Report urges Obama to freeze Pakistan aid

WASHINGTON: An influential US think-tank urged the Obama administration on Friday to freeze its aid to Pakistan until the country took actions against perpetrators of the US Embassy attack in Kabul and helped shut down the Haqqani network.

The Heritage Foundation, often used by former US president George W. Bush to announce foreign policy decisions, also asked
the administration to back Congress on conditioning all US aid to Pakistan on certain counter-terrorism benchmarks. But the report warned that while this would be “a welcome tactic, it may be insufficient”.

The foundation demanded that the Obama administration designate the Haqqani network a Foreign Terrorist Organisation. It argued that failing to do so after the Sept. 13 attack on the US Embassy in Kabul would signal America’s weakness and invite additional attacks on its interests in Afghanistan.

The report also proposed establishing a congressional commission to oversee US relations with Pakistan. “Congress should investigate Pakistan’s role in fomenting the insurgency in Afghanistan and the extent to which its actions were preventing the US and Nato from achieving their security objectives in the region,” the report added.

The foundation also advised the Obama administration to step up drone attacks inside Pakistan. It pointed out that increased tempo in drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas had severely downgraded the Al Qaeda leadership and disrupted its ability to attack the US.

“Washington should pursue the same kind of aggressive drone campaign against the Haqqani network,” the report demanded.

The foundation also issued a fact-sheet to back its claim that the Obama administration needed to have a plan ‘B’ for dealing with Pakistan if it continued to ‘defy’ Washington.

The fact-sheet described Pakistan as “the main obstacle to progress in Afghanistan” because it “proxies conducting brazen attacks on US interests”.

The report claimed that the Haqqani network, which the former military chief Admiral Mike Mullen called a ‘veritable arm’ of ISI, was based in Pakistan and was planning and carrying out attacks at US interests in Afghanistan.

The foundation also urged the White House to change its Afghan strategy, noting that President Obama’s aggressive withdrawal plan to remove 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by next September only “reinforces the Pakistani view that the US will turn its back” on the region. “We cannot afford to leave a void the Taliban can again fill. We should make clear that the US will remain engaged.”

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/15/report-urges-obama-to-freeze-pakistan-aid.html

US urged to avoid verbal assaults, finger-pointing

ISLAMABAD: In what is seen here as a serious attempt to repair the dent in relations caused by serious allegations emanating from Washington, America’s special envoy Marc Grossman said here after wide-ranging talks with political and military leadership on Thursday that US-Pakistan relations were important for both the countries and served their best interests.

The United States wanted strong and cordial relations with Pakistan, he said at a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar.

But during a meeting with Mr Grossman, President Asif Ali Zardari told him bluntly that restraint should be exercised in public pronouncements for the sake of developing a cooperative roadmap to overcome trust deficit. He stressed that relations between the two countries should not be transactional, but based on long-term partnership, mutual respect and shared interests.

Any public messaging tending to undermine this bedrock of relationship shrank political space for a democratic government, the president said.

He called for following clearly defined, well-documented and mutually agreed terms of engagement to avoid operational irritants hampering the relationship. He emphasised that a long-term, sustainable and multi-dimensional relationship with the US should be based on mutual interest, trust and respect.

Mr Zardari said no country had made greater contributions and sacrifices in the fight against terrorism than Pakistan, adding that the international community should acknowledge it and help the country in its efforts.

Enemies of peace, he said, would continue to sabotage the peace process, but these non-state actors must not be allowed to hold governments in the region hostage.

“Ironically, militants and terrorists gained the most from verbal assaults and finger-pointing at Pakistan or questioning commitment to fighting extremists,” the president was quoted as saying by his spokesman Farhatullah Babar.

Mr Zardari said: “Despite negative propaganda against Pakistan, we are committed to regional peace and have decided to attend the forthcoming trilateral summit of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey in Istanbul next month for peace and stability in
the region.”

At a separate meeting, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told Mr Grossman that Pakistan-US relations must go beyond coordination in counter-terrorism. He said the government and people of Pakistan were determined to combat extremism and terrorism.

At the press conference with Ms Khar, Mr Grossman said the two countries had agreed to carry forward the dialogue process. Technical working groups formed by the two countries would continue to hold meetings in future to further enhance cooperation in these fields.

He said efforts were under way to identify interests of the two countries in the relationship and expressed the hope that they would work together and coordinate with each other through the strategic dialogue process.

He said he had also discussed with Ms Khar the upcoming peace conferences in Istanbul and Bonn, adding that Pakistan should be included in the peace process because it was an important country to play a role in peace and security in the region. He said the success of these two conferences would be helpful in ensuring peace and security in Afghanistan, the region and the world.

Mr Grossman said he had visited Central Asian states, Afghanistan, China and India before coming to Pakistan and brought a message of hope and support from the countries for peace and security in the region.

Ms Khar said the two sides vowed to carry forward the strategic dialogue process and decided that working groups would continue to meet in future.

The two sides discussed bilateral ties with special reference to Afghanistan and current regional and international issues and the forthcoming meetings in Istanbul on Nov 2 and in Bonn on Dec 5 on peace and security in the region. They also agreed to
pursue bilateral cooperation in different fields for which working groups had been formed.

The foreign minister said: “Pakistan-US relations are very important at the bilateral level and now these are more important at global level because of the war against terrorism.”

Mr Grossman also met Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. According to the ISPR, matters relating to Pak-US ties and cooperative framework for peace in the region were discussed.

General John Allen, Commander of ISAF, also called on Gen Kayani and discussed with him measures aimed at improving cross-border coordination and procedures between Pakistan army, ISAF and Afghan forces along the Pak-Afghan border.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/14/us-urged-to-avoid-verbal-assaults-finger-pointing.html

US to continue pressure on Pakistan for positive role: Clinton

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reiterated that US would continue to mount heavy pressure on Pakistan for positive role in war on terror, Geo News reported.

In an interview with an American news agency, Clinton said war against terrorists would persist, adding that efforts would continue to kill, arrest or dilute the influence of militants belong to Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban or Haqqani network.

She further said several countries are in contact with Taliban and interfering in Afghanistan. 

Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=24555&title=US-to-continue-pressure-on-Pakistan-for-positive-role:-Clinton

Reuters: US not sincere about Afghan peace: Haqqanis

ISLAMABAD: The United States was not sincere about peace in Afghanistan when it signalled it would remain open to exploring a settlement that includes the Haqqani network, one of the group’s senior commanders said on Thursday.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested in comments this week that Washington would not shut the door to the Haqqanis — blamed for high-profile attacks in Afghanistan — in any peace arrangement.

The Haqqanis saw the remarks as an attempt to divide Afghan militant groups and believed only the top leaders of the Taliban should negotiate, said the commander.

“We had rejected many such offers from the United States in the past and reject this new offer as we are not authorised to decide the future of Afghanistan,” he told Reuters.

The senior Haqqani commander denied that Jamil Haqqani, who was killed in a drone attack on Thursday, had links with the group.

However, an intelligence officer said that Jamil was a highly trusted companion of Sirajuddin. He had been with the Haqqani group for a long time and was tasked with handling communications.

Jamil was Sirajuddin’s cousin, he added.—Reuters

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/14/us-not-sincere-about-afghan-peace-haqqanis.html

US cannot abandon Pakistan relationship: Clinton

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday the United States cannot abandon Pakistan but that the South Asian nation must help solve Afghanistan’s difficulties or it will “continue to be part of the problem.”

US Cannot Abandon Pakistan: Hillary Clinton

Her comments were the latest in a series by US officials exposing the difficulty of the relationship with Pakistan, particularly after Washington publicly accused its powerful Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of supporting a militant attack on the US embassy in Kabul on Sept. 13.

The head of the ISI, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, has denied the US accusation.

Answering questions after a speech sponsored by the Center for American Progress in Washington, Clinton said the United States had no choice but to work with Pakistan in trying to stabilize neighboring Afghanistan.

“This is a very difficult relationship but I believe strongly it is not one we can walk away from and expect that anything will turn out better,” she said.

“Pakistan has to be part of the solution or they will continue to be part of the problem,” she added.

“And therefore, as frustrating as it is, we just keep every day going at it and I think we make very slow, sometimes barely discernible progress, but we’re moving in the right direction.”

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/13/us-cannot-abandon-pakistan-relationship-clinton.html

US open to Afghan peace deal including Haqqani: Clinton

WASHINGTON: US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday signalled that the United States remains open to exploring a peace deal including the Haqqani network, the militant group that US officials blame for a campaign of high-profile violence that could jeopardise Washington’s plans for withdrawing smoothly from Afghanistan.

“Where we are right now is that we view the Haqqanis and other of their ilk as, you know, being adversaries and being very dangerous to Americans, Afghans and coalition members inside Afghanistan, but we are not shutting the door on trying to determine whether there is some path forward,” Clinton said when asked whether she believed members of the Haqqani network might reconcile with the Afghan government.

“It’s too soon to tell whether any of these groups or any individuals within them are serious,” she said in an interview with Reuters.

Inclusion of the Haqqani network in a hoped-for peace deal — now a chief objective in the Obama administration’s Afghanistan policy after a decade of war — is a controversial idea in Washington.

Officials blame the group for last month’s attack on the US embassy in Kabul and a truck bombing that injured scores of American soldiers.

The State Department is facing heat from Capitol Hill for refraining, at least so far, from officially designating the Haqqani group, which US officials say is based in western Pakistan, as a terrorist organisation.

The White House has backed away from assertions from Admiral Mike Mullen, who was the top US military officer until he retired last month, that Pakistani intelligence supported the Haqqani network in the September 13 embassy attack.

But President Barack Obama and others have put their sometimes-ally Pakistan on notice that it must crack down on militants or risk severing a key relationship.

According to media reports, US officials have held meetings with Haqqani network representatives as part of their efforts — which have not yet yielded any visible results — to strike a peace deal, but the State Department declines to discuss details of the reconciliation process.

In recent months reconciliation has become a more prominent feature of Obama’s Afghan strategy even as US and Nato soldiers continued to battle the Taliban and Haqqani militants in Afghanistan’s volatile south and east.

Earlier this year, Clinton advanced a peace deal as a key plank of regional policy for the first time, saying Washington would support a settlement between the Afghan government and those militant groups that meet certain requirements, including renouncing violence and supporting the Afghan constitution.

Fighting, talking

Despite the conciliatory signals, Clinton said the United States would stick to its military campaign that the White House hopes will make militants more likely to enter serious negotiations.

“Now, it is also true that we are still trying to kill and capture or neutralise them (the Haqqani network),” Clinton said. “And they are still trying to, you know, kill as many Americans, Afghans and coalition members as they can.”

“In many instances where there is an ongoing conflict, you are fighting and looking to talk,” Clinton said. “And then eventually maybe you are fighting and talking. And then maybe you’ve got a cease-fire. And then maybe you are just talking.”

It is unclear how quickly a peace deal could be had, as it remains unclear how military commanders can achieve and defend security improvements as the foreign force in Afghanistan gradually grows smaller.

While parts of the Taliban’s southern heartland are safer than they were, Obama will be withdrawing the extra troops he sent to Afghanistan in 2010 just as commanders’ focus turns to the rugged eastern regions where the Haqqani group are believed to operate.

Clinton did not directly address the question of designating the Haqqani network as a ‘foreign terrorist organisation,’ but suggested the United States would want to keep its options open as it seeks peace in a region known for historic merry-go-round of political and military alliances.

“It’s always difficult in this stage of a conflict, as you think through what is the resolution you are seeking and how do you best obtain it, to really know where you’ll be in two months, four months, six months,” Clinton said.

“We are going to support the Afghans and they want to continue to see whether there is any way forward or whether you can see some of the groups or their leaders willing to break with others.”

http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/12/us-open-to-afghan-peace-deal-clinton.html

US ‘fighting a war’ in Pakistan: Panetta

WASHINGTON: Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday the United States is waging “war” in Pakistan against militants, referring to a covert campaign the CIA steadfastly refuses to publicly confirm.

It was Panetta’s latest comment acknowledging drone bombing raids in Pakistan, an open secret that the US government declines to discuss publicly.

Speaking to an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, the former CIA director pointed to a “complicated relationship” between Washington and Islamabad.

“And admittedly, there are a lot of reasons for that. We are fighting a war in their country,” Panetta said.

“They have in fact given us cooperation in the operations of trying to confront Al-Qaeda in (tribal areas)… And they continue to work with us.”

But he said the two countries had sharp disagreements over “the relations they maintain with some of the militant groups in that country”, a reference to Washington’s demand that Islamabad crack down on the Haqqani network.

During a visit to US bases in Italy last week, Panetta made two casual references to the CIA’s use of armed drones.

“Having moved from the CIA to the Pentagon, obviously I have a hell of a lot more weapons available to me in this job than I did at CIA — although Predators aren’t bad,” Panetta told an audience of sailors at the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet headquarters in Naples.

Bombing raids by robotic unmanned US aircraft dramatically increased under President Barack Obama, with the CIA operation focusing on Al-Qaeda and Taliban figures in northwest Pakistan.

About 30 drone strikes have been reported in Pakistan since elite US Special Operations Forces killed Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in May near the country’s main military academy in Abbottabad, close to the capital.

US officials did not notify Pakistan in advance of the raid, and Panetta — the CIA chief at the time — subsequently said the US government feared that bin Laden would be tipped off about the operation beforehand.

An American drone is also believed to have killed US-born Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi in Yemen last month.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/12/us-fighting-a-war-in-pakistan.html

Repairing frayed ties By Michael O’Hanlon

AFTER a year of calamitous turns in the relationship between Washington and Islamabad, many Americans are wondering how this troubled alliance can possibly be repaired. Even more may be wondering how we can simply extricate ourselves from it, finding other partners and other strategic options in South Asia.

Alas, Pakistanis have had similar doubts about America even longer, a fact that goes far towards explaining their hedging behaviour, as many in the nation’s military and intelligence services tolerate or even support the Haqqani network and Quetta Shura Taliban in ways that destabilise Afghanistan and lead to the deaths of Afghans as well as Nato troops.

Certainly it seems safe to conclude that Pakistan is America’s most complex ally since Stalin’s Soviet Union, a poster child for what a foreign ‘frenemy’ looks like for the United States.

To be sure, we need to arrest this downturn in US-Pakistan relations to the extent we can. But it is at least as important that we Americans help our Afghan partners rework their relationship with Pakistan. In fact, that may be the core essence of the problem we face, and progress on this front may prove the most plausible path to improved US-Pakistan relations as well.

This will not be easy. Ten years into this war, I must say that for many Americans, it is hard to believe any longer Pakistan’s explanation for its hedging behaviour — that it simply does not have enough troops to fully pacify its tribal areas, and that it also needs to keep some friendly proxies in place should Nato’s effort to stabilise Afghanistan fail.

As for the first excuse, while partly valid, it does not explain the active collaboration between some elements of the ISI and the Afghan insurgents. And the second is not justifiable when the United States and other foreign countries have proven their mettle with a 10-year effort in this conflict to date, as well as a promise to take three more years to leave Afghanistan gradually and responsibly.

Indeed, as we have repeatedly stated at various levels of government (with only Joe Biden going off message for a moment in recent months, but later correcting himself), the United States in particular does not intend to leave Afghanistan even after 2014. Americans need to keep driving home this message to Pakistanis until it sinks in. Indeed, in my judgment, the only likely way the Afghanistan effort could fail is if Pakistani actions lead it to fail.

But it may be even more productive to directly confront, and attempt to address where possible, Pakistani concerns about certain aspects of the relationship between Islamabad and Kabul. To the extent that Pakistan’s government worries about an India-friendly Afghan government that would create security concerns on its western borders, leading to a form of strategic encirclement of Pakistan by India as well as Indian allies, there are steps that Afghanistan supported by Washington can take.
They will not suffice to eliminate all such Pakistani paranoias, but they can make a difference — and even incremental steps can help in this situation.

Consider the following possible moves. They need not be made unilaterally, but can be offered by Afghanistan as quid pro quos for Pakistan agreeing to rein in the Haqqani network and the Quetta Shura:

— Building on the results of President Karzai’s recent trip to India, where New Delhi and Kabul agreed that India would help train Afghan security forces, promise Pakistan that such training will occur only under the auspices of Nato’s training mission in Afghanistan.

This will reduce Pakistani fears that India will develop close rapport with certain units of the Afghan army that might work in cahoots with traditionally pro-India Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance elements and leave Islamabad out in the cold.

— Ask India to kindly close its consulates in eastern and southern Afghanistan.

Pakistan sees these Indian outposts in Jalalabad and Kandahar as intelligence collection sites and covert action staging bases in disguise. I doubt very much that is the case. No matter; the consulates are not important enough to warrant the reaction they cause, and Afghanistan should be willing to ask India to shut them down.

— Promise to respect the Durand Line between the two nations as the effective border indefinitely, or at least for an extended period, say until 2050.

Afghans continue to resist simply accepting this admittedly arbitrary British-drawn line from more than a century ago as their formal boundary with Pakistan. But even if the Durand Line is arbitrary, it makes little sense for small, weak Afghanistan to pick a fight with its big neighbour over where the border should be, especially since what is at stake are remote mountain regions that are hardly the heartland of either country. Even if Afghans cannot bring themselves to concede the border permanently, it should be possible to take the issue off the table for the foreseeable future

— Establish an Afghan-Pakistan border management body with high-level government participation on both sides.

This body could address various means of enhancing economic cooperation. It could allow for intelligence-sharing and tactical military communication and cooperation near the border, where insurgents cross in both directions and threaten both countries. Importantly, it could also allow Pakistan a chance to convey its preferences about who among the Haqqanis or other major tribes might be accorded government jobs in Afghanistan’s eastern provinces.

Of course, Islamabad should not get to choose Afghanistan’s local leaders, but there is no reason to deprive it of a chance to advocate for certain interests. In fact, Afghanistan might do the same in reverse, pointing out its concerns and sharing its preferences for what Pakistan does in some of the tribal areas and other border regions of its own country.

It will not be easy to make progress across all these issues. But for those looking for a fruitful way to have peace talks in regard to Afghanistan, this sort of conversation between the two legitimate governments of the key countries at issue is a much more promising arena for diplomacy than are high-level peace talks between Afghanistan and the Taliban.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/12/repairing-frayed-ties.html

Ties with Pakistan vital to security, says US

WASHINGTON: Ties with Pakistan remained vital to US national security, the White House said on Friday as the State Department pledged to continue to work with Islamabad to defeat terrorism.

“The cooperation we have with Pakistan is extremely important in terms of our national security objectives, in terms of protecting Americans, in terms of taking the fight to Al Qaeda,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told a briefing in Washington.

“And that’s why we continue to work with the Pakistanis and try to build on that cooperation,” he added.

At the State Department, spokesperson Victoria Nuland underlined “an intense relationship on a number of issues, including on the counterterrorism docket.”

She also noted that US secretaries of state and defence and the CIA’s chief had all maintained contacts with their Pakistani counterparts while a special envoy was due in Islamabad for talks on all major issues.

“We are going to continue working on this issue of counterterrorism together because it is in both of our interests,” Ms Nuland said.
The statements followed recent media reports that increased cooperation between US and Pakistani intelligence agencies had
helped defuse the existing tensions between the two countries.

The ISI – although much-maligned in the US media – has been credited in these reports with arranging a meeting between US
officials and the Haqqani network.

ISI-CIA TIES: On Friday, the Director of US National Intelligence, James Clapper, told the Associated Press news agency that the ISI had quietly stepped up cooperation with the CIA, arresting some Al Qaeda suspects at their request and allowing US interrogators access to the detainees.

Pakistan has also stopped demanding the CIA suspend the covert drone strikes that have damaged Al Qaeda in Fata, another report said.

This cooperation “could mark a turning point in US-Pakistani relations,” observed Fox News while reporting the development.

“They are doing things to cooperate and be helpful,” said Mr Clapper. Other US officials told Fox News that both countries have made some progress in restoring the joint intelligence cooperation that used to be routine prior to the covert US raid that killed Osama bin Laden.After the raid Pakistan stopped joint operations with American intelligence officers, refused access to militant detainees and delayed visas for some US officials.

At the State Department, spokesperson Nuland, however, hinted that Pakistan had also allowed US officials to question bin Laden’s wives.

“We are working well with the Pakistanis on the aftermath of the bin Laden events,” she said but refused to “get into any specifics” of this cooperation. The US also appears to have softened its stance on Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani physician, who helped Americans trace bin Laden and is now in custody in Pakistan.

Washington wants him in the United States with his family. Pakistan not only turned down the request but a parliamentary committee indicated this week that he could be charged with treason.

The White House press secretary refused to condemn Pakistan when asked to comment on the committee’s decision.

“I’d refer you to the Pakistani government,” he said.

State Department’s Ms Nuland also refused to discuss this issue at a briefing where reporters asked half a dozen questions on the decision to try Dr. Afridi on treason charges.

“I’m not, from this podium, going to get into this set of issues at all,” she said. Instead, the White House and the State Department offered a general description of their ties to Pakistan.

“We have an important relationship with Pakistan. We have had enormous successes through our cooperation with Pakistan,” Mr Carney said. “We have also made clear that we have issues with Pakistan at times, and that it is a complicated relationship.”

Ms Nuland completely rejected the assertion that the US was running a campaign against Pakistan.

“We are trying to make the case to the Pakistani people as well as to Pakistani leaders that only working together are we going to defeat this threat (of terrorism) to both of us.”The US, she said, was also trying to publicise the civilian assistance it was giving to strengthen the Pakistani democracy, education system and the economy.

“That is also one of the best deterrents to extremism, when quality of life is being raised for everyone,” she said. When an Indian journalist suggested that most Pakistani hated the US, Ms Nuland urged him to help improve the US image.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/09/ties-with-pakistan-vital-to-security-says-us.html

Killing the messengers by Ardeshir Cowasjee

WE Pakistanis are determined never to learn from history. Our leaders deem ignorance to be bliss and choose to pay no attention to what the world thinks of them or of our country.

Pakistan is more isolated internationally than at any time since 1971. That year, for those of us who care to remember, the country lost its erstwhile eastern wing after a civil war and a humiliating military defeat.

Any other nation would teach its young the lessons of its greatest tragedy in the hope of avoiding it. We, on the other hand, are insistent upon re-enacting every mistake we made then as if to prove Einstein’s definition of insanity. “Insanity,” said the great scientist, is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The 1971 crisis comprised several parts. Pakistan’s politicians were more concerned with parcelling out bits and pieces of political power, making petty arguments in the process, instead of realising that the country’s integrity was at stake.

The military formulated a ‘strategy’ that was based on flawed assumptions and could not be sustained in the battlefield. The religious parties went on a rampage, calling and killing anyone who disagreed with them in East Bengal a ‘Hindu agent’.

The Pakistani media created a false reality. Everything reported internationally was described as part of an international, anti-Islam conspiracy. We were shown as winning on every front even as we were being defeated everywhere. Jingoism was equated with nationalism.

Logic and reason dictated that the West Pakistani military negotiate with, and accept, those voted in with an overwhelming majority by the people of East Bengal. Instead, it was decided that the matter will be resolved with force of arms, without regard to the logistical difficulties of subduing a rebellious population separated by 1,000 miles of enemy territory.

Only one man within the government recognised the futility of the military operation in East Bengal and, after failing to convince his peers and superiors of their folly, sat quietly through the crisis after resigning as commander of Pakistani forces in the eastern wing.

The erudite aristocrat, Lt Gen Sahibzada Yaqub Khan, later became our ambassador to Washington D.C. and longest-serving foreign minister. But his elevation became possible only after ignoring his advice resulted in the mad events of the fateful year, 1971.

By December 1971, walls in Karachi were painted with graffiti declaring ‘Crush India’, with similar stickers decorating every motor vehicle. No discussion was possible about military balance or global alliances. Songs like Jang khed nayee hondi zananian di (‘War is not a game for women’ — a reference to Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi) were broadcast.

On Dec 16, Lt Gen A.A.K. Niazi signed the instrument of surrender that turned 90,000 Pakistanis into prisoners of war and gave Lt Gen Jagjit Singh Aurora control of the territory now called Bangladesh. But this newspaper of record’s issue of Dec 17 still proclaimed in a banner headline, ‘War till Victory’.

Other headlines on the front page that day reminded the nation, ‘Pakistan promised continued support by China’ and the existence of a government of national unity comprising civilian politicians from different political parties. There was even a quarter page advertisement with the word ‘JEHAD’ in large letters. Totally missing was any acknowledgment of defeat or failure or analysis of what really happened.

Forty years later, the nation is in a similar frenzy. This time, ‘Crush India’ has been replaced by ‘Crush America’ and anchorpersons on our many television channels are shouting inanities and talking confidently about teaching the world’s sole superpower a lesson.

China is still being touted as the hidden ace up our sleeve. Jihad is now a multi-billion rupee enterprise involving groups that kill Pakistanis more than foreigners but still have a claim on our support as strategic assets in dealing with our perceived external threats.

Can anyone dare in this environment to point out our weaknesses, the possibility of strategic isolation and the prospect of economic disaster that awaits us?

There is no general like Sahibzada Yaqub Khan to at least record dissent with the nation’s madness. Our self-made and well-read man in Washington, Husain Haqqani, probably comes closest. Recently described as “the hardest working man in Washington D.C.” in a column by Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, the ambassador has washed off any sins of his past by gaining recognition for being internationally well-connected and acutely aware of international affairs.

As Americans voice anger over Pakistan’s pursuit of strategic depth in Afghanistan with the help of throat-slitting ruffians like the Haqqani network, Ambassador Haqqani continues to quietly persuade Americans to be patient with Pakistan and to plead with Pakistanis to understand the global power equation. But at home he is reviled frequently for not joining the ‘Crush America’ ghairat brigade.

TV anchors and newspaper owners who want to demonstrate Pakistan’s strength to the Americans would prefer an ambassador in Washington who denounced his hosts rather than an envoy who can win over hearts. As in 1971, the mood of the nation is not to hear what threats lurk in its near future.

The nation should only be reminded of how China is its all-weather friend and the unity of our people will somehow suffice to make the Americans roll over and play dead.

In our universe, Pakistan is in the middle of a party celebrating its greatness and no one wants a messenger of bad news to interrupt the self-glorification. But in the real world, we can kill as many messengers as we like, the message that Pakistan is in big trouble is unlikely to go away.

arfc@cyber.net.pk

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/09/killing-the-messengers.html

Bid for UNSC seat By Munir Akram

EVEN as the latest crises in relations with the US and Afghanistan preoccupy Pakistan’s policymakers, a scheduled event at the current UN General Assembly, with significant portents for the country’s national interests and international image, deserves their full attention — the election to a two-year Asian seat on the UN Security Council.

Membership of the Security Council — even for the two-year non-permanent seat — has several advantages: a voice at the ‘top table’; influence over decisions on important current security issues and political developments; and, of course, the enhanced ability to promote a country’s own national interests. Indeed, for Pakistan it would be crucial advantage to have a direct role in the Security Council during the next two years on Afghanistan, counterterrorism and non-proliferation, all issues that are on the Council’s ‘active’ agenda.

Pakistan is seeking election to the Council after a gap of nine years, a cycle which Pakistan has observed since the 1960s. In 2002, when it was last elected for the 2003-2004 term, Pakistan had secured the endorsement of the Asian Group as the sole regional candidate. This time around, Pakistan initially faced Fiji as the rival Asian candidate. Some months ago, as a friendly gesture, Fiji agreed to defer its bid and endorsed Pakistan’s candidature.

However, Kyrgyzstan has thrown its hat in the ring and, despite minimal chances of success, has remained adamant that it will stay in the contest to the bitter end. Reportedly, high-level approaches from Pakistan have been spurned so far by the Kyrgyz leadership.

The UN’s smaller member states, including micro-states, have the right to serve on the Council. Some small states, notably Singapore, Qatar and Costa Rica in recent years, have made singular contributions as members of the Security Council.

However, in several other cases, smaller states — whose priorities are mainly economic and social — have refrained from pressing for Council membership, particularly when their national capacity to cover the onerous agenda of the Council is clearly limited.

It was generally expected that such factors would eventually persuade Kyrgyzstan to relent, especially since Pakistan has prominent interests to preserve and promote within the Security Council. The Kyrgyz refusal to consider a compromise has surprised many observers at the UN. It is openly conjectured that the Kyrgyz persistence is the outcome of mischief promoted by one or more of Pakistan’s adversaries. The question is: who is behind this mischief?

Through a vigorous campaign at the UN and in capitals, Pakistan has reportedly garnered wide support for its candidature.

However, elections held through a secret ballot — as this election will be — are notoriously unpredictable. At times, commitments, verbal or written, fail to be honoured.

For example, when Pakistan triumphed over India in the 1976 elections to the Security Council, India’s then permanent representative, Rikki Jaipal, confided ruefully that he had received written commitments from well over a two-third majority of the General Assembly membership required for election. But India’s policies of the time — its 1971 military intervention to dismember Pakistan, absorption of Sikkim and the 1974 ‘peaceful nuclear explosion’ — had created disenchantment within the international community and played in Pakistan’s favour in the election. Indeed, these considerations were factored into the calculation that led prime minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to decide to challenge India’s bid for the Security Council seat that year.

Pakistan’s leadership should not expect that the forthcoming election will be immune from the events that bedevil Pakistan’s external relations at this time. Among the major powers, China will firmly support Pakistan, and there is every indication that Russia will also do so.

Despite periodic protestations of regional solidarity, Pakistan has never been able to count on India’s support. Indeed, it must count on India’s overt or covert opposition. New Delhi may be able also to sway some within its circle of close friends to refrain from supporting Pakistan. But, India-Pakistan rivalry is taken for granted at the UN and will not swing many votes.

Other South Asians have reportedly promised support, as indeed have most of the Central Asian neighbours of Kyrgyzstan.

At the UN, most astute observers are convinced that the Kyrgyz bid has been encouraged, if not inspired, by the US. It is reasoned that the US does not want Pakistan to have a seat on the Security Council during the critical endgame in Afghanistan or to provide it a platform to raise difficult issues such as the US drone attacks on Pakistan’s territory.

Unlike India, the US has the influence to significantly complicate Pakistan’s bid for the Security Council seat. Some years ago, Africa’s endorsed candidate, Sudan, was defeated by the last-minute US-sponsored candidature of Mauritius. In UN elections, the US and UK policy is not to declare their position on other countries’ candidatures (even though they expect other countries to assure them of support when they contest any post). Thus, Pakistan has not obtained an assurance of support from the Washington. According to one rumour, when asked what would it take for the US to declare its support for Pakistan’s candidature, a US diplomat responded, “an attack on the Haqqani network”.

Obviously, Kyrgyzstan cannot defeat Pakistan since it cannot secure a two-thirds majority of 128 votes in the General Assembly. But, if its candidature is, indeed, being propped up by the US, it is possible that Pakistan could be denied a two-thirds majority. In previous elections, if an impasse has not been overcome after several ballots, the compromise solution has been either to split the term between the competing candidates or to choose a third, mutually acceptable candidate from the region . Either scenario would be a major humiliation for Pakistan. The Pakistan government needs to exert all possible efforts — even at this eleventh hour — to avoid such an outcome.

The best solution would be to persuade Kyrgyzstan to step out of the contest. To this end, it would be worthwhile approaching the Kyrgyz leadership, including through the dispatch of a high-level envoy to work out an accommodation that offers appropriate incentives to Kyrgyzstan.

Second, a final effort should be made to secure an open assurance of support from the US. Without this, Islamabad would be justified in suspecting the strategic content of US policies, especially on regional issues involving Pakistan’s vital national interests. If Pakistan does encounter difficulties in the forthcoming electoral contest, it would have inevitable negative consequences for the already troubled Pakistan-US relationship.

Third, a final round of high-level approaches need to be made in the capitals of those member states which have yet to offer formal support for Pakistan’s candidature. Pakistan should be prepared for trade-offs and bargains. But it should be conveyed also that the position of the concerned states will have an impact on Pakistan’s bilateral relations with them.

Lastly, in these final days, the scope, level and vigour of the lobbying campaign at the General Assembly must be intensified.

The Foreign Office should deploy additional diplomats with UN experience with the General Assembly delegation to ensure the optimum number of votes for Pakistan on election day. It would also be appropriate for the Pakistan foreign minister to be personally present at the General Assembly to garner maximum support and highlight the importance which the Pakistan’s government attaches to the election.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan to the UN in New York & Geneva.