Dawn Analysis: The selfish state by Cyril Almeida

CRISES erupt, the government fire-fights, things settle back down: we’ve seen it a million times before, right?
At least that’s what logic traced on the historical record suggests. It’s always been the same, always will be the same. The unofficial motto of Pakistan is, onwards to the next crisis.
And yet, it’s hard to shake off the feeling that maybe, just maybe, something different is afoot.
The possibility of an Arab Spring breaking out in Pakistan has been pooh-poohed: Pakistanis are reasonably adept at knocking out of power dictators and civilians alike.
If you want Zardari out, a crowd of 10,000 converging on Constitution Avenue will have him scrambling to catch the next flight to Dubai. If you want Kayani gone, it would be more complicated and messier, but not as titanic as toppling a Mubarak or Qadhafi.
The possibility of an electoral revolution has been downplayed: the latest would-be saviour, Imran Khan, looks set to grab some seats, but lacks the candidates and party apparatus to make sweeping gains. The status-quo political powers will prevail come election time, or at least so says conventional wisdom.
The possibility of an Islamist takeover has been dismissed: the state is still too strong, the army too numerous for it to crumble against a militant force that all told may be a few tens of thousands strong.
The possibility of an Iran-style clergy-led revolution appears to be remote: among the ideologues in the religious parties and the militant corps none has the broad-based charismatic appeal that can carry them to national power.
But what do we really know about the preferences of the Pakistani people?
Conventional wisdom has it that the people want democracy to continue, they don’t want the army back. But the last time that theory was tested, a mere 35 million people turned out to vote in 2008. What did the other 130 million want?
Remove kids aged 14 and below from the scope of political action, and you’re still left with 80-odd million people whose opinion we know little about. Are they just indifferent to democracy, at least Pakistan’s version of it, or are they a combustible
mixture waiting for the right catalyst to be poured on?
The PPP and the PML-N are Pakistan’s two most popular political parties. Power will always belong to one of them, so says conventional wisdom again.
Turn once more to the 2008 elections and you’ll see that the PPP got ten and a half million votes, the PML-N nearly eight million. That’s a whole bunch more than zero — which our latest populist got after opting out of the election — and the handful
that the mullah brigade picked up.
Still, the notion that Pakistani politics is about constituency, constituency, constituency is undercut by the results of the last two elections. In ’08, the electorate singled out Musharraf’s men for punishment; in ’02, the American arrival in Afghanistan
powered the MMA to wins in Balochistan and then-NWFP.
With the right message, and the right timing, a few millions votes could be bagged, enough to bestow the sparkling newcomer with kingmaker status in the next parliament.
And it doesn’t necessarily have to be a politician as we know them. A right-wing ideologue could ride the wave of crazed religiosity that a Mumtaz Qadri-type act can unleash. Or maybe the next Lal Masjid-style firebrand will decide that the
possibility of a temporal kingdom is more tempting than certain rewards in the hereafter.
The surge doesn’t even have to come through the ballot box. Thus far the Baitullahs and Hakeemullahs and Faqir Mohammads have, much to the luck of the rest of us, thought small not big.
They have just wanted their little fiefdoms, their small platoons of suicide bombers, a bite here, a morsel there. And they haven’t exactly been the sharpest pencils in the militant box. Fear the day one of those kookie guys marries grand ambition to
ruthless political skill.
And why must it come from the civilian corner?
The army rank and file is disciplined and won’t en masse act on any crazy ideas, says conventional wisdom. But what about the top? It’s pretty well established that some pretty nutty men have made their way into the inner circle in the past.As for the
rank and filers tucked away in their orderly cantonments, who’s to say what they’re really thinking about and talking over among themselves. Rural and urban Pakistan have not stood still over the last 30 years, so why must the products of those
societies be what they have always been, docile and disciplined?
Whether any of these possibilities — or other possibilities that haven’t really been thought about — will ever come to pass is impossible to predict.
Easier is to identify the core reason for the unease spreading about the future of this country: the state has become its own raison d’être. The Pakistani state no longer exists to try and improve the lives of the people who live within it; it exists to feed
and perpetuate itself.
Really, what policy of the army hews to the public’s demand, recorded in poll after poll, election after election, for better delivery of basic services, for jobs, for economic well-being? Security or prosperity is a false choice, manifold times so when
the policy of putting security first has made Pakistan one of the least secure countries in the world.
And what’s the point of a transition to democracy when the choices made by a civilian set-up simply nudge the country a little closer to the edge of a cliff?
When a state exists to tend to its own needs to the almost-total exclusion of the public’s dreams and aspirations, it will eventually become a nightmare for everyone involved.
The only thing we don’t know yet: what kind of nightmare exactly.


Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/14/the-selfish-state.html

Aiders and abettors by Kamran Shafi

The Deep State is not alone in its enterprise of trying to fool all of the people all of the time for its own ends: it is aided and abetted by various and varied ‘elites’, most of whom have either occupied positions of high authority in government; are media ‘stars’; even Captains of private enterprise. All of them, of course, say what they do to amplify the Establishment’s views, to therefore, snuggle ever closer to it.

Some of these ‘elites’ are dishonest and hypocritical to boot, trying to be all things to all people: hawks to our own because that is the preferred attitude of the Deep State and its handmaidens in the ultra-right media which dishonestly moulds public opinion to its masters’ preferences; reasonable to the West where, incidentally, they spend most of their lives in their luxurious homes, returning to Pakistan for a few months before flying off again to spread more Deep State-inspired confusion in the various think-tanks and study groups.

On the Urdu media they flaunt Pakistan’s bums, saying in the context of the present difficulties with the United States that we should show confidence because we are a nuclear power; in the English press they go softly, softly, and become ‘reasonable’.

Case in point: the views of a former ambassador to the United States and High Commissioner to the United Kingdom as expressed on an Urdu TV channel and, a few days later, in an opinion piece in an English language newspaper. In the TV interview appearing alongside the great hawk, strategist, and ‘victor’ of Jalalabad, Hamid Gul, invoking Pakistan’s nuclear weapons; in the article advocating quiet diplomacy, and the need for both countries to make up.

This is absolutely appalling. Leave the world’s most powerful country aside, how can the reiteration of Pakistan being a nuclear weapons state help in talking and negotiating with any nation? Could the threat of nuclear bombs be a negotiating tool for any country, leave alone a desperately poor one like ours with barely a friend in the world; a country that barely keeps its head above water with periodic handouts from the IFCs and other donors?

Do we (yet!) not know that our so-called ‘deterrents’ are more like several massive, and very dead albatrosses around our country’s collective neck rather than weapons we can scare other countries with? In any case, how precisely do those that flaunt our ‘bums’ suggest Pakistan use them to its advantage? Threaten to nuke Kabul? Delhi? Bagram? Sheer madness, and yes, utter hypocrisy, for they know perfectly well that it can never be. Yet they will strike impossible attitudes.

For, despite the great game-changer introduced into this wholetamasha just last week by the Afghanistan-India Strategic Partnership Agreement, our brilliant strategists go on pinning their aspirations of one day ruling Central Asia on Pakistan’s geographic location alone. They fail to realise that Pakistan is like the spoilt little brat — whilst I used this example many years ago it holds true to-date, our strategists not having learnt a thing — who sits atop a tree flinging stones at passersby with his catapult, thinking he is beyond reach.

All it takes to fix the brat is for one of those he hits with his catapult rather hard, to one day roll up his sleeves, climb the tree, haul the whippersnapper down by his ear and give him ‘two tight slaps’ as we say in the subcontinent. I mean, look at where we are standing today, as I said before, with nary a friend in the whole wide world!

Nary a friend, did I say? We have even been reduced to whining about Turkey hosting a conference on Afghanistan in November without a-by-your-leave from us! AND inviting India to it, to boot! AND not waiting until we had used up all of our machinations trying to influence the so-called peace talks with the terrorist Taliban! The wooden-headedness, the plain mulishness of our Rommels and Guderians baffles one most completely.

And what do their propagandists do, quite shamelessly? Target the few people who do good for Pakistan, who fight its battles as best they can; who are true to their country and try to talk sense to those who call the shots?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, 50-60 ‘students’ of the ‘Ziaul Aloom’ (fitting name, eh?) madrassa in Satellite Town, carrying iron rods, broke into the Committee Model High School for Girls located in the neighbourhood and beat up the girls and their teachers for not heeding their instructions to wear the hijab.

What is to be noted is that the local police official first said the police had been told not to react, later changing his story and saying what the hooligans did was not an ‘offence’ since they were protesting the conviction of Governor Salmaan Taseer’s assassin. So there! The Taliban are on the March again, my friends … surely sanctioned by the powers that be … for they are part and parcel of the Jihadist ‘assets’. Remember Swat?

And now for those who quote Iqbal saying Afghanistan is the heart of Asia, possibly as a means of supporting the Deep State’s seeking the holy grail of a, what is the word I want, subservient(?), Afghanistan. Let us quote the stanzas in whole, which go like this:

‘Aasia yak paikar e aab o gil ast; Millat e Afghan dar ander aan paikar dil ast; Az kushaad e oo kushaad e Aasia; Wo az fasaad e oo fasaad e Aasia’. Tr: ‘Asia is the body (made of water and dust); (but) Afghanistan is the heart; In the ruin of the heart lie the ravages of the body; In Afghanistan’s peace (and) prosperity lies the peace (and) prosperity of Asia’!

It seems to those of us who have lived the Taliban horror through the 1990s that what the Pakistani Deep State is doing/is trying to do in Afghanistan can only bring ‘ruin of the heart’ to an already ravaged body.

Have a heart, sirs!

P.S.: Kudos to Raza Rabbani and his Committee for refusing to go to GHQ to be briefed by the COAS and the DG ISI. Generals go to parliament, not the other way around. You can’t keep a good man down…

Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/273270/aiders-and-abettors/

IMP: Democracy’s failure? By S. Akbar Zaidi

THE new conventional wisdom is that democracy has failed in Pakistan. Yet again. It seems so obvious to everyone that this is now the overwhelming, unquestioned, uncontested consensus. Even very honourable and well-meaning members of the National Assembly, the main beneficiaries of democracy, have announced its failure.

Some concerned citizens and analysts have, as always, asked the military to intervene, yet again, while others have suggested that this would have happened many months ago, but that it is the military which is reluctant to take on such a huge mess supposedly created by elected representatives. The list of democracy`s failures is extensive and impressive.

The economy is usually at the top of the list to accentuate democracy`s failure. Pakistan`s economy is said to be in a crisis since the day the PPP government has been in power. Everyone who knows absolutely nothing about how the economy functions has an opinion on it, arguing that it has hit `rock bottom`, it is facing its `worst crisis` ever, and other such colourful, descriptive terms.

But, the broad consensus is that the economy has collapsed completely. Lawlessness and growing ghunda gardi at the local level is another manifestation of the failure of democracy as is always Karachi`s ethnic and political strife. One cannot mention democracy and not mention corruption, of course, for it is assumed that democracy in Pakistan is a system which is just another name for corruption.

The fact that the rupee has fallen some 30 per cent is also democracy`s failing, and of course, the power crisis, for which only democracy must be held responsible. Baloch separatism? Of course, due to democracy`s failure. Militancy, and `religion-based enthusiasm`? These have to be democracy`s biggest failures. How could one disagree? This is just the very top of a list which runs very deep. This ability of democracy to do such extensive damage to the economy, society, even to politics must surely be the envy of every other system known to society.

Yet blaming everything that has gone wrong with Pakistan on democracy only emphasises the fact that those who do so fail to understand what democracy is supposed to be, what purpose it serves and, importantly, how one evaluates successes and failures.

It also reveals a complete absence of a reading of how history has affected, and continues to affect and burden, the present, and amnesia about the past. Or, how social forces and social structures influence, even determine, current outcomes and a host of other social phenomena which have a bearing on social and political relationships.

The expectations from democracy in Pakistan have been highly and unrealistically exaggerated. To expect that democracy is a solution to any of Pakistan`s economic or social problems, or a counter to militancy and `religion-based enthusiasm`, is to misunderstand what it is that democracy ought to deliver.

More importantly, it is to be completely unaware of the structural and social conditions which constitute Pakistani democracy: messy, compromised, reconciliatory, inefficient, just like the rest of society, and which explain so many of Pakistan`s recurrent failures. To expect Pakistani democracy to be some angel-like, ideal, pristine system of government is foolish. Pakistani democracy only reflects what Pakistani society is.

For a country which has only known either military rule or electoral politics dominated by the military in the last 35 years to suddenly expect democracy to `succeed`, without any historical precedence, is equally absurd. Importantly, one needs to compare similar forms of representation from the past to evaluate the current form of governance rather than some abstract notions of democracy.

There is no denying the fact that the current government has been an abject failure in addressing many of the issues mentioned above. However, to hold democracy responsible for this failure is to confuse form with content. It is the government which fails, not necessarily the system which brought it to power.

Also, if one considers previous manifestations of representative and electoral government in Pakistan, the 1990s for example, despite its assumed failures most people would still consider today`s elected form of representation far better than the miserable 1990s. Democratic traditions, practices and outcomes evolve over time. By all accounts, Pakistan`s democratic system, while still starkly inefficient, has noticeably improved over the last two decades. All those writing about the `failure of democracy` in Pakistan must recognise this fact.

If one examines any of the supposed failures of democracy outlined above in a historical spectrum, we will learn that many of the problems which have exacerbated now have deeper roots. Pakistan`s economy, while not in a crisis, is in a mess because of the absence of policies and neglect not just of this government, but very much so of at least the two that preceded it.

The power crisis is not new either. Even critics of this government date it to 2006 or 2007. Clearly, neither democracy nor this government was to blame for this. Militancy and `religion-based enthusiasm`? Surely, a more objective and honest assessment to locate their genesis in a previous era is needed. There is no doubt that this government has made things far worse, but can one really call this democracy`s failures?

When people talk about the failure of democracy, they ought to mean that the government has failed their expectations. Whether their expectations were realistic and such that could be met by any form of government is never questioned. Democracy is not a solution to problems; it only allows us greater freedoms to recognise and articulate them. It also allows us to vote out those governments which have failed.

The writer is a political economist.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/14/democracys-failure.html

Lal Masjid deputy cleric likely to face the chop

LAHORE: Maulana Aamer Siddique, the second-in-command (Naib Khateeb) at the Red Mosque (Lal Masjid) in Islamabad, is believed to be in the process of being expelled from his post in the coming days as a penalty for visiting Iran, sources familiar with the matter told The Express Tribune.

Siddique has now been receiving death threats while being labeled a “Shia-sympathiser”, The Express Tribune learnt. Maulana Abdul Aziz (chief cleric of the Red Mosque), whose brother Maulana Abdul Rasheed Ghazi, was killed in the operation against Red Mosque militants named “Operation Silence” in July, 2007 is believed to be behind the decision for his removal.

Siddique’s visit to Iran was brought to the forefront by Aziz during his Friday sermon, saying that the visit had hurt the sentiments of the community. In a fiery speech, Aziz allegedly invoked JUI (F) activists, students of the madrassas and activists of the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), all groups belonging to the Deobandi School of Islamic theology.

Consequently, Siddique is now all set to be expelled from his existing responsibilities and a formal announcement is likely to be made by Aziz shortly, sources further revealed. Aziz and his wife Umme Hassan, the woman said to be the brains behind the Red Mosque burqa brigade, expressed serious reservations about Aamer’s visit and have asked him to join an Imambargah instead, sources added. The couple refused to meet Siddique and snubbed him when he finally had an opportunity to clarify his position, labeling him an outsider.

Siddique assumed the responsibility of Naib Khateeb on May 17, 2009, replacing Ghazi Abdul Rashid after his death and was also one of the main activists who played a pivotal role in Aziz’s release.

The cleric was part of a ten-member delegation who visited Iran on the invitation of the Iranian Shia council where he is said to have visited the grave (mausoleum) of Ayatollah Khomeini, an act that has deeply enraged his elders. Talking to The Express Tribune, Siddique said he visited Iran on the invitation of the Iranian Shia council along with nine other members, adding that he had been receiving death threats and believed his life to be in danger.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 11^th, 2011.

 Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/271382/lal-masjid-deputy-cleric-likely-to-face-the-chop/

Tribal women blamed for inducing fear among children: Research

PESHAWAR, Oct 10: A University of Peshawar researcher on Monday blamed women from Khyber Agency, especially in Bara tehsil, for inducing fear among their children to teach them discipline.

“Mothers tell them to go to sleep otherwise dreaded militant commander Mangal Bagh will show up and take them away,” said Ruqayya Gul, who works with children from restive tribal areas now living in Jalozai camp, on Monday.

Talking to Dawn here on the World Mental Health Day, the researcher said fear was common among the internally displaced children from Bara, and Mohmand and Bajaur agencies.

“Most of these children fear that they`ll be suspected as militants. They can`t discriminate between the Taliban and army and show fear and passiveness,” Ms Ruqayya said, adding that children from restive tribal areas have memories of their destroyed homes and gun battles.

She also said the news about bomb blasts and adults talking in front of them about fighting in their areas flashed back violent scenes into their minds and they relapsed into the old state.

The researcher recommended recreational activities for children inside IDP camps so that they could remain busy making fun away from the terrorism related news.

Meanwhile, Dr. Irum Irshaad, provincial president of Pakistan Association of Clinical Psychologists and associate professor at Psychology Department of University of Peshawar, said over the last 10 years, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was on the rise among the people, especially women and children, in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa areas adjacent to conflict-hit tribal areas.

She told Dawn on Monday that data of patients with PTSD in the province had yet not been collected but research at Jalozai Camp for internally displaced persons and her patients showed that the disorder was on the rise.

Dr Irum said terrorism and insecurity had a negative bearing on the minds of the people, especially women and children.

“Women face gender discrimination when it comes to treatment for psychological problems,” she said, adding that more men had enrolled for treatment at her private clinic in Hayatabad than women.

She said women were generally considered to be `just acting ill` in the gender-biased society ignoring treatment for serious mental illnesses, adding that economic pressure and displacement due to conflict was coming out in the form of behavioural changes.

“Economic burden and breaking up of joint family system are common causes of psychological problems,” Dr Irum said, adding that increase in intolerance in society was an outcome of such problems.

According to her, local families, which have accommodated displaced relatives from Waziristan, Bajaur, Swat and other restive areas, have shown behavioural changes.

“Hospitality, which is considered a value in Pakhtun society, is stretched with the people feeling stressed due to economic burden and insecurity,” she said.

Dr Irum said provincial government should invest in improving mental health facilities and rehabilitation centres in the province since such facilities were almost equal to none.

“One mental Hospital that is adjacent to Peshawar Prison is in such a condition that one remains depressed for days after visiting it,” she said, adding that observance of human rights and tolerance can help attend to psychological problems.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/11/tribal-women-blamed-for-inducing-fear-among-children.html

Ex-naval chief Bokhari named to head NAB

ISLAMABAD: President Asif Ali Zardari named on Sunday Admiral (retd) Agha Fasih Bokhari, former chief of Pakistan Navy, as chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to fill the office lying vacant for several months and make the country’s premier accountability organisation functional.

The nomination of Admiral Bokhari surprised many observers in the capital because some other persons were reportedly being considered for the post. The NAB became dysfunctional on July 20 on the orders of the Supreme Court which said that the organisation could not function in the absence of a chairman.

“President Zardari has nominated Admiral Bokhari and sent a summary to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani for his appointment as NAB chairman,” President’s Spokesman Farhatullah Babar said.

“The president also sent a letter to Leader of Opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan for consultation as required in the NAB ordinance,” he said. Sources said the law ministry had sent a summary nominating Admiral Bokhari for the post to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani a few days ago.

The prime minister accepted the summary and forwarded it to the president for approval. Under the NAB ordinance and directives of the apex court, the government has to consult the leader of opposition over the appointment of NAB’s chairman.

The leader of opposition has not taken any decision on the issue, but his party’s spokesman Mushahidullah said the opposition party would not accept the decision because NAB’s chairman should be a non-political person.

He also levelled allegations of corruption against the retired admiral. However, he later withdrew the allegations and said he had confused his name with that of another former Navel Chief.

The PML-N spokesman said his party’s leadership would hold a meeting to discuss the nomination.

He did not confirm that Chaudhry Nisar had received a letter from the president in this regard and said that his party would respond in accordance with the constitution.

It may be mentioned that the leader of opposition had rejected the name of Justice (retd) Syed Deedar Shah for the post but despite that the government appointed him as NAB chairman in October 2010. But three months later Justice (retd) Shah was removed by the Supreme Court which said he had been appointed without ‘meaningful’ consultations with the opposition.

Earlier, the government was considering the names of recently retired judges of the Supreme Court, Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Sardar Raza Khan and former chief justice (retd) Abdul Hameed Dogar and Punjab Governor Latif Khosa for the office.

But all these names were dropped in favour of Admiral (retd) Fasih Bokhari who retired as four star naval officer after serving as Chief of Naval Staff from 1997 to 1999.

He is a graduate of the French Naval War College and held several high posts in the navy.

The post of NAB chairman has been lying vacant since the removal of Deedar Hussain Shah in March this year.

NAB suspended its operations on July 20 after the expiry of the 30-day deadline given to the government by the Supreme Court to either appoint a chairman or wind up the organisation. The government ignored the deadline and pleaded in the apex court that it could not appoint NAB chairman till the apex court decided its petition seeking a review of the removal of Justice Shah.

The Supreme Court rejected the government’s plea and ordered that its June 21 judgment would prevail (under which 30-day deadline was given).

On June 22, a three-member bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, disposed of a constitutional petition filed by Al-Jehad Trust challenging the appointment of Javed Kazi as deputy chairman of NAB and told the government that if it failed to fill the vacant posts of the bureau’s chairman and prosecutor general in one month, the deputy chairman would be barred from exercising the delegated powers of NAB chairman and the bureau would become non-functional.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/10/ex-naval-chief-bokhari-named-to-head-nab.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

Implementing the resolution By Khali Aziz

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta who threatened that the US would attack the Haqqani network if Pakistan failed to act.

Later, Adm Mike Mullen, the most senior US military leader, poured more oil on the fire by remarking at a special hearing in the US Senate: “….the Haqqani network [is] a potent part of the insurgency battling American forces in Afghanistan”, and a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s ISI.

He also accused the agency of supporting an attack on the US embassy in Kabul, perpetrated by Haqqani militants last month.
These assertions were rejected by Pakistani leaders during the All-Party Conference (APC) held in response to the charges; except for Mr Nawaz Sharif and Mr Achakzai, other political representatives considered the military and the ISI to be blameless.

Recently, Afghan President Hamid Karzai called off the peace talks with the Taliban after the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani. Afghan elements are implicating Pakistan in the murder. President Karzai commented, “I cannot find the Taliban council. Where is it? I don’t have any other answer except to say that the other side for this negotiation is Pakistan.” Others are projecting the murder to be a red-herring operation to sabotage the peace talks, as Mr Rabbani was reportedly being supported in his efforts by Pakistan.

The APC was held in Islamabad on Sept 29 under the shadow of these charges. Participants at the conference rejected allegations that Pakistan was responsible for the killings of US troops and offered unqualified support to the military “in defeating any threat to national security”.

Whether through oversight or otherwise, the APC made no reference to either the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Neither did it mention the threat posed by these parties to the Pakistani state or international security. Instead, with a remarkable display of collective amnesia in terms of earlier peace talk failures, the conference recommended further talks with “our own people in the tribal areas”.

The APC offered full support to Pakistan’s defence forces and vowed to protect national sovereignty and “national interest”.
The conference also urged the implementation of earlier parliamentary resolutions, passed in October 2008 and May 2011, on the insurgency.

Will the declaration by the APC have any bearing on Pakistan’s anti-insurgency policies? It may be noted that the APC is at best a meeting of political stakeholders. Any declaration made by this forum has no binding force, at best indicating national unity in the face of a potentially threatening situation.

While it provided comfort to the beleaguered military and ISI, some commentators suggest that no reforms are likely to emerge from these discussions and work will continue in as directionless a manner as earlier. That is sad indeed, because a frank and open discussion between the civil and military leadership during the APC could have steered Pakistan towards better outcomes. That, unfortunately, did not happen.

What is unfolding amounts to a game-changer for the whole region. The events transpiring now are not random occurrences and should be viewed as a crossroads that will lead to different outcomes depending on the choices we make as a nation.
Pakistan has the option to follow any of the possible trajectories.

Today’s events are the result of decisions made by prominent players in the region — the US, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
This is not to say that other nations such as Iran, China, Russia or others are irrelevant; they will have a bearing on the future.
Yet what should be noted is Pakistan’s limited flexibility.

Most Pakistanis may have been hurt by Adm Mullen’s comments but sober reflection suggests that his statement were perhaps underpinned by frustration for failing to bring about a shift in Pakistan’s security paradigm towards more positive outcomes.
These include peace in Afghanistan and enhancing international security. In this sense, Adm Mullen may have done Pakistan a service by defining the correct course.

If Pakistan wants to make itself secure, the implementation of Clause IX of the APC’s declaration will be important. According to it, “Pakistan shall continue to endeavour to promote stability and peace at the regional and global planes, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law”. An implementation framework for achieving this goal would go some way towards countering the stringent criticism facing us and as described by Maulana Fazlur Rehman: “…the US [may] bring a resolution in the UN against Pakistan’s nuclear programme or declare it a terrorist country.” These are dangerous possibilities.

If the recommendations of the APC are to become the work of government, then the resolution must be taken through the National Assembly under Chapter XV of its procedural codes. It must be transformed into midterm strategy with an implementation plan that is monitored by an all-party steering committee, so that the necessary directions are provided to ministerial implementing divisions.

This would constitute an institutional approach that allows also for the political control of anti-terrorism and counter-insurgency policies.

It is likely that Clause II and III will cause the greatest challenge. These direct the signing of peace deals with those challenging the Pakistani state in the tribal areas. Peace deals have not worked before, so what has changed now to suggest that they will henceforth succeed? Moreover, the wording of the resolution does not include negotiating peace in Swat with the militants.

If further steps for the implementation of the resolution are ignored, the convening of the APC may turn out to be just another exercise in rhetoric.

The writer is chairman of the Regional Institute of Policy Research in Peshawar.

azizkhalid@gmail.com

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/07/implementing-the-resolution.html