Liberty once lost...

Roedad Khan

If you want to know what happens to a Third World country when it enters Uncle Sam’s embrace, don’t visit Africa or Latin America. Look at Pakistan. Like millions of my countrymen, I feel a deep antipathy toward the “Yankees” who, with the help of power-hungry generals and corrupt politicians, have turned independent, sovereign Pakistan into a “rentier state.”
Pakistan has lost its independence and is now virtually an American satellite, with no honour, dignity and sense of self-respect. If you want to know what happens to an ill-led and ill-governed, poor country which attaches itself to an all-powerful country like the United States, Pakistan is the perfect example.
In his Farewell Address, George Washington cautioned that “an attachment of a small or weak nation towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. The strong might have interests and objectives that could be of little real importance to the weak; but once the latter submitted to acting the role of a satellite, it would find it no easy task to avoid being used as a tool by the strong.”
Washington highlighted the dangers inherent in an unequal relationship between a very strong nation and a weak nation and the folly of a weak nation succumbing to the belief that “real favours” would flow to it from the strong partner. It is folly in one nation, Washington observed, to look for disinterested favours from another...it must pay with a portion of its independence for what ever it may accept under that character. No truer words have been spoken on the subject.
The month of May was a disaster for Pakistan. May 2 will go down in our history as a day of infamy. When challenged, all our intelligence agencies were caught napping. All security institutions charged with protecting the country were shamed. Defeat is one thing. Disgrace is another. The country has been humiliated. But it is business as usual in the corridors of power, as if nothing has happened.
In December 1982, Gen Ziaul Haq told Secretary of State George Shultz that the United States and Pakistan formed a union of unequals. Zia was right. The lesson of history is that there can be no friendship between the strong and the weak. There can be no friendship between unequals, in private life or public life.
This is the bleakest era in the history of Pakistan since 1971. Today Pakistan is dotted with American fortresses, which seriously compromises our sovereignty. People don’t feel safe in their own country because any citizen can be picked up by CIA agents in collusion with our government and smuggled out of the country.
Think about where we Pakistanis stand today. Zardari is presiding over a lousy economy and spending like an inebriated sailor. Terror is the order of the day. Pakistan is experiencing the tremors of an impending political and economic earthquake. This is a particularly perilous time for Pakistan to have a president who is facing corruption charges at home and abroad and whose moral authority is in shreds. At a time when the country is at war, President Zardari, the Supreme Commander, spends almost his entire existence in the confines of a bunker – which he seldom leaves these days. He is more concerned about protecting himself and his wealth than protecting the country or the people of Pakistan. Today we have a deeper hole than ever to dig out of, thanks to our corrupt rulers, and have less political authority than ever to make the hard decisions needed to get out of the hole.
“The single greatest threat (to Pakistan),” Obama said recently, “comes from Al-Qaeda and their extremist allies.” This is not true. All our major problems, including terrorism, stem from the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. It has turned our tribal area into a protracted ulcer, a quagmire – a place where Pakistan is spending blood and treasure to protect American interests.
“The United States has great respect for the Pakistani people,” He said. Invading our territory, carrying out military operations on our soil, bombing our villages and killing innocent men, women and children, Mr President, is no way of showing respect to our people.
Today the United States is conducting a virtual crusade against the Islamic world to steal its oil and capture its resources. Libya is under attack. Iran, Syria and Pakistan are next on the hit list. It is now abundantly clear that Pakistan, the only nuclear power in the Islamic world, will soon be denuclearised and emasculated.
The alienation between the people of Pakistan and the United States has never been more intense. Relations between Pakistan and the United States have never been as stormy as they are today. The Obama administration does not seem to be aware of the tectonic shift that is well underway. One thing is clear: the United States has lost Pakistan forever.
In the aftermath of the May 2 debacle and the cold-blooded murder of the innocent, unarmed youth by paramilitary personnel in Karachi, there had been hopes that the shock could motivate the nation to find a way out of its morass. Sadly, the people appear to be increasingly disappointed with the response of their national leadership. As I look around, I witness a proliferation of excuses for inaction, a grotesque abdication of responsibility. The political paralysis that has gripped Pakistan for years continues.
As we approach the endgame, one thing is clear: In the death throes of the regime, Zardari will take Pakistan down with him. When power and leadership come to people incapable of handling either, the result can be disastrous. Isn’t it a great tragedy that at a time when statesmanship of a very high order is the need of the hour, the fate of 180 million Pakistanis is in the hands of Zardari and hordes of weak-kneed triflers, mountebanks and charlatans begrimed with corruption? Were politics in our country burdened with such notions as shame, integrity, accountability, rule of law and, last but not least, inviolability and supremacy of the Constitution, all of them would be in jail today.
Today we stand alone. Such are the harsh realities inherent in an unequal relationship. It is time to wake up. At this time all those among us who love this country and see the perils of the future must draw together and take resolute measures to put Pakistan back on the democratic path. Failing that, a long polar night will descend on Pakistan.
If you want to know how a people can survive despite their corrupt government, well, take a deep look at Pakistan. Today it is a political and moral imperative for all Pakistanis to fight for our independence, sovereignty and liberties and be prepared to face all consequences. “Liberty once lost is perhaps lost forever,” John Adams told his countrymen. It is, therefore, going to be an uphill task. Let there be no doubt about it.

The writer is a former federal secretary. Email: roedad@comsats.net.pk, roedadkhan.com

Losing trust

Ismail Khan


The last two months must have driven Pakistan’s security apparatus up the walls. After facing embarrassment over inefficient defence preparedness, it has received criticism for the inhumane treatment of its own citizens. The criticism reached a fever pitch, drawing the military to convene a special meeting and to deny any involvement in the killings. If image correction is the aim, concrete steps that build trust among citizens should be taken – mere wordplay will not suffice.
Two specific incidents recently brought into question the relation of the state’s security organs with the citizens:
One, personnel from the Frontier Constabulary, a paramilitary organisation, and the police shot to death five Chechens as they were crossing a guarded checkpost at Kharotabad in Balochistan. This shooting elicited widespread condemnation, not merely because the victims included women and children, but also because of the rationale behind the shootings. Instead of being a potential danger, these unarmed women were reportedly pleading to be permitted to cross the checkpost. Inconsistent statements from the officials raised suspicions of foul play.
Second, a Rangers personnel (another paramilitary organization), in the presence of several others, shot down a young man in Karachi. The boy was begging for mercy - but he was shot and left to bleed to death. Whether or not Sarfaraz Shah was a criminal, the brutal treatment meted out to him has brought the conduct of the Rangers into question.
Violent incidents with the finger prints of the state’s institutes are not new. Political memory from Karachi to Khyber is rife with victimisation at the hands of the organs, under different administrations. What ignited public outrage over these two incidents were the live images telecasting the horror. Ruthless killings, captured on camera, have jolted the hearts of even the calmest analysts of events. The murder of journalist, Saleem Shehzad, has also provoked severe criticism of the premiere intelligence agency.
Instead of betting, and that too blindly, on the wrong horse, the allegations and distrust should serve to caution the responsible authorities and put all the stakeholders to work. Recent developments suggest that civilians have been given space to defend the position of the state, including the military. Civilians now need to guide inquiries into these shootings and make a functional oversight mechanism.
During a recent trip to Swat, which is hailed as a success story in Pakistan’s COIN strategy, there were interesting revelations about civil-military relations. On the one hand, there were people who claimed they saw a positive change in the approach of the military personnel deployed at checkposts as compared to earlier when allegations against the personnel ran high in the public sphere. On the other hand, complaints persist that “harsh language” is still being used by foot soldiers at checkposts (some drew comparisons with the receptive officers at the top.)
Instead of reaching sweeping conclusions as to how good or bad the holistic situation is, the importance of these comments lies in underlining how people associate change with their personal, day-to-day experiences - it is through these experiences that public trust and support can be earned.
Of course, a security organ too works within tight limitations where a balance between order and disorder has to be maintained, not least when the environment is fresh out of conflict as in Swat. Should anything go wrong, the same organs are blamed for the failure - and this precisely is the foremost grievance of security personnel.
The point is, for the state to cast off the doubts that have taken root in the minds of citizens – these are evident in the allegations made in each of the above mentioned incidents – it should first recognise the rot within and redraw the procedural mechanism.

The writer is a graduate in International Relations from Boston University. He teaches foreign policy and is an independent analyst. Email: ismkhan84@gmail.com

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

Border trade zone

Ikram Sehgal


With agriculture sparse on both sides of the Durand Line that divides Pakistan and Afghanistan and with zero manufacturing capacity, the inhabitants of the area cannot even eke out a meagre existence. For every 100 able-bodied men, there are only five or six available jobs. With almost nothing else to fuel the local economy, the only work for the male population that lives astride the borders is to be a hired gun, mostly for the highest paymaster. Often, this is the only means of earning a livelihood whether it be for the purpose of smuggling, as part of the tribal militia, paramilitary forces, or the Taliban.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that economic initiatives must be given preference if peace is to be restored on both sides of the border. Of the more than three million Pathan construction workers whose sweat and blood went into the concrete of infrastructure projects in the Middle East in the 1970s and during part of the 80s, more than 40 percent came from Fata and adjacent borders areas. A fertile recruiting ground for the Mujahideen, once the Middle East spigot of foreign remittances was turned off and the Afghan War started, this area became a logistics launch pad for operations in support of Mujahideen operations across the border.
Heavily weighted in favour of Afghanistan – to our detriment – the recently signed Afghan Transit Trade Agreement (ATTA) is a ridiculous document which needs phasing out and then eventually stopped. The only exception to transit trade must be the Afghan government’s official imports of essentials; they must pay adequate transit fees to cater for the wear and tear of our roads and railways.
Promised setting up by the US as far back as 2006, the proposed “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones” (ROZs) is an attempt to correct the economic imbalance but is really just a patchwork solution that cannot function practically on the ground. The ROZ concept is interlinked with the US economy – because of opposition from vested lobbies the legislation has already failed twice in the US Congress. In the proposed Border Trade Zone (BTZ) concept, US (and international) donor aid is only required for the development of roads and communications. The BTZ is thus Pakistan-centric rather than taking away something from the US economy. If the proposed ROZs continue to remain inactive indefinitely what options are we left with for a long-term solution to alleviate the poverty of the people of Fata?
A contiguous BTZ must be the economic force-multiplier for transforming the lives of the people of the tribal areas. Instead of earmarking small areas as ROZs, all of Fata and other border districts adjoining Pakistan and Afghanistan should be designated as a BTZ, a free inland dry port along the pattern of Dubai Free Ports.
Within the BTZ there must be designated hubs that feed into the smugglers’ routes into Afghanistan. These hubs must be developed like Export Processing Zones where intending entrepreneurs have ready infrastructure to move into by turning a key and an electric switch. The BTZ must source not only Afghan transit goods but Central Independent States’ (CIS) exports and imports as well. Instead of using Karachi and Qasim Ports, this transit trade must exclusively use the ports of Gwadar and Pasni. This will help develop Balochistan also.
An unofficial BTZ supports the illegal contraband smuggling regime for the benefit of locals on both sides of the Durand Line. What is needed is to regulate smuggling into a legal system that eliminates graft and illegal gratification going presently into the pockets of corrupt customs and border guards.
Some 25 percent to 35 percent of the US$2.06 billion value documented Afghan transit trade via Pakistan ends up as profit for the smuggling mafia on the border. Afghanistan must import all its non-Pakistan origin imports transiting via Pakistan by buying it from the BTZ. The service charges and related employment opportunities will transform the lives of the border people.
The focal point must be to make Pakistan’s Fata the hub of all logistics of Afghanistan and Central Asia via Pakistan, bringing with it the Afghan border contraband mafia into Pakistan’s tax system. All goods should only be bought by Afghan traders from companies that are registered in the BTZ area. This measure will eliminate re-smuggling of the goods imported under the ATTA back to Pakistan. A tax-free product may be exported to other parts of the world by encouraging investment inside the BTZ in Pakistan; this reduces the cost of the product because of cheap labour and duty free imports and exports and also provides job opportunities for locals.
While improvement is required, almost 60 percent of the communications are already in place and operational. Infrastructure is one of the key elements for the success of the proposed BTZ concept. The US can assist in the proposed BTZ by investing not more than US$10 billion for improving existing roads. Security is another key element that will have to be the principal responsibility of the Pakistani state. The draconian laws of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) will have to be abolished and Fata will have to be established as a province with full provincial status.
Both Pakistan and Afghanistan constitute the strategic heartland of world politics; the US has major strategic stakes in the region. The US can gain major economic as well as strategic advantages from trade with India, China and the CIS but only if Afghanistan and Pakistan are stable. The border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan are presently a strategic calamity for the US, but with a relatively small investment this can become a great strategic opportunity.
The Peoples Republic of China (PRC) visualises Pakistan as one of the two main strategic transit zones (the other is already functioning through Myanmar). Pakistan is vital for the Sinkiang Trade Zone as well as all strategic mineral imports to China from Afghanistan (Ainak Copper Mining Complex is already owned by China) as well as Balochistan, specifically the Saindak Copper Complex, and possibly Reko Diq. It may be possible to have a cross exchange of goods between the East and the West using the BTZ as a hub that will benefit Afghanistan as well as the CIS countries on one hand and China on the other.
With their livelihood guaranteed, the tribals will have a vested interest in protecting the means of their income by keeping peace on both sides of the Durand Line. Special security company licenses must only be sanctioned for Fata business concerns. With factories and shopping centres coming up, schools, colleges and hospitals, will naturally follow. The aim must be to eliminate the prevalent economic deprivation that breeds anarchy. With a vested interest in keeping peace in Afghanistan, the West must make a joint effort with Pakistan to club together economic initiatives with political and military ones. Instead of spending billions of dollars fighting a war without end, why not spend a fraction of that creating jobs and reinvigorating the economy?
Far more importantly, the BTZ will act as a base for development in Afghanistan and transform a population that historically comprises predators who live off goods and people transiting through their country into a viable vibrant country with an economy not perennially dependant on others.
The writer is a defence and political analyst.
Email: isehgal@pathfinder9.com

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

The long sulk

Ayaz Amir


Corps commanders? Our guardians seem more like cry commanders these days, wearing their anger and hurt on their sleeves and refusing to come out of the sulk into which they went after Abbottabad...a place destined from now on to be less associated with Major Abbott and more with that warrior of Islam from whose parting kick we have yet to recover, Osama bin Laden.
True, May has been a cruel month for the army and Pakistan, with troubles coming not in single spies but entire battalions: the Mehran attack, Frontier Corps marksmanship in Quetta, Sindh Rangers zeal in Karachi, and the death by torture of the journalist Saleem Shahzad... this last bearing all the hallmarks of insanity tipping over the edge.
Which raw nerves had his reporting touched? Who could have kidnapped him on a stretch of road probably the securest in Islamabad? Mossad, RAW, the CIA, the Taliban? Definite proof we don’t have but circumstances point in an uncomfortable direction. If this is another conspiracy against Pakistan we ourselves have written its script.
Still, since when was sulking an answer to anything? It may suit kids and pretty girls but it makes an army command look silly, especially one prone to take itself so seriously.
Terseness should be a quality of military writing: that and precision. The rambling nature of the statement issued after last week’s corps commanders’ conference is likely to leave one baffled. It rails against the “perceptual biases” of elements out to drive a wedge between the army and the nation; contains such bromides as the need for national unity; and in part reads like a thesis on Pak-US relations, which it should not have been for the corps commanders to delineate in public.
The army has “perceptual biases” of its own. It should keep them to itself.
The National Defence University, one of the biggest white elephants in a city dedicated to this species, seems to be an idea ahead of its time. Pakistani generals putting on intellectual airs is no laughing matter. Half our troubles can be traced to ‘intellectual’ generals.
Admittedly, these are troubling times for Pakistan and the army command post-Osama is under a great deal of pressure. But the answer to this should be grace under pressure, coolness under fire, rather than desperation and hurt pride.
There are legitimate questions arising from the discovery of Bin Laden’s hideaway in Abbottabad. We should answer them without losing our cool. And, preferably, we should avoid the temptation of climbing the rooftops and beating the drums of national pride and dignity. Why is it so difficult for us to understand that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have compromised our sovereignty more than all the drones fired by the CIA?
And, please, let’s get rid of the notion that Islamist militancy is a response to the American presence in this region. Uncomfortable as this truth may be, Pakistan had become the crossroads of international jihad much before 9/11 and the subsequent American invasion of Afghanistan. The ISI was up to its neck with Afghan and Kashmir jihad much before these events. It won’t do to hide our heads in the sand and pretend that none of this happened or that the world is responsible for our woes.
In fact it is the other way round. The CIA footprint in Pakistan is a response to the jihadi footprint in this country. The Raymond Davises came afterwards. The flaming warriors of Al-Qaeda and its local affiliates, many of them trained and nurtured by the army and its subordinate agencies, came earlier. And if we are to be honest with ourselves, the CIA footprint, unconscionably large as it may be, could never come close to the enormous dimensions of the jihadi footprint on the variegated landscape of the Islamic Republic.
If half the passion the army is now showing in defence of national sovereignty in the wake of the Abbottabad embarrassment, had been displayed against Al-Qaeda-inspired jihadism we wouldn’t have been in the mess we are in now.
The world has moved on, other concerns have risen to the fore and no one, anywhere, has any patience for these games any more. They just don’t fit into the framework of present-day events. Why can’t we move on?
Let’s disabuse ourselves of another notion. There is no international conspiracy against Pakistan. We are not that important an international player to merit that kind of attention. No one is eyeing the nebulous frontiers of our sovereignty. We are the authors of our own troubles and the sooner the army command starts accepting the truth of this the sooner can begin the task of rectification.
Let us be firm with the Americans. Let us not allow them the freedom of our country. But at the same time it makes little sense to go out of our way to pick quarrels with them. It is fine to arrest local informants who may have helped the CIA to reach Osama bin Laden’s doorstep in Afghanistan. But this will be more convincing if some of our anger is also directed at our own failure to get a whiff of his presence in Abbottabad.
Five long years secreted in a compound that should have excited the suspicion of the local police station let alone our vaunted intelligence outfits. So whether we like it or not there is a case to answer and this is best done calmly instead of going red in the face.
A line should also be drawn between the larger national interest and individual discomfiture. Abbottabad was not only deeply embarrassing for Pakistan as a whole. At a personal level it must have been deeply distressing for the army chief, Gen Kayani, and the ISI head, Lt Gen Pasha. They had confronted the CIA in the Raymond Davis affair, lecturing their American counterparts about violated sovereignty and the dictates of national honour. The Americans, knowing more than we did about the trail leading to Osama bin Laden, took our inflamed looks and angry words lying down. And our senior commanders puffed up their chests in the belief that they were standing up to the Americans.
Gen Kayani declared that the back of terrorism had been broken. At a ceremony in the GHQ to remember our dead and wounded in the war in Fata, he said that prosperity could not be bought at the expense of national honour. And then May 2 came and the wind was taken out of our sails. The army command was shell-shocked and did not know what to say. Statements coming out of the Foreign Office and the GHQ soon after the American operation make for awkward reading.
Even so, whatever the blow to individual egos, Pakistan’s interests vis-à-vis the US should be projected with as little rancour and bitterness, and as much equanimity and composure, as possible. Our differences with the US should not be personalised.
True, this is not the time to attack the army or the ISI. Harsh winds are buffeting Pakistan from all directions and we will face them if all of us stand together. But the army command should also emerge from the deep bunker it went into after Abbottabad. It must emerge into the light and adjust itself to the new state of play.
It would also help if the Foreign Office, instead of always taking its cue from elsewhere, were to learn to think for itself. We do no favour to India by talking to it. It is in our interest as well. India would push its own agenda, which may be Mumbai or anything, as it has every right to do. We should push our agenda. But prior to foreign secretary-level talks what is the use of proclaiming through a loudspeaker that Kashmir was the “core issue” and it was imperative to discuss it? Do we want to step into the future or are we determined to stay in the past?

Email: winlust@yahoo.com

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

New order in the Arab world

Nauman Asghar

The Arab revolution has entered its second phase, which is characterised by foreign interference. The gains of the revolution go much beyond the expectations of the outside world. The people in the Arab world have broken the shackles of psychological fear and seem determined to take their destiny into their own hands.
The revolution in Egypt swept away one of the most entrenched dictatorships in the Arab world. Egypt’s biggest problem, in the wake of the ouster of Hosny Mubarak, was to chart a new path to reforms. The people there have for the first time freely voted in a referendum on constitutional changes defining the framework of the country’s future political order. Members of the former regime in Egypt, including the ousted president and his key cabinet figures, face trial in courts. Without their accountability, the aspiration of the Tahrir Square protestors will remain unfulfilled. The changes envisaged through the constitutional referendum include reduction in the tenure of the president from six years to four years and a limitation of two terms for the president. There will also be fewer restrictions on the nomination of a presidential candidate, and judicial supervision of the entire election process. The highest court will get the authority to arbitrate disputed election results and there will be restrictions on when the president can declare a state of emergency.
Some sceptics say that the revolution in Egypt has been hijacked by the Military Council with the collusion of the Muslim Brotherhood. But such apprehensions are baseless. The ruling council has introduced a new Political Parties Law which eases restrictions on the legal establishment of new political parties in Egypt. Parliamentary elections in Egypt are set to take place in September 2011. It may take some time for the democratic process to take roots there.
In Tunisia prospects for democracy are equally promising. Elections to the new constituent assembly of Tunisia will be held in October. Rachid al-Ghannouchi, the leader of the largest religious party, Al-Nahda, has signed an agreement with secular parties under which no restrictions will be placed on women’s freedom, because Al-Nahda cannot afford to lose voters. A consensus is emerging among the political actors on what shape the new government will take. Eighty-two political parties have got themselves registered and the people will get an opportunity to exercise the right to elect their own government in the forthcoming general elections. One-party dictatorship has given way to a pluralistic culture where values of tolerance and co-existence will thrive.
Intense violence erupted in Yemen after President Ali Abdullah Saleh refused to accept the power transition deal brokered by the Gulf Cooperation Council last month. The task of orderly, peaceful and democratic transition in Yemen has been complicated by the tribal rivalries and the biggest challenge is to stop the country sliding into civil war. Despite the fact that President Saleh has left the country for medical treatment in Saudi Arabia, the protests involving the youth are not likely to cease unless a complete transformation is achieved. The regional states must play a role in post-Saleh Yemen to put the country on the path to normalcy. The international military Intervention in Libya authorised under the United Nations Security Council 1973 has made things complex, but the endgame for Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi is not far away.
Muammar Qaddafi has set a bad precedent through his violent crackdown on demonstrators. President Bashar al-Assad is also unleashing brute force on his people. President Assad is fighting a losing battle and has forfeited his chance of exit with some semblance of dignity. His regime has been shaken to its foundations and the people will be satisfied with nothing less than a complete overhaul of the authoritarian system. The increasing use of force, intimidation and torture has strengthened the Syrian people’s demands for change.
The increasing pressure for reforms has not left the kingdom of Saudi Arabia unscathed. A campaign has been launched in Saudi Arabia urging the authorities to allow women to drive cars. This campaign was started by a 32-year old Saudi woman, who has withdrawn from the protest under the coercion of state officials. But the movement will gather momentum in the days to come and King Abdullah will not be able to resist the change, like his counterparts in the neighbouring countries. King Abdullah is trying to prevent a revolution breaking out in his country. He has also unveiled a $36-billion public spending programme, but he must realise that time has come to start political reforms and give civil liberties to the people. A “new order” is born in the Arab world and these political changes will go a long way in ultimately bringing about social revolutions in Arab societies.

The writer is an advocate based in Lahore.
Email: naumanlawyer@gmail.com

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

Our ‘democratic’ drift into an abyss

Dr Muzaffar Iqbal


Pakistan has a strange history of strongly directed, self-centred, military rule followed by a democratic drift into an abyss; it is, once again, in the midst of a drift, like a ship without a captain. If logic dictates historical necessity, then the next military coup should not be too far.
This is not a forecast, just a possible outcome of the current so-called democratic experiment, which is perhaps the greatest watershed in the political history of this unfortunate nation where genuine leadership has been as rare as the legendary Huma bird.
One does not need to turn to fortune tellers to see where the country is going; the drift itself is so obviously toward a certain chaos which will leave nothing intact in an already fragmented polity.
One can understand how the ruling party has led the country into this state, but it is hard to understand the impotency of the official as well as unofficial opposition. In more concrete terms, all that the country has is empty bombast, being issued from the frothy mouths of the entire spectrum of those who constitute “opposition”.
The froth intensifies with each US drone attack; each extra-judiciary murder adds to the empty chatter of those who are outside the government. Recall Imran Khan’s sit-in stint over a month ago: he gave one whole month to the government and vowed to march onto Islamabad if drone attacks did not stop. Then he disappeared from the scene. Look at the statements being issued by the Jamaat-e-Islami leadership: it is always the next drone attack after which they will do something.
And if anyone had any hope in the official “opposition”, then it is sufficient to see what happened to Nawaz Sharif’s three-day ultimatum for the constitution of a commission to probe the Abbottabad event. In fact, one must be living in a fool’s paradise if one is unable to see that Nawaz Sharif is a broken man, a lion without teeth. Yet, all of these are merely etceteras in the long march of history; Pakistan’s real dilemma is graver than the failure of individuals; it is its chocking political environment which has not allowed any real political development over the last 64 years.
Pakistan never had a chance for the independent growth of a political culture based on talent, commitment, and vision. Part of the problem is the psyche of its people: Pakistanis have always been looking for a messiah, a hero who would come and take them out of their abysmal state. Since the expectation has been there, false hero-cum-messiahs have come and gone, without solving anything. In fact, every such messiah has left behind a bigger mess.
Since there has never been any growth of a genuine political culture, people have always voted for a Bhutto or a Sharif and having done their part, have waited for the messiah to deliver. Since there is no concept of a genuine political process that allows individuals to come forward, grow, learn, and eventually provide leadership, the half-literates who come forward as candidates during elections all remain hostage to a dozen or so tiring faces who hurl the generality of their rank and file like cattle. No one has a voice except their master’s voice and no one represents anyone but their own bosses and their interests.
This state of political underdevelopment could have been rationalised 20 years ago, but now that there is a sizeable young and educated population, it is hard to rationalise and understand Pakistan’s political vacuum except by recourse to an overwhelming hopelessness that is spread all over the country. This death of hope is not circumstantial; it is embedded in history and it projects onto a future which is turning increasingly bleak by the day.
The state has nothing left; neither sovereignty nor institutions which can be relied upon: the judiciary is only able to pass verdicts which may be good for the books but which have no practical utility; the executive is utterly rudderless; passive and subordinate to the dictates of its American masters; the official opposition is impotent and the unofficial opposition is without the necessary public support which can translate its foam into substance.
In such a situation, people like Imran Khan, who used to evoke hope, have themselves become so hopeless in their empty rhetoric that it is better for them to leave the political arena and do something more respectable. That “something more respectable and meaningful” is now the only hope left for Pakistan and it is none other than what Mawlana Mawdudi abandoned in 1955: to train a new generation of Pakistanis through a well-thought of generational plan in the art of governance. This is still possible in Pakistan and this is the only hope for this country which is visibly falling apart by the day.
What this means in practical terms is a rigorous programme of education, involving a very large number of young men and women, leading to the growth of a politically conscious generation of honest and talented young people who are deeply committed to a certain vision for their country and who, moreover, understand the complex realities of our post-modern world. This new generation of Pakistanis should have analytical tools to examine the history of their unfortunate country without becoming emotional.
They need to evolve into a cohesive social and political force which can give birth to a Pakistani Spring in a decade or so. In that native spring lies the hope for a polity now hopelessly drifting in dangerous waters.
In order to start that process, we need some elders, some wise old men and women who are not interested in immediate returns, whose vision is embedded in a long historical process and who can provide a nucleus for the young generation.
People like Imran Khan, if he still has anything real to offer to this country, can also be part of this process. In fact, he can lead this generational process if he is able to come out of his self-created cul-de-sac.

The writer is a freelance columnist.
Email: quantumnotes@gmail.com

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

A path through minefields

Shafqat Mahmood


Under tremendous pressure from abroad, we are also deeply fractured within. Political rivalries are benign compared to the real fissures that have opened up in the body politic.
The political class, in government or opposition, is not on the same page as the military. The top office holders pretend to support it because of fear but their world view, whatever of it they have, is very different. Left to themselves they would totally tow the American line and move forward on issues with India in no time.
Others, like Nawaz Sharif, may have greater caveats on the American association – without wanting to be its adversary – but on India, he and Zardari are not that far apart. In fact, strange as it may seem, given the fiery rhetoric on all sides, there is a virtual political consensus within parties in parliament on most foreign policy questions.
This unacknowledged reality of the political class having divergent views from the military on most things is a serious hindrance to common state policy in these difficult times. Add to this the deep divisions that have emerged between the country’s intelligentsia and the security establishment and we have a perfect recipe for state failure.
States go under not only due to foreign aggression. Even when they lose wars, are occupied and sometimes divided, they recover because of internal unity of purpose. With everyone pulling in the same direction, the task becomes easier. Germany and Japan after the Second World War and Vietnam among the less developed countries are excellent examples
With the US and Nato as our Western neighbours, with a specific agenda that needs our cooperation, and India in the East with its demands, we are under tremendous pressure. But, ways can be found to negotiate through these minefields, if there was a semblance of unity within. The sad part is that little is being done to create it.
The way that traumatic events starting with the Osama killing in Abbottabad have been mishandled by the government is a case in point. The people want to know the truth but are being given nothing. What is the problem in appointing a commission for the Abbottabad and Mehran base issues? These can be so framed, keeping in view state security, that no damage is visited upon any state institution. Yet, there is dithering and near paralysis.
The demand for an independent inquiry into the tragic murder of Syed Saleem Shahzad, has also been badly mishandled. The media traumatised by this ghastly killing and concerned about the safety of journalists, wanted an inquiry from a Supreme Court judge. Why did it take a ‘dharna’ in front of the parliament to convince the government?
All that these delays and prevarications in Shahzad’s case have done is to make the ISI guilty by default. The implication being that it was standing in the way of an independent investigation because it had something to hide. These conjectures could have been avoided if there was immediate agreement to a judicial commission of inquiry from a Supreme Court judge.
Let us be straight. If there are elements within the ISI that are involved in Shahzad’s murder, and acted without the knowledge of their superiors, they must be exposed, brought to trial and punished. Alternately, if the agency is being maligned because of its history of roughing up brave journalists like Omar Cheema, it should seize the opportunity of an independent inquiry to rehabilitate its image.
The simple point is that efforts can be made to bridge the divisions within by making an attempt to protect institutions rather than individuals. At a time when the nation is in an existential battle, it is the responsibility of those in power to choose the correct path. A few deviant individuals are not important. Even if the reputation of state institutions suffers a bit, it can be rebuilt, provided the right action is taken. Truth has a tremendous ability to reconcile.
A case in point is the arrest of Rangers personnel in the Karachi incident and the removal of the Director General Rangers and Sindh Inspector General of Police. It does not bring poor Sarfaraz Shah back to life but it satisfies the people that the guilty are being punished and those responsible for poor command and control have been removed.
The same approach needs to be taken on the Kharotabad incident and on Saleem Shahzad’s tragic murder. Let the truth come out. It will not ease the pain of the tragedies but will begin the process of healing. And it is a process of national healing and coming together that we need. The political class, media, civil society, the armed forces, and indeed the people, must stand together. Otherwise, we will go through this terrible struggle for survival with internal weaknesses that will be debilitating.
What we need is a grand national dialogue between all important elements of state and society. It is true that in a democracy parliament is enough of a forum to debate all national issues. But, let us be real here. The locus of power in our country is not the parliament. It passes resolutions, even in joint sessions, that nobody cares for.
What we need is something bigger, more serious, because these are not ordinary times. Nations in existential battles need not remain wedded to form, if form does not deliver. A forum has to be created, albeit temporarily, that allows the political class, judiciary, military, media, and civil society to sit together behind closed doors and thrash out state policy on domestic and foreign policy issues.
This should be done with an agreement that nothing will come out until the final positions are worked out so that the temptation to score cheap political points is minimised. There will obviously not be complete agreement on everything but the purpose would be to build a minimum framework to deal with internal and external issues.
This proposal may seem extraordinary but special times require special solutions. What we are today is a nation divided. Not only by ethnicity, provincialism, class interests and education but by divisions within the state structure among the political class, the judiciary, and the military. There is also a disconnect between the armed forces, the media, and civil society. This is no way to go into a war, and war is what we are in.
Let the military take a lead in pushing this because the political leadership by itself would do nothing. Zardari is benignly presiding over this storm as long as he remains in office. And as far as he is concerned, things couldn’t be better. The armed forces and the judiciary have been put in their place and the political challenge to him is weak. So, why should he do anything?
The country’s survival needs a broad national consensus. If we do not move forward to create it, the future is bleak.

Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

Side-effect

Harris Khalique



You wake up with the timepiece ringing or just get up on your own and look at your wristwatch. You use the water tap, the washbasin, and the toilet facility. Whatever clothes you end up wearing have buttons or zippers. A cooking range, stove, microwave oven, frying pan, or toaster is used to get breakfast ready. You pop out of the house, use a car, bus, or motorbike. Your cell phone rings right then.
You may start your day by reading newspapers. At work, you use pens, computers, telephones, staplers, files, pencils, erasers, sharpeners, post-its, flipcharts and multimedia projectors. You may well be using the internet. All day long, the air conditioner, light bulbs, and other fixtures help make your work environment comfortable. There may be an electricity generator or a UPS that comes to your rescue during power cuts.
If you’re in a workshop, you would use machines and various tools such as wrenches, hammers, forceps, screwdrivers and drillers. In a shop, you may be using a computerised teller. You are increasingly selling more packaged goods.
In the evening, the vehicle that takes you back home, your own or rented, stops at a petrol pump or gas station. On reaching home, you eat your food at some point, drink water from the refrigerator, play with children and chat with family or a visiting friend. Some may pick up a book or a magazine and some may listen to the loudspeaker calling for prayers and head towards the mosque. Finally, the family would get together and watch television.
A holiday arrives. You are invited to an old friend’s place for lunch. After sharing nostalgic accounts of your school, village, old neighbourhood, a common workplace, health issues concerning each other’s parents, cricket or some other sport, you finally resort to discussing politics.
You discuss how a great conspiracy is being hatched against the Muslim world in general and Pakistan in particular. That’s what you get to understand from most local newspapers and a large number of primetime TV programmes conducted with commentators specialising in patriotism. They are invited and promoted by boisterous talk show anchors.
Further, you get to listen to the sermonising and moralising by televangelists who have their own channels as well as a lot of space in mainstream shows. You feel special because your belief system, culture, and way of life are morally superior to anyone else’s in this world. So on a hot Sunday afternoon you resolve with your friends that Pakistanis must take on the Americans, the Indians, the West and all other profane and immoral forces. After all, you possess a nuclear device, F-16s, long range missiles and above all, an unmatched jazba (passion).
Now you see there is a problem. From the timepiece, the buttons and the zippers, the toilet, the vehicle, the office and workshop tools, the television, the loudspeaker, anything and everything that you have used from morning until evening, were invented by the same profane and immoral nations of the world over the past 400 years whom you now want to beat.
You are just a user, a consumer, a beneficiary or a copycat at the most. Even to strike down the drones, the aircraft you wish to use are made by the same people responsible for deadly drone strikes directed at parts of your country.
This can change. But unfortunately, there is no shortcut available. Hollow rhetoric is arresting your thinking and possibilities. Commit yourself to new ideas, knowledge, education, art, science, and technology. Wage a war within first - war against ignorance and bigotry.

The writer is an Islamabad-based poet, author and public policy advisor.
Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

Intelligence reforms

Part-I

Maj. Gen (R) Mahmud Ali Durrani


We are once again passing through a national crisis where everything seems to be going wrong. The Abbottabad incident, the attack on the Mehran naval base in Karachi, the killing of a brave journalist and the cold-blooded murder of a young man in broad daylight by the Rangers are the latest manifestations of that crisis. The leadership is paralysed, the situation is alarming that it is a wakeup call for us to do something, besides merely talking about our problems.
It is an opportunity to take stock of the situation and move forward with determination, guided by well considered plans. It is only this approach which will help us face the growing multitude of challenges our nation is facing for so many years. Many individuals amongst our leading politicians, senior bureaucrats and military leaders have the capacity to develop the workable solutions required for Pakistan to emerge from its crisis.
If we do not subdue the militancy with determination, terrorism and militancy have the potential of destroying Pakistan from within. Before we even begin to fight the militancy on the scale required to contain and ultimately eliminate the menace, a truly effective intelligence network should be in place. And to be effective, our intelligence needs to move out of the past and be prepared to face the challenges of the future.
We should create a professional institution committed to serving the nation. It should be firmly under the control of the political leadership, and with parliamentary oversight.
Before we reform our intelligence, it is imperative that we define and understand the security challenges our nation is facing, both internal and external.
The second important step would be to tabulate the components of the existing intelligence network, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the Special Branch and the police, and understand their respective roles and structures.
Today the primary and immediate security threat to our national security is internal, in the form of the militancy. In the prevailing geopolitical environment around Pakistan our neighbours and global powers play important and often negative roles. Besides the primary threat of militancy, we face a number of external threats. Almost every time there is a linkage between the external and internal threat. Pakistan has to walk through this internal and external minefield, not only to survive but also to thrive as a nation.
It is not possible to give a comprehensive presentation on the threats being faced by our nation. But a proper threat analysis is critical to the development of a broader response and to reform our intelligence assets to face the security threats of the future.
There are a host of intelligence assets within our country but I will only focus on the major assets we possess and propose some corrective action. Let me clarify that my focus is purely on intelligence and not investigative assets, though most times there is a direct relationship between the two and many times major investigative agencies have their own intelligence assets.
The ISI is, of course, the best known of our intelligence as the super agency and many foreign analysts call it a state within a state. Others have rated it as the top agency in the world. Since the Abbottabad incident it has come under severe criticism both externally and internally. When established after independence, its primary role was in the area of defence – to develop the capacity to deal with the current and future military threats to Pakistan. In addition, the ISI conducts counterintelligence to protect our armed forces from hostile actions by foreign intelligence agencies. It is comparable to the Defence Intelligence (DIA) of the United States. The leadership of the ISI is provided by officers of the armed forces.
However, for a number of reasons, over the years the ISI has grown into the primary intelligence agency of Pakistan with an enviable reputation and a global role. There are a number of reasons for the phenomenal growth of the ISI. The basic reason is the trust that the military rulers of Pakistan have had in the ISI. In fact, an effort was made by the military rulers to militarise the IB. I recollect the appointment of Gen Agha Neik as the head of the IB by Gen Ziaul Haq. Because of the efficiency of the ISI, even civilian rulers placed greater reliance on the ISI. Surprisingly, a popular civilian leader gave the role of political espionage to the ISI.
In the undeclared war to defeat the Soviet forces in Afghanistan after their invasion of the country in December 1979, the ISI played a successful and pivotal role in dealing with the Afghan crisis in accordance with Pakistan’s national interests. However, many analysts in Pakistan today feel that our participation in this war was a grievous error. The war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan gave a major impetus to the growth of the ISI. As a result of that, the ISI has now become the CIA of Pakistan. The director general of the Inter-Services Intelligence reports directly to the prime minister of Pakistan.
The second important intelligence agency at the federal level is the Intelligence Bureau. The IB generally receives its leadership from the police, although a number of army officers headed it from time to time since 1980s. The IB is the oldest and the only federal intelligence agency Pakistan inherited on its creation. Its roots are believed to go back to the 19th century when the British tasked it to collect intelligence for operations against highway robbers known as thugs.
The IB still feels akin to MI5 and MI6 of the British intelligence system. Unfortunately, as the ISI grew in stature, the role of the IB diminished. Today the IB is a junior partner to the ISI. However, even though its external operations were curtailed, the IB still has a fairly broad role in national security. I feel these external operations need to be restored. The IB’s director general also reports directly to the prime minister.

To be continued

The writer is a former national security adviser.

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)

Intelligence reforms

Part-II

Maj.Gen (R) Mahmud Ali Durrani



The Military Intelligence Agency (MI) is the third important intelligence agency in Pakistan. I am not sure if the MI’s reach today is greater than that of the Intelligence Bureau (IB), but it is a top intelligence player. Although it does not have a significant external presence, military attaches in selected embassies around the world are the eyes and ears of both the ISI and the MI. The MI, however, operates directly under the control of the Pakistani army. During Musharraf’s rule, the MI had a central role in Balochistan and military operations there. Understandably, the role of the MI expands during the rule of a military government.
Naval and Air Intelligence are junior partners of Military Intelligence. All three service intelligence branches have linkages with the ISI. While the work of the three services basically focuses on counterintelligence, they do follow changes and developments in the capability and intentions of the external threat as it relates to their specific areas. They also carry out limited trans-border intelligence at the tactical and operational levels. This is true of defence service intelligence agencies throughout the world.
Each province has a Special Branch. Special Branch is the prime provincial intelligence agency with its focus on prevention of crime, and now fighting terrorism as well as. The special branch has a presence down to the tehsil level. It is headed by an additional inspector general at the provincial level and a superintendent at the district level. The Special Branch, being integral to the provincial police, has a close relationship with the police at almost all tiers of the government, the two share the task of crime prevention. It is this close relationship between the Special Branch and the police at the lowest level of government which can be a major asset in developing actionable intelligence against militancy at the grassroots level.
In the heyday of the IB, the director general of the Intelligence Bureau used to hold two annual conferences with the heads of the four Special Branches. This arrangement provided critical institutional linkage between the local police and the IB, which is almost nonexistent today. The fact that both the IB and the Special Branches drew their officer cadre from the Police Service of Pakistan greatly facilitated the required sharing of the provincial and federal intelligence assets.
The police are a provincial law-enforcement agency whose job is to prevent crime, maintain, and investigate breaches of, law and order. Not a long time ago it was believed that the officer in charge of each thana (police station), the thanedar, had his finger on the pulse of his area of jurisdiction. In other words, a police station had an excellent intelligence network at the grassroots level. This is no longer true, for a variety of reasons.
Besides the obvious decline in professionalism, rampant corruption and political interference in the operations of the police force are the other reasons. Today, a thanedar would be lucky to stay on his post even for six months. In the old days, police officers usually spent an average of three years on a single assignment. With enhanced professionalism, better working conditions and solid guidance the police, the Special Branch and the IB together made up an efficient force.
There are a number of law-enforcement and investigative agencies like the FIA, Railway Police, Pakistan Customs, the Anti-Narcotics Force, the Immigration Department and the CID, which all have small intelligence units to support their respective missions. Many times these units come across a wealth of information which could be very useful for the overall intelligence effort against militancy. For one, the Immigration service has a record of all foreigners entering and leaving Pakistan.
Recently I read about the possibility of the creation of a new ministry in Pakistan, like the Homeland Security Department of the US. I hope we understand that Homeland Security is mostly a collection of law-enforcement agencies.
The two most important issues to move our intelligence efforts to face the challenges of the future are:
• Reforming each major intelligence agency to fulfil its prescribed mission.
• Develop a mechanism to integrate the total intelligence effort to fight the primary national threat, without sacrificing their specific missions.
There are a number of models that are available around the world, we are fairly familiar with the British, the US and the Indian models, but we will eventually need to develop a model most suitable to our specific environment and needs.
For starters, we need to build up the IB, to bring it at par with the ISI. It should be given a mandate and an organisational structure of the pre-Musharraf era and a role possibly beyond that. For it to be effective at gathering intelligence at the grassroots level, there is a need for the development of a vertical link between the IB, the Special Branch and the police in all the provinces. The ISI already has a vertical link with the three service intelligence agencies. But there may be a need to review the ISI’s mission and mandate.
However, it will be counterproductive and short-sighted to reduce the capability and capacity of the ISI to fight militancy and terrorism, as it will take years for the IB to develop its full potential.
The fundamental point that needs to be kept in mind is that the coordinating office for all intelligence agencies must report directly to the prime minister, and not be placed under any one ministry. The office should have the capability of evaluating raw and processed intelligence and place an integrated intelligence picture in front of the prime minister and his or her cabinet. The coordinator may have any title like Advisor on National Intelligence, Advisor on National Security, or Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee. He should have the status of a federal minister to be able to play an effective role.
It is no secret that both ISI and the IB have been used to spy on political opponents of governments in power. In fact, intelligence agencies have in the past actively participated in the making and breaking of governments. This practice must end, once and for all. This should be done through an Act of Parliament forbidding the present and future governments to use intelligence and law-enforcement agencies for political advantage.

Concluded


The writer is a former national security adviser.

__________________
A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that other throw at him. (David Brinkley)