vague entity at any given time? Yet to delink Islam from the west is to deny the existence of large and increasingly marginalised Muslim minorities living there.

More damaging is a workshop that it held on April 22 -- again funded by the British government. At first glance it appears to be an excellent initiative – a bilateral workshop of Pakistani and Afghan parliamentarians. The German stiftungs in Pakistan only recently brought a team of Afghan academics to Pakistan. But the problem with the Brits is that they have hidden agendas. That is why, despite knowing the Pakistani state's sensitivity on Afghanistan and on Indian efforts to ingress into that region – only recently we protested the Afghan defence minister's visit to the disputed territory of Indian-occupied Kashmir – the British government pushed to have an Indian parliamentarian give one of the main speeches in the closing session of this supposedly bilateral workshop.

The fact that the Indian participant, Dr Najma Heptulla, is known to Pakistanis primarily for her rabidly anti-Pakistan utterances is not the main issue. The point is that this is yet another effort to have an Indian ingress into the Pakistan-Afghanistan equation, that has been more elaborately discussed in the column on Pugwash. But what is most disturbing is why a Pakistani NGO would undermine the Pakistani position by playing to Indian-US/NATO designs? Why would it seek to bring India into the Pakistan-Afghan interaction? Certainly ignorance or naïveté cannot be the reasons in this case. Who will hold NGOs accountable, or are NGOs in Pakistan going to continue to have the freedom to do exactly as they please even in the sensitive external policy issue area, where their actions undermine Pakistan's position?

Incidentally, when we talk of democratic India as a reference point, let it be remembered that not only did they prevent Pugwash from holding its conference in India last year, they even prevented Pakistani schoolchildren from attending an NGO activity in India last year. And for many years now, India has not allowed the International Crisis Group a presence in New Delhi which is why their Pakistani chapter was recently converted to the "South Asian" chapter!

One absurd explanation given by a Pildat member was that the Indian was there to "teach" the Pakistanis and Afghans from the Indian experience. But why couldn't the donor have provided an example from their own country knowing Pakistani sensitivities and the political implications? In any case, Pakistan and Afghanistan have their own unique circumstances and the idea surely was to get the two countries parliamentarians together to facilitate better understanding – and here the Indian presence certainly has no role to play.

While it would be pertinent to have the state lay down some basic ground rules for NGOs, especially those working in sensitive security and foreign policy issue areas, one reason why the Pakistani state has been unable to do so is because it has itself been losing space in these areas to external actors since 9/11 – be it the war on terror or the A Q Khan issue. Even presently, we are seeing foreign governments' officials coming to Pakistan and conducting relations with different political entities on their own, independent of the state institutions and processes. It is not the meetings per se that are the issue but the manner in which certain foreign officials conduct them. They seem to assume that they are above the diplomatic norms in their dealings with Pakistan?

It is in this context that we need to take note of the statement made by that diehard Indophile, the former US ambassador to India, Blackwell, who has suggested that India and the US needed to evolve a joint strategy to deal with Pakistan which he feels has a "highly uncertain" future. Although Pakistan's high commissioner to India has given an official response to this intrusive remark of Blackwell's, the reality on the ground is that the US along with its allies is already intruding all across Pakistan's internal and external space and seeking an Indian ingress into the same is one of the agenda items. That is why we need to reclaim our space assertively and create some distance between ourselves and the US.

There is nothing uncertain about the state of Pakistan, which has shown a greater resilience than most states in a similar situation. But if the state continues to allow its space to be infiltrated by external actors, how can it prevent NGOs from also seeking to move into this space? Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has stated that we will not be "blackmailed by militants"; equally, we should not succumb to the psychological terrorism and threatening agendas of more powerful external actors and their domestic conduits.


The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_....asp?id=108351

__________________
Marwatone.

Surrendering sovereignty willingly?

By Shireen M Mazari

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

While the nation continues to watch the "back and forth" drama over the restoration of the judges issue, increasingly aware of where it will all end; and while the poor look beyond the judicial issue to the basics of survival in the face of rising costs of staple food and utilities; scant attention is being paid to the rapid threats to the country's sovereignty that are emerging from different quarters that are linked together in an overarching strategic partnership – that is India and the US with the UK an avid supporter. If one only examines events that took place April 23 to April 29 and connects them up, it becomes clear that either by default or by design Pakistan is in danger of losing its sovereignty.

To begin with, take the incident of April 23 when NATO forces (actually US forces) along with some Afghan soldiers attacked FC posts in Bajaur Agency. What is intriguing is the way in which this direct assault on the country's sovereignty was explained away. First we were told that it was a misunderstanding. Then some of us were told that in fact this action was in response to firing from across our side of the international Pakistan-Afghan border.

However, on exploring further it transpires that the firing from our side took place a day earlier so the violence from the US troops was not an immediate response to the firing -- although it is difficult in any case to actually assess the exact spot of the initial firing given the nature of the border. Instead, this was a pre-planned operation, conducted a day later, targeting our FC posts at a time when there were a few FC personnel on duty, and involved 600 US troops along with Afghan soldiers as well as helicopter gunships and tanks! Also, the attack continued for a fair length of time so that the FC was able to call in reinforcements -- again not simply an immediate response to fire from militants! Instead, it seems the US military deliberately targeted our paramilitary forces – to teach them some sort of "lesson".

Interestingly, this attack came a few days after reports that US commanders were seeking to widen their attacks inside Pakistan. Worse still, some of our border posts were occupied by the US-Afghan combine -- but we kept quiet and there was no contemplated retaliation. Why?

Now we hear that the peace talks with our tribal people are breaking down. Clearly a mischievous hand can be discerned, especially when one sees the bizarre story of a handbill being circulated in Peshawar inviting people to join the Taliban. The Taliban have denied the authenticity and, on this count, they are probably right because the language being used -- for instance the words "Janat ka direct ticket" -- is more in line with western advertising ruses than Taliban language! Also, the mobile number given in English makes little sense as does the fact that the handbill is in Urdu rather than in Pushto. It would appear the timing is directly an effort to sabotage the ANP's political strategy of dealing with the tribal issue and it does not take too much intelligence to understand who is indulging in such dirty tricks.

To add to efforts at our demoralisation, last week also saw the French Prime Minister declare that Pakistan will "fall" if France leaves Afghanistan! Honestly, is this what we are being reduced to? Nor is this all. British Foreign Secretary, Milliband, who seems to find no other place to give him the sort of feel-good sense that Islamabad does, has decided to explain to the world on our behalf that "Pakistanis voted for democracy nor Talibanisation"! So are we supposed to feel more confident about ourselves after this statement?

But the British must be feeling pleased with us these days because in another clipping of our sovereignty we have now allowed the British to deploy an airline liaison officer at Islamabad airport -- in other words, the state of Pakistan has delegated its powers to Britain to block the departure of passengers from Islamabad to the UK! Is this a reciprocal renunciation of a chip of our independence? Are we going to be allowed to have similar privileges at British airports to block the travel to Pakistan of undesirables from Britain -- especially "sleeper" terrorists? Of course not! This also happened in the seven-day time period being discussed here, which seems to have been particularly good for those seeking to undermine our sovereignty as a nation.

For it was also in this period that we had former Indian National Security Adviser, Mishra, suggesting that India become part of the US-EU or NATO combine to fight terrorism in Pakistan! This is like Pakistan suggesting we help India fight terrorism in its northeastern provinces or Hindu extremism in Gujarat! But we do know that the US is seeking to bring India militarily into Afghanistan and one really wonders when we will react strongly to these efforts -- when it is already too late? Incidentally, the US continues to adopt its arrogantly imperial approach towards Pakistan and now we hear that despite paying the market price for the F-16s, we are not going to get the cutting edge technology India will get with its F-16s. Clearly the F-16 saga will not alter, but let us hope we are not reduced to wheat and soya beans again!

Of course, we are still going the extra mile, unilaterally, to support India on all fronts. We have now agreed in principle that India can export wheat to Afghanistan through Wagah – opening up the long sought after land route by India. Hopefully, this decision will include certain safeguards like ensuring that the transportation from Wagah to the Afghan border is done by Pakistani transporters and that India pays a transport levy. Since the decision has been taken on principle, one must wait to see how it is operationalised, but to allow India physical access through Pakistan's sensitive areas surely cannot be contemplated. Will India allow us to transport foodstuff to Nepal through the land route from across India?

At least some political leaders are showing a commitment to reciprocity with Mr Nawaz Sharif demanding a linkage between the Sarabjit case and the case of Pakistani prisoners languishing in Indian jails. No one seems to have shown any sensitivity to this issue at all. Even more critical, commutation of Sarabjit's death sentence to life imprisonment should first be linked to an overall decision by the state to commute all death sentences and, in fact, move to end the death penalty which does not deter most murders and only penalises the poor -- many of whom are wrongly condemned for lack of a good defence. After all, if an Indian who killed innocent Pakistanis is to live why not the poor Pakistanis rotting on death row? Is a foreign life worth more than a Pakistani life for us?

Imagine if so much of our sovereignty was chipped away in a mere seven days, how much of it has already been lost after our embrace of the US-led "global war on terror" post-9/11! Has it all been willingly done?


The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_....asp?id=109671

__________________
Marwatone.

Ridding ourselves of the US shackles

By Shireen M Mazari

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

We have stuck with the US agenda for its global war on terror (GWOT) since 9/11, despite growing misgivings all around. This so-called US-led "global war on terror" has created increasing space for the terrorists all across the globe, reflecting an intrinsic flaw in its strategies. Pakistan has suffered directly as a result of rushing to join this US-led and misdirected war. Our local strands of violence/terrorism have become enmeshed with the transnational Al-Qaeda brand and made the problem more complicated. The results are clearly reflected in the increase in terrorist acts across the country, including the introduction of suicide bombers. Worse still has been the mistrust between state and society over who's war the former was actually fighting in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

The decision to dialogue with the tribals and militants (and the Taliban come from both these groupings) was a welcome shift in our policy to fight terrorism. After all, the first principle in any such policy should be space denial for the terrorists and that can only come if they are isolated from the local populations. That is why the move to dialogue was welcomed, especially since it gave the tribals the responsibility for maintaining peace in their areas with the support of the state.

Why has the dialogue policy run into snags even before it can be fully defined and operationalised? There are those who blame the Pakistani Taliban for declaring they do not want a dialogue. However, the reality is that there is no clarity coming forth from the state. At the provincial levels, we hear calls for dialogue and the use of the traditional jigs to facilitate the same. But then we hear a different tune from the Centre where there are statements declaring, amongst other preconditions, that dialogue will only come after militants have laid down their arms. Amid all this, we have the US also talking with "forked tongue". At a declaratory level they are reluctantly stating that they will accept the Pakistani state talking to the militants, but their actions directly undermine the dialogue initiative -- for instance when their predator attacks kill innocent civilians on Pakistani territory, and their tanks and helicopter gunship target Pakistani FC posts. Add to this the accusations that continue to come from the NATO side about Pakistan being the Taliban and Al-Qaeda headquarters'. One can see a more insidious intent on the part of the US and NATO -- that is, to shift the centre of gravity of the war on terror to Pakistan and then find an appropriate pretext for entering Pakistan physically.

So what should Pakistan do? The first step is to create a credible face of dialogue so that the tribal and Pakistani militants can begin to trust that they have gains from this dialogue. For credibility, the Pakistani state has to create some space between itself and the US, especially in the "war on terror". Also, for credibility in a no-trust situation, a clear-cut dialogue plan needs to be enunciated with a graduated approach and with palpable economic incentives. All this should be contained within a time frame so that the other side also knows it has to make decisions and stick to them.

Of course, the state's offer of dialogue needs to be backed by its punitive power -- in other words, dialogue should reflect an accommodative but not capitulative approach. Use of the traditional institutions like the jirga and tribal leaders has to be central to dialogue, just as appreciation of local social modes. One cannot and should not seek to impose an urban morality on the tribal people as long as they are still committed to local tribal traditions. In fact, over a period of time by opening up the areas, exposure to the mainstream will itself alter the social dynamics. At the same time, basic laws of the state and the state's writ must be effective to establish the credibility of the state. If mainstream political processes are institutionalised in the tribal belt then the local "reformers" can also be compelled to use these processes peacefully to seek support for their socio-religious agendas. But if the state is effective, locals can resist the pressure of these "reformers" as well. Presently, locals are terrorised into submission because the state has no effective presence.

Perhaps most important, the state needs to remember that preconditions, beyond a basic one of suspension of violence while dialogue is on, are not viable. That is why asking for a laying down of arms as a precondition is not going to work. A study of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland shows how the IRA was not asked to surrender its weapons until the Agreement was operationalised. In other words, deweaponisation followed the Agreement's implementation and was not a precondition to dialogue. It is also interesting to recall how the US compelled the British government to talk to its terrorists -- despite the fact that they had conducted a massive bombing campaign in Britain itself and had targeted high profile Britishers, including Mountbatten. So why is the US finding it so distasteful if Pakistan talks to its own people? The biggest advantage is that none of these people have territorial designs against the Pakistani state.

By initiating and sustaining a dialogue and distancing itself from the US, the Pakistani state can also deal with its potential suicide bombers. An initial assessment, from some of the profiles available, suggest that the Pakistani suicide bomber is not a committed religio-political ideologue but a confused youth ranging in age from mid-teens to mid-twenties coming from a poor conservative family. Contrary to popular assumption, he is not trained for his suicide mission in his local madrassah, but is taken away from his local environment into remote areas where he is clearly brainwashed, probably with the held of psychotropic drugs, into carrying out his suicide mission -- with little clarity beyond some hope of eternal paradise and a confused mind till the end. There may be the odd exception, but by and large this is the picture that is emerging.

In such circumstances, opening up of the tribal areas both economically and politically through bringing them into the political mainstream of the country's structures will be one way of weaning away these youngsters from their suicidal path. Winning over the local leaders and militants will also isolate the diehard terrorists and foreign militants and undermine their credibility locally. So sustained dialogue through credible interlocutors is a win-win situation for Pakistan.

Underlying all these expectations is the reality that the state in Pakistan needs to create distance between itself and the US. Already, the US is becoming ever more intrusive in the domestic milieu -- with a highly visible pat on the back to the new leadership now and again and words of advice in the multiple meetings that now take place routinely between US diplomats and Pakistan's political elite. Such intrusiveness also includes a covert dimension such as fake flyers on behalf of the Taliban; surreptitious American personnel roaming around NWFP and Balochistan, supporting beards and local attire; and the many lures being offered to young tribals including "education" in the US.

Pakistan must unshackle itself from the US agenda. Clearly, Pakistan's strategic goals do not coincide with US strategic goals in the region. Worse still, there is a growing irrationality to the US leadership. Why else would Bush declare that it is India's middle class that is responsible for the rise in world food prices! How an overfed and wasteful US can accuse a third world country of this is bizarre! However, it should help us understand the absurdities of the litany of accusations coming Pakistan's way from the largely ignorant US political elite.


The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Email: smnews80@hotmail.com


http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_....asp?id=111028

__________________
Marwatone.