Sunday, October 12, 2008, Shawwal 12, 1429    

CLARITY of thought is imperative at this time when our state is faced with a grave threat to its security and preservation of the aim of our founding fathers who envisioned Pakistan as a progressive and modern Islamic state. Never before was it more necessary to identify the enemy that threatens our aspirations, and also to be clear who can help us defeat the dangerous enemy. At this juncture more than ever Pakistan needs friends and allies. Isolation is dangerous for medium and small states.

To identify the enemy, all we need to do is ask: Who has killed one thousand four hundred Pakistani army men, hundreds of civil administration personnel and innocent citizens? Who has burnt schools and shops, destroyed economy of Swat and tribal areas and thrown tens of thousands of bread winners out of work and aggravated unemployment and poverty? Who has brainwashed young lads to become suicide bombers and spread insecurity? Who is responsible for collapse of law and order in the border areas that has forced lacs of people to flee their homes? Who threatens our state, its constitution, civil administration and normal life? Who has provoked retaliation by US forces that kill not only foreign terrorists and their local acolytes but also innocent Pakistani civilians?

Having clearly understood who our real enemy is, the next question is whether we can cope with their threat to our state by ourselves alone or whether we need sympathy, support, cooperation and assistance of friends and allies. It makes no sense to make more enemies or alienate and antagonise those who are in a position to assist us. Isolation is dangerous for middle and small powers. Can our economy already reeling under the impact of global factors cope with the consequences of isolation? With foreign exchange reserves having depleted by $7 billion in the past ten months, and hemorrhaging at the rate of $700 millions a month, how will Pakistan avert bankruptcy and economic collapse? The moment calls for realistic analysis and introspection.

Criticism of the United States is easy to make. Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq on false pretext, killings of hundreds of thousands and displacement of millions of people in that country and destruction of its economic and administrative infrastructure are comparable in gravity to crimes committed by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. While superpowers escape accountability even they cannot escape economic and social consequences. Not only has the name of the United States been irreparably blemished once again as it was in Vietnam its people are paying a high price.

From Pakistan’s angle, too, the Bush administration can be rightly criticised for violating a basic principle of law that prohibits states from launching attacks across international borders. Bombing and missile attacks by US forces that kill innocent citizens in Pakistan are condemnable, and our government and people have done so clearly and loudly enough. On its part especially Pakistan recognises it has a responsibility under international law to prevent abuse of its territory by the Taliban Movement as a base for cross-border attacks on US and allied forces in Afghanistan, and it is endeavouring to prevent and punish these terrorists. According to American government itself Pakistani forces have played a major role in the war on terror. Al-Qaeda spokesmen confirm that sixty percent of their casualties are a result of actions by Pakistani forces and forty percent due to US attacks.

If we have not fully succeeded so far in containing and neutralizing Al-Qaeda and Taliban Movement that is not because of intent but lack of capacity. That capacity needs to be augmented and Pakistan has been grateful to the United States for the assistance it has been providing. With such assistance Pakistani forces can do the job more effectively and thus not only to prevent cross-border attacks but also terrorism within Pakistan.

Clearly both sides need to do more to liquidate terrorism and restore legality in the areas along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But that object can be better achieved through cooperation between the two sides than if they operate at cross-purposes. Impatience of the United States is undermining cooperation and opening fissures that are being exploited by the common enemy. The need for reversing the current trends in Pakistan-US relations is both obvious and urgent. No country has been more generous in economic aid and military support. In the first three years after 9/11 Pakistan received $4.6 billion from the United States alone. Not only policy makers need to contemplate consequences of loss of aid and support by USA and other Western countries.

Aid cut-off will also undermine the capacity of Pakistani forces and could even compel their withdrawal from the tribal territory and adjoining areas. Terrorists would then extend their control and enlarge their operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States and NATO are already reinforcing their military in Afghanistan. They would no doubt increase air and missile attacks and ground incursions will increase targeting not only terrorists but in the process also increasing killings of innocents. The people of these territories are bound then to flee the embattled areas and seek refuge elsewhere in Pakistan. Neither militarily nor economically would Pakistan be in a position to cope with the resultant problems.

Commentators who attribute the present predicament to ‘wrong’ decision by General Pervez Musharraf’s regime after 9/11 evade analysis of what would have been consequences of failure to join the world community in the war on terror. Pakistan would have been alone to buck the tide in global affairs. On September 12, 2001 the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations adopted unanimous resolutions to condemn the Taliban regime for allowing Osama Bin Laden to abuse Afghan territory for international terrorism and calling for action to bring perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. NATO endorsed IS decision to invade the Taliban and states of the adjoining Gulf, Central Asian and South Asian regions offered transit facilities for the military action. Had Pakistan refused cooperation it would be all alone? Already isolated intentionally as the sole supporter of the Taliban, it would become vulnerable to US and allied military attacks similar to those against the Taliban. President Bush declared on September 13 ‘those who harbour terrorists would be treated as terrorists.’

The vast majority of influential Pakistanis whom General Musharraf briefed on the crisis in October 2001 endorsed the conclusion there was no feasible alternative to joining the world community in the war on terror. They included political personages, former Ministers and government officials, strategic analysts, media luminaries, respected intelligentsia, influential persons from territories adjoining Afghanistan, Mashaikh, leaders of labour, women and students, etc. The only group where a majority opposed the decision was that of Ulema who argued religious duty required Pakistan to support a fellow Muslim state; but even within this group respected religious scholars emphasized government’s primary responsi-bility was to protect the security and welfare of the people of Pakistan. They recalled the decisions of the Prophet (PBUH) to enter into treaties with the Jews of Medina and non-Muslim rulers of Mecca which contributed to the long-term interests of the Muslim community.

Intelligence agencies under siege

Comment
Abdul Sattar
Editor, Foreign Affairs

While India has always been quick to ascribe blame for communal and terrorist violence to Pakistan,
President Hamid Karzai chose to abuse the SAARC Summit in Colombo on July 31 to launch a broadside
against Pakistan’s intelligence agencies for nurturing terrorists to target his ‘tolerant and
peace-loving’ country. On the same day, a Bush administration official joined the chorus by claiming it had evidence of ISI’s involvement in the July 7 bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul. Unfortunately, the timing of the announcements first of transferring administrative control over Inter-Services Intelligence from Prime Minister’s secretariat to Interior Ministry and then of revoking the decision played into the hands of ISI’s foreign and domestic critics. The notoriety of this agency for interference in domestic politics and conducting objectionable operations at home and abroad lent credence to allegations and the government felt obliged to offer to probe deeper into the allegations if it was provided with evidence. There is no doubt a solid case for review of decisions made not only by military dictators by also an elected head of government in the 1970s to expand the jurisdiction of ISI and the Federal Bureau of Intelligence, especially to limit if not prohibit resort to extra-legal measures such as prolonged detention and punishment of suspects of breaches of internal and external security but countries with such agencies as CIA and RAW that are notorious for documented intelligence operations like those that toppled the Mossadeq regime in Iran and divided Pakistan into two should remember the adage of a pot calling the kettle black.

Whatever the merit or lack of it in the allegations against Pakistani intelligence agencies, Mr. Karzai’s diatribe was illogical and incredible besides displaying ingratitude for the enormous sacrifices of Pakistan army and security personnel in the fight against Al Qaeda and Taliban opponents of the Karzai regime. Unlike Afghanistan which allowed sanctuaries to Al Qaeda during the Taliban regime, Pakistan government has sought to expel foreign militants who entered Pakistan after US intervention in Afghanistan. These illegal entrants and their Taliban cohorts have no doubt suborned some of the inhabitants of Pakistan’s tribal areas to carve out havens for hostile activities against Afghanistan as well as Pakistan. Mr. Karzai is not alone to overestimates Pakistan’s capacity to contain the scourge.
Mr.Karzai as well as US and NATO allies can legitimately expect Pakistan to do more to stop abuse
of its territory by Taliban for cross-border attacks. But there is no justification for impugning
Pakistan’s policy which is transparently aimed at liquidating terrorism. Realism requires instead
recognizing of Pakistan’s capcity limitations. The United States has therefore assisted Pakistan to
augment its capacity for fighting terrorism and militancy.

In contrast, Mr. Karzai has leveled accusations implying connivance by Pakistani agencies in Taliban
attack. His charge that Pakistani agencies are behind Taliban terrorists makes no sense simply because they Taliban have targeted and killed more Pakistani security personnel and inflicted greater destruction in Pakistan than they have done in Afghanistan. In analyzing the root causes of the challenge to his regime Mr. Karzai distorts facts and misconstrues Pakistan’s policy. The Taliban who abuse Pakistan territory for murder, mayhem and destruction on both sides of the border are enemies of both nations. They attack and kill state employees and civilians, bomb power pylons and gas pipelines, burn schools, kidnap and execute civilian officials, threaten critical media and impose arbitrary and savage rule wherever they succeed to supplant government authority. They are a threat not only to Afghanistan but also Pakistan and to the vision of its founding fathers of a free, democratic and progressive Islamic state. That is why the government of Pakistan joined the fight against terrorism and that is also why Islamabad supported the UN in promoting establishment of a consensus regime under Mr. Hamid Karzai in December 2001 and has sought to assist it in reconstruction of the destroyed state. A peaceful and stable Afghanistan is in the interest of the entire world and no neighbour has more at stake in its consolidation than Pakistan. Mr. Karzai’s attribution of ill will to Pakistan government flies in the face of reality and history.

No doubt Pakistan has many problems of governance but Afghanistan’s are unfortunately even more
forbidding because it lost military and administrative sinews during a thirty years long period of
troubles. The narcotics mafia and rival militias have further undermined the Karzai regimes precarious
capacity to cope with the challenge of the Taliban. Unfortunately its earlier promise of building popular support at home has suffered setbacks. The massive aid Afghanistan has received since 2001 has not been purposefully utilized. Too much of it has been pilfered by corrupt elements in the regime. Instead of reform and reconstruction that would have provided better lives for Afghans, the Karzai government has allowed Afghanistan to become the world’s biggest narcotics supplier and like its predecessors connived in smuggling and other illegal activities to the detriment above all of Pakistan. Instead of recriminations, Afghanistan and Pakistan would better serve common cause through better mutual understanding and intensification of cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Failure to do so would play in to the hands of extremists. Already left behind in the world community’s march towards progress and more productive lives for their people, they face dire danger of religious obscurantism, social regression and descent into chaos.

Taliban threat to freedom and democracy

Comment
Abdul Sattar
Editor, Foreign Affairs

Civil society’s unanimous condemnation of the threat to Aaj Kal newspaper for criticizing Taliban policies and actions represents the tip of the iceberg of fear, foreboding and resentment that has been gathering mass against extremism and militancy that menace peace and security if not also the survival of the dream of Pakistan as a democratic, progressive and enlightened Islamic state. Terrorism, suicide bombings, attacks on armed forces and civilian personnel, burning of schools for girls, destruction of businesses and livelihood of workers and incitement of sectarian strife have outraged common people. Citizens still look upon persons of religion with respect but now that is mixed with doubt and apprehension that religious garb may conceal a terrorist. News of Taliban attacks on police and armed forces evoke sympathy for victims and silent words of prayer that state authorities will prevail and find ways of isolating, disarming and liquidating the militants and reestablish security, peace and progress at home. At the same time the nation cannot but feel deep concern about Pakistan ’s international image as a cradle of extremism and terrorism. Pakistan ’s prestige in the world community has declined, foreign countries have tightened issue of visas and relations with otherwise friendly countries are threatened due to abuse of Pakistan territory by militants for cross-border attacks. The spectre of intervention has begun to haunt as US and NATO casualties in Afghanistan have risen to record levels in June and nine US soldiers killed on a single day on July 13. Pressure is bound to mount on Washington to neutralize the aggravating threat posed by insurgents operating from lairs in the tribal areas. Democratic candidate for US Presidency, Senator Barack Obama has called on Pakistan to prevent cross-border incursions from its tribal areas and warned that otherwise ‘ America will do so.’
The argument of Pakistan ’s title to respect for its sovereignty has a legal basis so long as our country also fulfills obligations of sovereignty. International law requires a state to ensure that its territory is not made a launching pad for attacks across borders. Taliban militants who violate domestic law and global norms incur international odium and undermine the credibility of Pakistan ’s claims it can prevent the crime. As the elected government’s strategy of combining military action and political negotiation has so far proved counter-productive, the view has gained ground in the world that Pakistan is failing to fulfill its responsibilities. US and NATO officials have described the situation in Pakistan as ‘dysfunctional.’ If Pakistan cannot successfully reverse current trends on its own, the rationale for foreign forces to supplement Pakistan ’s efforts in the tribal areas would gain greater understanding if not support both at home and abroad.
No responsible state can accept the obscurantist interpretation ‘Islam does not recognize state borders.’ Having violated universally recognized principles of international law the militants have exposed themselves to international penalties and sanctions. If foreign forces then violate our border in hot pursuit or attack militant lairs Pakistan would be faced with an agonizing dilemma. People expect their armed forces to defend Pakistan ’s borders against foreign aggression but they are also realistic and would wish the state to ensure against giving cause for conflict. Pakistan must instead address the imperative of preventing outlaws from exposing the state to international isolation and unwarranted confrontation with Afghanistan , United States and NATO.
Taliban incursions into Afghanistan have already clouded the judgment of besieged and embattled President Hamid Karzai who has unleashed a barrage of baseless allegations against Pakistani agencies for conniving in Taliban attacks. The outbursts have needlessly jeopardized friendly relations between the two fraternal neighbours. Having personal experience as a refugee in Pakistan he knows his countrymen have abused Pakistan territory as a base for cross-border operations. He knows also it is as difficult for Pakistan as it is for his government to put that genie back in the bottle. The object can best be achieved by continued close cooperation between New Afghanistan and Pakistan .
In contrast with Kabul , Washington has been sympathetic. It understands that lack of complete success in anti-terrorist operations by Pakistani forces has been a matter of capacity and therefore it has provided assistance to increase efficiency of Pakistani counter-terrorism forces. That process has to be sustained. The vast majority of Pakistani people well understand that war on terror is as much in the interest of our future as it is in the interest of the world community. It is well aware of the international consensus against terrorism. While Islamabad has from time to time explored negotiations with influential people in tribal areas but that should not be interpreted as lack of commitment to the anti-terrorism cause.
No doubt Washington has dilemmas of its own that do not permit neglect. But the US and NATO allies should also understand that pushing the elected government in Pakistan into a corner is not a salutary option. There is no substitute for the strategy of closer cooperation in pursuit of the common aim. Pakistani people are distraught at the costs in lives and destruction the country has suffered as a participant in war. Their state’s capacity to contain terrorism has been insufficient but they have faith in the potentials of their armed forces and believe given the means they can do the job. Patient persuasion can overcome reservations and reluctance. One cardinal lesson from the past Pakistan cannot ignore is it cannot afford international isolation

Sindh’s treasure of black gold

Comment
Abdul Sattar
Editor, Foreign Affairs

LAKHRA coal reserve is one of the world’s largest, Sindh’s treasure trove for prosperity and a silver lining on Pakistan’s dark energy horizon. It can be used for generation of electric power sufficient to end load-shedding. Also it can be converted into oil and gas to reduce if not rid us of dependence on imported oil and gas. Estimated at 185 billion tons, equivalent to 350 billion barrels of oil, Lakra coal can launch Sindh on a trajectory to development and progress. Why hasn’t that been done so far defies common sense. Precise reasons are difficult to identify. However, more relevant now are prospects that should beckon the Sindh government to seize the initiative and launch a resolute drive for exploitation of its natural wealth. With the same political party in power also at the centre, it can secure prompt fulfillment of the federal government’s obligation to formulate an integrated policy for development of nature’s bounty. With the constitution vesting the right to minerals in provinces Sindh would be entitled to royalty as well as due share in benefits and profit on investment. Technology for multiple uses is well known and corporations in China, Germany and South Africa have abundant experience. China generates 70 percent of its energy from coal. South Africa produces 350,000 barrels of oil and 4 billion cu. ft. of gas per day from lignite coal similar to Lakhra’s. India has built a 1200MW power station in Rajasthan using coal from the seam that is an extension of the reserve at Lakhra. World Bank, Asian Development Bank and even commercial corporations can be expected to invest in profitable coal-based ventures. But government has to first formulate policy and foster a social and economic environment conducive to foreign investment. That unfortunately has been delayed.

Pakistan has known of the available reserve but did not undertake necessary preparation of a project. Islamabad approached Beijing some six years ago and as usual Chinese leaders responded positively. A Chinese corporation invested $25 million in exploration and feasibility study. Chinese government indicated willingness to participate in investment. Final agreement was within sight as Chinese government intervened to reduce price to 5.8 cents per unit, lower than the rate government gave to private power producers a decade earlier, but the deal collapsed because of imprudent bargaining on our part. In exasperation the Chinese company left.
Nor was the above the only instance of missed opportunities. Over nearly forty years one government after another succumbed to misinformed pressure and political manoeuvring so that no new major dam has been built since Tarbela in 1960s. The cost of procrastination is writ large in long hours of load-shedding, inconvenience and hardship to consumers and damage to commerce and industry. Experts also point to failures to formulate appropriate policies to encourage prospecting for oil and gas on a scale necessary to attract foreign investment. Promising on- and off-shore fields were found in Balochistan and along Sindh coast decades ago but follow up actions were not taken in good time to develop the finds. As a result Pakistan is heading for an energy crisis even earlier than the rest of the world. Only immediate policy decision and fast track implementation to develop Lakhra coal field offers hope of amelioration. It does no require technical expertise to realize we would otherwise be confronted with a multi-dimensional energy crisis. More than most other countries, we are short of alternatives. Oil and Gas. Currently supplying 50% of energy supply, production of natural gas in Pakistan is projected to decline and as early as 2009 brown-outs are likely to add to misery of load-shedding across the country. In five years indigenous gas will meet only about a quarter of the demand. So far no alternative arrangements have been made. Even if agreement with Iran is signed the pipeline will take several years to build. Besides, imported gas will entail fivefold increase in consumer price. Oil prices have sky-rocketed already. The trend is global and irreversible.

Fossil fuels are a finite and depleting resource, discovery of new mega-fields has been leveling off and average output per oil well has been in decline. At current trends global demand is projected to rise from 85 million barrels per day in 2008 to 130 million bpd by 2030, which is unlikely to be met by increase in production. Driven by imbalance between supply and demand, price is bound to maintain a rising trend. The era of cheap oil is gone for ever. Newsweek has predicted rise to $200 a barrel. Unless production of energy from domestic resources is rapidly increased, the country will face unmanageable supply and price problems. Apart from developing Lakhra we also need to build more dams and invigorate prospecting for oil and gas. Oil and gas bearing geological structures have been identified in Balochistan, both off-shore and inland. Their development has been delayed, because of suspected pressure on foreign oil companies from their governments. Load-shedding already afflicts consumers. Petrol and diesel prices have sky-rocketed. There is no relief in sight. Pakistan’s exchange reserves of $16 billion in 2007 are already down to about $10 billion. At present rate of depletion these will not last much longer than a year or so. Then oil imports would be inadequate to meet demand with predictable consequences for individual and corporate sector. Wheels of industry would not continue at present pace. Increasing numbers of private car owners even in rich countries are switching to public transport. In our country that is not an inviting option. Neither government nor private enterprise has developed efficient bus facilities in urban areas. School children and office workers depend on private cars for conveyance.

Electric Power. The picture of electric power is equally bleak in the short term. Pakistan’s current installed capacity for power generation is variously estimated at 18000-19400 MW, with hydel generation contributing 10000-13400 MW in different seasons. About 4000 MW is generated from natural gas and the rest mostly from diesel. The power crisis of 2008 is more acute because demand has continued to increase while little has been added to generation capacity over the past years. New river dams will take several years to build even after sites have been selected. Government has announced it will install 4000 MW new capacity by later 2009. Cost of electricity to be supplied by private producers may be 20-25 cents, i.e. up to 20 rupees per unit. THERE IS NO TIME TO LOSE. Government should immediately appoint a cabinet committee with a mandate to focus on development of Lakhra coal reserve for power. The committee should include one or more ministers of Sindh government, deputy chairman of Planning Commission, secretaries of concerned federal and provincial ministries. The committee would benefit much if it invited energy expert and former minister Osman Aminuddin for counsel. While launch of the power project should be priority number one, the same committee could be tasked to recommend proposals for projects for conversion of coal into petrol and gas.

A personal lament for Malam Jabba

Comment
Abdul Sattar
Editor, Foreign Affairs

LAST Thursday unknown militants destroyed the motel and chairlift at Malam Jabba in Swat, one of few if not the only ski resort in Pakistan that attracted national and foreign enthusiasts of the sport. On reading the news I heaved a deep and heartfelt sigh of grief even though I am neither a skier nor a tourist who ever visited Malam Jabba. Still I felt a deep sense of personal grief mixed with lament at the destruction of a beauty site that thousands visited every winter to feast their eyes on the serene beauty of pure white snow.
 

I mourn for the loss partly because as ambassador to Austria in 1976-78 I invested considerable time and effort to persuade the government of Chancellor Bruno Kreisky to allocate foreign aid funds for equipment and experts to be sent to Pakistan to install the chairlift and build tourist resort facilities. It was not an easy decision for the Kreisky government because some Austrian newspapers had mocked at the project in a country that had little knowledge or enthusiam for the snow sport. Then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took personal interest in the project for Swat because it would bring employment to local people and income to small businesses that flower around a tourist resort. In order to expedite the project he sent direct instructions to the Pakistan embassy to accept the terms proposed by the Austrian government in order to attract skilled technicans to be deputed to Pakistan to oversee and complete the project in a reasonable period of time.

Partly too my spontaneous sense of mourning arose from a gnawing feeling of loss of direction by a section of our unfortunate and uneducated people who not only lack capacity to appreciate natural beauty but more alarmingly misconceive and ignore the values of our glorious religion that emphasizes the spirit of tolerance and respect for feelings of others and want to deny the opportunity to nationals and foreigners who derive happiness from innocent sports and peace of mind from snow scenery. Infuriated by some dark forces injected inside their misguided minds marauders indulged in an orgy of destruction that will also rob employees of the motel and business people of their livelihood. How far have some of our extremists strayed from the hopes and expectations of our founding fathers who envisioned Pakistan as a progressive and moderate Islamic state! One can only hope and pray that the deviation will be corrected and that reactionary elements will not be allowed to determine the future of our nation conceived by enlightened leaders.

Trapped in Taliban dilemma

Comment
Abdul Sattar
Editor, Foreign Affairs

The storm-in-a-tea cup raised by President Hamid Karzai’s threat of attack on Taliban targets in Pakistan and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s rejoinder warning him to desist from such intervention has passed with equal speed. Of course no realistic observer projected an Armageddon. Afghanistan lacks the power and Pakistan the motivation. They have not only common intersts and friends to restrain them but also common threats and enemies. The Taliban, Afghan as well as Pakistani, menace peace and progress in both countries, and contemptuously reject the principle of non-interference in internal affairs that the governments of the two countries invoke against each other. Neither of the two is strong enough to prevent Taliban militants from terrorist attacks on armed forces, schools for girls and innocent citizens. The two countries are therefore condemned to muddle through the mess inherited from shared history and try to ferret out what is called modus vivendi or expedient compromise.

 
Bent on abusing Pakistan territory in pursuit of their revolutionary aims, Taliban led by Commanders Baitullan Mehsud and Maulana Fazlullah have trapped the new Pakistan government in a dilemma as agonizing as that its predecessor faced. If Islamabad persists in military policy against outlaws abusing Pakistan territory it incurs heavy costs to its armed forces deployed in tribal areas and to civilians in cities and towns across the country. If instead it tries to reduce costs by entering into compromises that leave Taliban free to pursue their illegitimate aims it is exposed not only to censure for failure to fulfill its international obligation but to even graver and unacceptable risks of confrontation with US and NATO forces. The elected government has enjoyed a honeymoon period to decide policy but that will not last much longer. Warning is implicit in growing US and NATO intolerance of increasing insurgent attacks in eastern Afghanistan . The outgoing US commander of NATO’s international security assistance force, General Daniel McNeill affirmed two days ago that insurgent attacks on ISAF in eastern Afghanistan increased 50 percent in April. He has gone on to clarify all these troubles could not justly be attributed to Pakistan . On the contrary he said even if the borders could be sealed that will not end the insurgency in Afghanistan. Equally realistic was his remark that stabilizing Afghanistan would be ‘impossible’ without a more robust military campaign against insurgents in Pakistan, which emphasizes the need for strengthening cooperation between the two countries and their friends and allies. President Karzai, too, underlined the same conclusion in his clarifying remarks on Monday saying the two governments should join hands to eliminate their common enemies. On the need for cooperation there should be no difference. Only the two sides need to clearly understand components of cooperation. Prime Minister’s statement - we do not interfere in other countries’ internal affairs – provides a good basis. It reflects Pakistan government’s intent to abide by a universally recognized principle of law but intent alone is hardly sufficient to convince the other side of Pakistan ’s bona fides. What they expect is action to prevent cross-border attacks.

The underlying issue at present concerns our new government’s policy-in-the-making of peace agreements that seek respite from Taliban attacks at home but leave the militants free to perpetrate cross-border attacks against Afghanistan. Nor are their apprehensions merely theoretical. US and NATO spokesmen have made no secret of their mounting concern. If Taliban from the Pakistan are not prevented from crossing over ‘to come and kill Afghan and coalition troops’ in Afghanistan their victims would have to think of alternative measures of self-defence. President Karzai’s stance is more logical and therefore it has won greater international sympathy.
Actually US and NATO forces have resorted to recurrent cross-border missile and bomb attacks on Pakistan side of the border. Every time they do so Islamabad denounces violations of Pakistan ’s borders and parliament adopts strong resolutions condemning US aggression especially when victims are innocent. But such outpouring of emotions serves little more than expedient purpose. Our government cannot expect the other side to remain indifferent to cross-border attacks from Pakistan territory. It must either prevent Taliban insurgents from abusing Pakistan territory or acquiesce in consequences. It does not have a viable alternative to cooperation with US and NATO partners in the fight against terrorists. Pakistan cannot complain of lack of understanding of its predicament by allies. The US and NATO have responded sympathetically to our legitimate requests aimed at strengthening Pakistan ’s capacity to safeguard its legitimate interests. If so far that capacity has been insufficient to prevent abuse of Pakistan territory by outlaws, it should prepare a better plan to achieve that objective. The allies who have pledged $4 billion a year for reconstruction of Afghanistan can be legitimately expected to extend adequate assistance to upgrade Pakistan ’s homeland security. Any evidence Pakistan has lost heart to pursue a principled policy is bound to be counter-productive.

Transformations warrant change in war on terror

Comment
Abdul Sattar
Editor, Foreign Affairs

MORE curious than the evident difference between Islamabad and Washington on peace negotiations with Taliban is the commendable restraint and reason manifest in their statements on this inherently critical issue. The explanation and the rationale of their cautious statements is probably to be found in two fundamental factors.

While the United States and NATO have resources necessary to fight war on terror abroad and simultaneously ensure homeland security, they both know Pakistan does not. Secondly, the United States has tended to equate Taliban with Al Qaeda while Pakistan perceives a clear distinction between the two. Al Qaeda has an international agenda but Taliban’s aims are domestic, in Afghanistan as in Pakistan.

Some of the US allies in Afghanistan have already recognized this difference and advocated negotiations with the Afghan Taliban even before the new government in Pakistan embarked on a parallel course with Pakistani Taliban.

If Washington has been slow to perceive the distinction it is because of its understandable preoccupation with Al Qaeda which explains also its belief that any future terrorist attack on the United States would be planned and organized from Pakistan’s tribal territory where Al Qaeda is alleged to have regrouped even though the premise has begun to seem increasingly dubious.

The fact is Al Qaeda is no longer what it was before the US intervention in Afghanistan in 2001. The terrorist organization suffered heavy casualties due to US bombing and was then obliged to shift and establish a base in the tribal territory which Pakistan opposed with all the might it could muster.

Caught in a nutcracker between US forces on one side and Pakistan army on the other the terrorist organisation lost hundreds of high ranking cadres. Most of those escapees who initially found refuge with sympathizers in tribal territory were in course time liquidated, arrested or expelled.

Al Qaeda was all but crushed. In the past couple of years little has been heard or seen connecting Al Qaeda with armed clashes or acts of terror in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Afghan Taliban, not Al Qaeda, have fought American, NATO and Afghan forces and similarly Pakistani Taliban, not Al Qaeda, have perpetrated suicide and terrorist bombings in Paksitan.

As for Al Qaeda instigation of violence in Iraq US allegations have lacked credibility because everyone is aware of the indigenous dynamics of sectarian rivalry in that unfortunate country. Al Qaeda activity has been so conspicuous by its absence that it seems reasonable to conclude its back has been broken. It is time therefore to deal with new realities.

Correctly diagnosing the transformation, the new government in NWFP decided to embark on a policy of peace negotiations with the Taliban and expeditiously concluded an agreements with the Taliban in Swat. The accord signed on May 21 merits close attention by those who apprehend adverse consequences.

Basically the Taliban have agreed to hand over all foreign militants and dismantle training centres for terrorists and suicide bombers. Also they have pledged to refrain from attacks on government offices, police stations, army personnel, bridges and roads and girls schools.

In exchange the government has conceded reasonable demands which focus on reform of notoriously inefficient and corrupt governance. People of Swat were used to simple, low-cost and paternalistic rule when the state was under the Wali. In contrast, the administration extended to the state after its accession to Pakistan has proved insensitive, inefficient, venal and exploitative.

No wonder the Taliban demanded action against bribe-takers, adulterers, thieves and dacoits. The same is the logic for return to Sharia law. The judicial system under the Wali was fair and speedy. In contrast the Paksitani system - a legacy of British colonialism - now applicable in the Swat has entailed regression in the name of modernization. Not in a position to defend state’s performance since independence government negotiators wisely conceded Taliban demands for reform.

The above is not to say the NWFP government or people support the Taliban’s antiquated political agenda. Pakistan’s founding fathers envisioned an enlightened, modern and moderate Islamic state with equal rights for citizens free of discrimination on basis of race, religion or social status.

People expect the state to discover and implement policies aimed at realization of the dream. It is because government in Pakistan has failed to deliver on the promise that poor and powerless people have turned to other, at times medieval practices. Savage killing of three dacoits by a crowd in Karachi the other day was attributable in part to popular frustration at the dismal record of police in apprehending and prosecuting criminals and endless delays that amount to denial of justice.

Mushroom rise of extremism and militancy is similarly due to failure of state to provide broad and contemporary education facilities for all children. As a result too many of the poor are trapped by schools with narrow curriculum and agendas that promote extremism and militancy.

The agreement with the Swat Taliban represents a good model and hopefully it will be implemented in letter and spirit. If so, it may help overcome the memory of Pakistan’s 2005 agreement with Taliban in the Tribal territory which was counter-productive.

The tribal Taliban not only did not honour their commitment to expel foreign terrorists and refrain from attacks against Pakistan but also exploited the ceasefire by Pakistani forces to strengthen their organization, resume training and increase cross-border attacks on US, NATO and Afghan forces.

If another agreement were to be signed by Pakistan with the Taliban in Waziristan the probability of repetition cannot be discounted. Taliban Commander Baitulla Mehsud was quoted to have declared at a press conference at Kotkai in South Waziristan on May 24 that while he favoured an agreement with Pakistan because the conflict between Taliban and Pakistan government was ‘harming Islam and Pakistan’ his forces would ‘continue the jihad against the US and its allies in Afghanistan’ because ‘Islam does not recognize any man-made boundaries.’

Clearly such an agreement should be unacceptable to Pakistan because it would violate recognized principles of international law. Every state has an obligation to prevent persons on its territory from organizing attacks on another state. NWFP Governor Owais Ghani surely did not mean to disavow the international obligation when he was quoted to have told US Operation Command chief Admiralk Eric Olson, ‘Pakistan will take care of its own problems, you take care of Afghanistan on your side.’ Giving Pakistan the benefit of doubt, US Secretary of State said on May 24 she did not believed Pakistan wanted to exacerbate the situation in the tribal areas or create problems for Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, mature diplomacy by Islamabad and Washington has prevented a crisis over Pakistan’s strategic switch from exclusively military to peaceful means for relief from Taliban terrorism. The United States entertains grave reservations on Pakistan’s decision to enter into agreements with the Taliban but it has not pushed or pressured Islamabad to abandon its new policy of negotiations for peace in order to save the country from carnage and destruction it has suffered as a result of terrorist attacks. Islamabad on its part is by no means dismissive of apprehensions of United States, NATO and Afghanistan that Pakistan’s attempt to solve its problem could aggravate the problem in Afghanistan as Taliban could now organize, equip and train in Pakistan territory for operations in Afghanistan.

‘The government has declared it ‘will continue the war on terror’ and assured friends and allies it remains committed to preventing abuse of Pakistan territory for cross-border operations. Of course the underlying contradiction cannot be resolved by promises. While Washington appears willing to wait its bottom line is ‘results.

An agenda behind IPL?

Dr Abdul Ruff

There is a historical great game along the ancient Silk Road, but the concept is being played out in new disguises in many parts of the world today, the era of so-called terrorisms, state and private. Slamming Islam and tracking Muslims have become order of the Western civilization shred by countries like India for selfish reasons by contributing to the total tally of Muslim murders in their “backyards”, Palestine and Kashmir, etc. India has gone all out of try the great game even in sports, in cricket, - more precisely. What in fact is happening in cricket is just another racket involving sport mafia and billionaires. The Indian Premier League (IPL) tournament being showcased for nearly two months in Indian towns is essentially an attempt to maneuver in cricket tricks, deceptions and skills, but the real motive is to create a new crop of cricketers in every sub-field from different parts of India to store and use the stand-in- specialists in cricket. India wants to achieve this feat with the assistance of eminent cricketers from all countries that are involved in cricketeering.

India has now endeavored to use the available international cricket mastery drawn form countries to train the Indian cricketers both the current teams and the junior ones. Hence several top masters in the field of cricket, from all sectors like bating, bowling, fielders, wicket keepers, etc, are seen toiling on the field to bat or bowl. The expertise of these cricketers is being used by India to make a strong contingent of Indian cricketers with surplus, so that Indian team can withstand any pressure form countries like Australia, South Africa, West India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, etc. With a “formidable” national team with extra members always ready, India would be able to win every match it plays any where and it needs not go appeasing the foreign governments or cricket mafia for crucial victories with necessary “suitable favors”

The matter of fact is India has been in an awkward position facing strong teas like Aussies and South African and West Indies. At times, India fails to make even 100 runs losing all wickets and over quickly. The opponents have strong teams where most of the team-mates are good at bating and if one is out, unable to make sufficient runs, the next would supplement for that with quick runs and hundreds. Indians are awfully worried and feel ashamed, therefore, that its team fall apart facing strong teams, like a waste pack of useless cards.In gearing up a strong Indian team, the foreign cricketers are helping India cricket players both senior and junior, with their tips, expertise and the Indian cricketers would learn more by playing with different country’ cricketers. Hence the new strategy of involving renounced cricketers from the global cricket world. By playing with each cricketer from abroad Indians can feel the pulse of each top order cricketer their plus and minus points and they themselves as guests would shares some secrets of the trade as well. By using different colors blue-wearing Indian cricketers also enjoy non-blue blues.

New Delhi is keen to be the winners in every aspect including terrorism and in cricket it is a great challenge it has to face always. One does not know if with this new arrangement of joint cricket exercises, India probably hopes to get teams ready in which every batsman would make at least 100 and every bowler, fieldsman and wicket keeper would get at least one wicket in every match, no matter how many wickets are there. The plan is not too bad, is not it? However, Indian separatist mind is discernible in naming of IPL teams and many states and towns are neglected. Is it not a shame that world class cricketers have agreed to play with junior in India when they don’t do it in their respective countries? India strategies are really amazing! India can get any thing it sets its eyes on by crooks. Cricket I s nothing. It annexed Kashmir valley, known then as the Paradise on earth, under the pretext of Pakistan interference there, but quickly colonized it, militarized it with heavy weaponry and surveillance –cum-remote terrorism systems. Now thousands and thousands of Kashmiris have been killed by Indian forces there to keep “peace” in the region. So many unknown “pieces” have been discovered in grave-yards in Kashmir recently.

The present IPL joint cricket exercises are the extension of the joint cricket exercises conducted by India and Australia recently both in India and Australia. One outcome could be that the current cricketers would develop trends of depression in the days ahead when there could be more players. IPL would generate a few more millionaires among sportsmen. All said and done one most important outcome of these inter-continental joint cricket exercises is to create a few sportsmen richer by crores each month, while over has been rising in the country along with price rocketing , immensely affecting the common people. When Manmohan Singh government could cleverly devise strategies to further the capitalist economy to appease the imperialist world, it does not undertake steps to lift the poor from the pavements of India. Manmohan still thinks he is just the chief of Reserve Bank to distribute the national resources among a few rich “patriotic” Indians and military establishment. He selectively chooses already wealthy persons for onward monopoly of Indian economic sources. As a prominent capitalist economy specialist Indian PM cannot be other wise.

Cricket, then, is nothing for India. Intention is not too bad and it does not look like being arranged by Indian cricket board and government by cleverly using “third” party from none-sports sector. Now it has come to fore that the countries leading capitalists are playing behind the Cricket for huge profits. Ambani, whose Reliance Mobiles loot the general public day in and day out would make more profits. Manmohan Singh as the governor of Reserve of India promoted such select classes of capitalism using the public money and he continues to gain the support of these “patriots” and they keep growing further with Indian cash.

It is funny to note that Manmohan, whose Congress party refused to give him a second run for presidency and instead chose Pratibha Patil woo was involved in a criminal cases, now is trying to rope in former Indian president Abdul Kalam on Indo-US nuclearism. Kalam’s double-speak is also well known: he gives sermons on peace and wile helping India to develop missiles that could target the entire Islamic Middle East and beyond. It is awful to watch when Ms Patil distributed the national awards to a select group of Indian recent on Republic Day gifts for their “services and sacrifices” highest award for most “deserving” candidates.

However, India could not get USA, the strategic partner of the season under any provision under India-US nuclearism, play in the current cricket tournament, because Americans, like Israelis, don’t play cricket. They are specialists only in genocides and destruction in Islamic world. But India could still claim partnership citing the crude fact that India also kills Muslims in its vicinity. India could now confidently ask USA to start playing cricket as part of strategic and nuclear pact between them. Alternatively, India could also choose an American, non-terrorist, game to play along with Americans and Israelis. However, initially India could defeat USA in cricket which the Indian media would blast as “India Thrash Americans” and India lobbyists could use that to silence the US Congress on Indo-US nuclearism. But one question remians: Do the Indian strategists claim to be sharper and more ruthless than their counterparts in USA and Israel?

Power struggle in judges’ guise

Comment
Abdul Sattar
Editor, Foreign Affairs

Despite solemn declarations to reinstate sacked judges of superior courts and establish independence of the judiciary Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League (N) failed to agree on the method of fulfilling their pledge. Protracted negotiations in high-level meetings between their leaders held in and outside Pakistan proved abortive. While precise causes of the shipwreck are at present shrouded in mystery and both parties remain reluctant to accuse each other of torpedoing agreement on implementation of the joint pledge, objective observers are bound to recall that PPP at first agreed to restoration through a resolution of National Assembly but later decided to insist on a package that would include constitutional amendments in order, its spokesmen said, to preempt a judicial crisis. While the necessity of such amendments will be debated by legal experts the issues involved were apparently not merely legal. At stake is the prize of political power; the question is who is to be the arbiter.
PPP and PML(N) are traditional rivals and it is as natural for each of them to strive for the helm as it is difficult for either to reconcile to a backseat. If both have recently hoisted the flag for independence of judiciary it is mainly because it has become a popular cause after the unprecedented judicial atrocity of 2007. Otherwise, neither brings historical reputation for respect for judiciary while PML(N)’s credentials were particularly blemished by the physical attack on the Supreme Court when it was in power. Arguably experience of authoritarian excesses during the 1999-2007 period may also have taught both the lesson that respect for independent judiciary is indispensable for democracy with which interests of political parties are inextricably linked.
PPP’s decision to woo smaller political parties was transparently part of a strategy to reduce dependence on PML(N) for majority in National Assembly. Transcending historic rivalry for power in Sindh PPP made an over-generous power-sharing deal with Mutahida Qaumi Movement and even threw out a baited line to hook the previously untouchable Pakistan Muslim League(Q). Meanwhile, the second largest political party PML(N) was again and again given promise of fulfillment of the demand for restoration of judges and finally driven to the unenviable dilemma where it could either retain share in power or save its honour.
Still another factor in the murky situation has been the US demand on PPP leadership to implement the power-sharing deal it mediated between former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and General Pervez Musharraf. The latter fulfilled his part of the bargain by shedding uniform, withdrawing emergency, proclaiming the National Reconciliation Ordinance and holding free elections. US honour as also its perceived interest in continuity of partnership with Pakistan in the fight against terror require that PPP must also keep to its part of the bargain. The only mysterious element in the situation relates to the levers at Washington ’s disposal to ensure observance of the deal terms by PPP. Given the price in popularity PPP has paid by going back on its pledge to restore the sacked judges, it seems unlikely that economic and military assistance for Pakistan was the sole factor.
PML(N)’s gain in popularity on account of a clear and forthright stance in favour of restoration of sacked judges may necessitate a policy review by PPP. While it will no doubt embark on a campaign to explain substantive legal and administrative compulsions for a comprehensive package, going back on commitment to restore the judges first by April 30 and then by May 12 will not easy to justify. Already knowledgeable commentators have pointed out that persons responsible for the decision were out of touch with popular opinion because none of them went to the grassroots during the election campaign, and those who did are too embarrassed to face the legal fraternity and non-partisan civil society which are resolve to sustain the campaign for restoration of the judges.
Already groaning under back-breaking burden of escalating food, fuel and energy crises popular opinion is likely to be further infuriated by the spectacle of confusion in the ruling party. Instead of focusing on implementing its electoral pledge to deliver ROTI, KAPRA AUR MAKAN to low-income and poor people, the party leadership has wasted too much time on a comparatively easy legal issue. Expensive visits abroad by political bigwigs at such a time will further provoke popular ire. Most people may not know enough about history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire but media commentators are bound to remind them.
Nero played the fiddle while Rome was half-burned, intentionally according to legend, in order to provide a realistic background for a recitation by the emperor in a play recalling defeat in war on Troy . At his death Nero sought vainly to justify his conduct claiming he was an artist, but even two thousand years later history remembers him as an evil schemer, matricide and tyrant who was ruthless against opponents and committed atrocities against Christians. One hopes political leaders will remember history in order to avoid its repetition.

Elected government: A waking dream

Comment
Abdul Sattar

Pakistanis are today in a state of hope which Aristotle defined as a waking dream. We are entitled to be optimistic that the consensus government formed after fair and free elections in February can and will address the multiple problems facing our nation.

Obviously elected leaders, too, are entitled to pride in their legitimacy and all of us who wish to see our state progress towards democracy wish the new leaders Godspeed. Not all the current problems are the creation of the predecessor regime though President Pervez Musharraf inflicted grave injuries on state institutions in pursuit of obsession with self-perpetuation especially after March 9.

Food and fuel crises for example are due to global factors. The power crisis could have been prevented but it partly due to failure to build new neglect reservoirs over four decades. Corruption and inefficiency are endemic to developing countries and past political governments have made a large contribution to deteriorationin Pakistan. Extrication from all these crises will require transformation of populist approaches, purposeful planning and reformation of administration and its personnel.

Formation of consensus government after fair and free elections is worthy of celebration in itself not only because it is rare in our history but also because it marks significant advance on the road towards the nation’s desired destination of a progressive, modern democratic state which contributes to improvement of economic and social life of all segments of our society.

Democracy has rightly come to be considered as the best form of government and this conclusion is vindicated by the failure of revolutionary ideologies and dictatorships which failed to deliver on their tall promises. Nevertheless a system is a means to ends, and only performance of elected leaders will determine whether hopes and expectations of the electorate are realistic. For that judgment we must wait with patience and prayer.

A mere month after new government’s entry into office it is too early by far to begin an assessment of its performance. Even for a preliminary assessment one should wait at least till the expiry of the hundred days for which the Prime Minister has announced his government’s action programme.

Even this timeframe is too short because like many other developing countries Pakistan faces multiple problems among which some have reached crisis proportions. Aiming at solving these crises in quick time would be impractical.

The best one can hope is that government will succeed in containing and alleviating hardships of the people groaning under unprecedented rise in prices of essential consumer goods. The question for the present is only whether the government has embarked on a promising plan and set up mechanisms to conceive and implement salutary strategies.

Salutary strategies. Good governance is more than ever necessary if only because unprecedented crises threaten mass suffering and anarchy. Food crisis, to take an example at once most elementary and soluble, can be defused by right policies and vigilant administration.

There is no logical reason why wheat farmers should be subjected to discrimination when those who produce rice, corn or soybeans can sell their harvests at prevailing international prices. Nor is there logic in artificially maintaining wheat flour price in Pakistan at fifteen or twenty rupees a kilo while the item sells at equivalent of forty-five rupees in Afghanistan and thirty rupees in India.

If this glaring anomaly which has created more problems than the government has a capacity to solve is rectified farmers can be confidently expected to respond to remunerative prices. No doubt higher prices of wheat flour add to hardships of poor and low-income people and therefore government has a duty to devise an efficient safety net. Other countries, both rich and poor, have done so and so too can Pakistan.

Meanwhile, government publicity organs should refrain from eulogizing performance of coalition leaders or their mentors. Propaganda hype projecting them as icons of model governance is neither credible nor in good taste. Popular memory may be proverbially short but the record of the decade of 1990s is still remembered by many and it wasn’t entirely unblemished. The National Reconciliation Ordinance cannot obliterate that record though it gave immunity from prosecution which, incidentally, is contrary to principles of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Hope springs eternal and popular mind appears to be ready to rise above past experience.

Instead people are inclined to hope for repentance and moral reform on part of sinners. Almighty Allah can change mindsets and guide those who deviated from sirat al mustaqeem in the past come back to the right path and earn a memorable record.

Also useful if not necessary would be philosophic introspection. Those who think only of advancing personal or family interests seek satisfaction in acquisition of wealth and power which are no doubt a source of pleasure, especially if derived by licit means but such pleasure do not – and cannot - yield inner satisfaction and happiness. According to religious beliefs salvation depends on observance of prescribed conduct.

Secular and utilitarian philosophies also agree that enduring happiness depends on rational social conduct that is mindful of consequences for society as a whole. Even Epicureans reject the view that conduct should be guided solely by calculus of pleasure and pain.

Humans are endowed with spiritual drive to seek higher ends than those of beasts. Their life has nobler purpose and for its fulfillment thinking persons have to contribute to humanity’s struggle for collective harmony and happiness.

 

Divergence in war on terrorism strategy

Comment
Abdul Sattar

No country has done more than the United States to help Pakistan achieve a peaceful political transition. Naturally, goodwill between the two countries should be stronger. But a shadow hovers over bilateral cooperation due to emerging difference over the conduct of the war on terror. While the new Pakistan government appears determined to initiate talks with local Taliban in order to bring an end to internal insurgency Washington is predictably apprehensive the resultant relaxation in pressure on terrorists would enable Al Qaeda to intensify preparations for attacks on American targets. There is no indication yet that Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani statement of March 29 declaring ‘war on terror is our own war’ has diminished Washington’s concerns. US unease is bound to mount as a result of NWFP Assembly’s resolution of April 1 condemning CIA Director Michael Haden for threatening to bomb terrorists abusing Pakistan territory as sanctuary. Surely Pakistan does not intend to tolerate such abuse. Both sides need therefore to discuss the matter in the context of strategy as well as tactics in order to prevent damage to mutual cooperation.

It is increasingly evident that the so far parallel aims of Islamabad and Washington in the war on terror are beginning to diverge. While the United States remains focused on liquidation of Al Qaeda’s mortal threat Pakistan is primarily concerned about mounting loss of life due to terrorist bombings and suicide attacks over the past two years. People not only in tribal areas and Frontier Province but across the country desperately want an end to their suffering which they attribute to Islamabad’s flawed policy of fighting what they dub as America’s war. The new government does not share this mistaken perception but it cannot ignore the popular outcry. It has decided to discuss policy in the parliament. Dialogue with militants is on the cards. Awami National Party has already initiated contacts with ‘local Taliban’ believing that insurgency is a political issue and it can be defused through negotiations.

Local Taliban are no doubt a problem Pakistan needs to address but in doing so it cannot allow relaxation of the war on international terrorism which is the main concern of the United States. Both aims have to be pursued simultaneously. The alliance would become untenable if one side seeks to promote its own objectives at the expense of the other. Pakistan cannot evade its obligation under international law to prevent abuse of its territory by Al Qaeda terrorists and Afghan Taliban. The Taliban regime had to pay a high price for allowing Al Qaeda to establish a base for international terrorism on Afghan soil.

Cognizant of its obligation, Pakistan tried to prevent entry of Al Qaeda and Taliban fleeing Afghanistan after 9/11. Our armed forces engaged them and intercepted, arrested or killed hundreds of intruders. Scores of notorious ones were handed over to US authorities, extradited or deported. But others managed to carve out a sanctuary in the cavernous mountainous terrain of the autonomous tribal areas which were familiar to Al Qaeda since the Afghan liberation struggle and where local inhabitants were sympathetic and even reverential to Arab jihadis. The fight against outlaws has entailed high costs in lives for Pakistani forces but they have continued efforts to locate and eliminate foreign terrorists. If too many have eluded pursuit it is often because of protection by local militants motivated by ideological affinity, tribal tradition of hospitality to asylum-seekers or crass considerations.

The task of clearing Pakistan territory of foreign terrorists has become interminable because Al Qaeda’s advocacy of struggle has drawn new recruits from Central Asian and other foreign countries as well as Taliban from within Pakistan. Their ranks have grown because antagonism and hatred have been fuelled by multiple grievances. A credible impression prevails of US indifference if not hostility to legitimate causes of Muslim peoples and spread of Islamophobia, social and economic discrimination, selective targeting of Muslims residents and visitors for harassment and dissemination of blasphemous anti-Islam propaganda in the West. Also relatives and friends of innocent victims of so-called collateral damage join militants to take revenge. Rectification of grievances would be a complex exercise even if there was an appreciation of the causes and political will on part of the United States and other Western countries of which unfortunately there is no sign.

Such a difficult popular and political environment in Pakistan is obviously not conducive for an objective reappraisal of policy by the democratic government. Yet it has to make the effort patiently and carefully so as to prevent damage to Pakistan-US cooperation which is vital for Pakistan no less than for the United States. The key to a solution lies in making a distinction between Al Qaeda with an international agenda, Afghan Taliban whose primary aim is power in Afghanistan and Pakistani Taliban and tribal militants who are motivated largely by their opposition to Pakistan’s alliance with the United States and its deleterious consequences for their internal aims.

A comprehensive strategy should make it emphatically clear that Pakistan’s attempt to wean back the Pakistani Taliban and militants would not relax military operations aimed at expulsion of Al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban from Pakistan territory. Washington on its part can and should help Pakistani initiative by relying on Pakistani forces for action against Al Qaeda encampments in Pakistan and by joining Pakistan to provide compensation to families of victims of collateral damage.

Meanwhile there should be no doubt in Washington about the goodwill of the leadership of Pakistan People’s Party towards the United States. It cannot ignore the indispensable contribution Washington made towards persuading President Pervez Musharraf to take off uniform, withdraw emergency and hold fair, free and transparent elections. Even more important was the National Reconciliation Ordinance that President Musharraf proclaimed as part of the deal with former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Without this unprecedented concession granting indemnity from criminal cases pending in courts involving alleged violations of laws prior to October 1999, the struggle for revival of democracy would have been more protracted and probably also sanguinary.

Bijing’s mature response to reactionaries

Comment
Abdul Sattar

ACTING with restraint to rioting against Chinese inhabitants of Lhasa on March 14, the Chinese government has refrained from excessive use of force, acted with proportionate firmness to contain the section of Tibetans misled by reactionaries resident abroad and took enlightened steps to expose malevolent propaganda by allowing a dozen representatives of foreign news agencies to visit the Tibetan capital and see evidence confirming its version of the events. It has thus checkmated the design of traditionally hostile lobbies from making a mountain of a molehill. Those who might have been tempted to exploit the situation for self-serving propaganda appear to have realized that in dealing with powerful and dynamic China discretion is better part of misguided valour. President George W. Bush phoned President Hu Jintao for an amicable hour-long conversation. The United States has disavowed speculation about intention to boycott the Olympics. President Sarcozy of France who kept the option open last week is unlikely to pursue the idea.

Every decent person supports respect for human rights and every respectable state has an obligation to protect and promote equal rights of all citizens without discrimination on basis of race, religion, gender, nationality or language. This is part of rapidly evolving international law which has however to be taken to its logical conclusion in integral practice of legal principles by states. Meanwhile observers have to be objective. They have to appreciate that developing countries cannot be expected to achieve in one leap standards enunciated in the Universal Declaration and International Covenants on of Human Rights regarding civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rights. China’s record is by far above the global average. No country in the world has ever lifted so many hundreds of people out of poverty as has the People’s Republic in the last thirty years. Buddhist People of Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs of Xinjiang are participating in spreading prosperity as also in progressive extension of personal freedom across China.

Lobbies with a history of hostility towards the People’s Republic of China tried to pounce on the unfortunate incidents in Lhasa to mount a campaign of defamation and vilification totally disproportionate to both the scale of reported unrest and the action taken by Chinese police in order to restore peace and normalcy. Foreign drum-beaters ignored the fact that Tibet is an integral part of Chinese territory, so recognized by the United Nations as also almost all countries of the world. States cannot forget their obligation under international law to respect China’s integrity and refrain from support, instigation or encouragement of separatism amounting to interference in internal affairs. Paradoxically those who were loudest in maligning China also suffer from convenient amnesia about the dismal human rights record of their own governments that fail to protect minorities and bring perpetrators of communal carnages to justice. They also forget history of aggression by their countresi against other states, massacres of thousands of people under their illegal occupation, torture of prisoners and brutal executions under detention. Cleary such practitioners of double standards cannot command credibility or make an impact on decent opinion int he world.

Take for instance the havoc perpetrated in Iraq since 2003. According to credible reports half a million people have been killed, a million or more have been forced to take refuge in Jordan and Syria, twice that number have been made homeless inside, power generation has been crippled by bombing and nearly half the total population is deprived of potable water. Still the President of the United States takes pride in bringing democracy to Iraq. Yet another contrast glares in the West’s annual commemoration of Tiananmen Square in their enduring neglect of Gujarat where thousands were butchered with the connivance of the state government. A hundred thousand people lost their lives in the Kashmiri struggle for the right of self-determination pledged to them by the Security Council but flag-bearers of freedom do not shed even a crocodile tear for them.

Convincing evidence of foreign interference in China has been documented in the book entitled CIA’s Secret War in Tibet by James Morrison and Kenneth Conboy. Richard Bennet of AFI in a timely research article in Asia Times has recalled that for two decades CIA funded subversion in Tibet and maintained close relationship with Indian intelligence. Dalai Lama has been allowed to use a base in India for waging a campaign to destabilize Tibet. Former senior Indian intelligence officer B. Raman has reported said that the March 14 uprising in Lhasa was preplanned and orchestrated from abroad.

Non-interference in internal affairs is an obligation under the universally recognized principles of international law sanctified in the United Nations Charter. States that violate this principle on the pretext of support for human rights in foreign countries in pursuit of narrow political gain cannot serve the cause they profess to champion. An objective if not sympathetic stance mindful of shortcomings at home is more likely to achieve the desirable goal and at the same time foster international peace and cooperation.

Policies for a better future policy

Abdul Sattar

FEBRUARY 18th’s was not the first fair and free election in our history and it alone cannot extricate our nation from the escalating spiral of challenges in which we are trapped. Getting out of the welter of political, economic and social problems will require a firm grasp of the nature and depth of the crises and planning and implementing salutary strategies. Our leaders failed to do so in 1971 and as a result the ship of state foundered. Following elections in 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1997 victorious political parties wasted too much of their time and attention on politics of confrontation and personal goals, sapping energies that should have been devoted to improving governance and consolidating democracy. Hopefully, lessons have been learnt and leaders elected this time will ensure that no justification or pretext is provided ever again to any would-be dictator. Past breakdowns of constitutional rule have exacted too high a price in nation’s unity, confidence and capacity to sustain civilized democratic institutions. Pakistan just cannot afford another relapse.

Emphasis of all parties on goodwill and harmony is a good augury. Another positive factor is necessity of coalitions at the centre and in three of the provinces which should constrain cooperation between major parties. Pakistan People’s Party and Awami National Party have already agreed to work in unison and Pakistan Muslim League (N) has assured support to PPP-led government even though it may not join it pending a solution of its principled demands for reinstatement of ousted justices of superior courts and restoration of 1973 constitution. Muttahida Qaumi Movement and Jamiatul Ulema-i-Islam of Maulana Fazalur Rahman have indicated willingness to join government. Equally auspicious is graceful acceptance of defeat by Pakistan Muslim League (Q) and the unprecedented pledge to play a constructive role in opposition.

This new political environment represents a sea-change from traditional politics of opposition for sake of opposition which should be an invaluable asset for the new government. But it will not by itself pull us out of the vortex. That will require redress of grievances against the previous government and solution of problems that add to the burden of their lives. Our practical and patient people will no doubt allow time to the parties they supported but with promises of leaders fresh in their minds they are bound to hope for beginning of relief from deteriorating security conditions preoccupy of insecurity of life, high food prices and energy crisis. These complex problems will not be easy to resolve.

Scourge of Terrorism. Most complex of the problems haunting people is that of spreading terrorism with mounting toll of innocent lives. It is the most complex because planners of violence are faceless men with diverse and ambiguous political and religious aims. Some are said to be opposed to Pakistan’s current alliance with the United States in the war on terror. Others want government to withdraw its forces from territories they want to rule such as Waziristan and Swat. Still others want education ministry to refrain from interfering in the syllabus they want to teach and training they want to impart in madaris. Analyzed in depth, each of these demands will be found to be unreasonable.

Taking first the demand for end to participation in the war on terror, it involves more than might appear at first sight. For, this policy was necessitated by objective circumstances following the 9/11 outrage when the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council adopted unanimous resolutions of sympathy and support for the United States as well as for action to bring the culprits to justice. The United States then sent its forces to topple the Taliban and dislodge Al Qaeda. NATO and other countries joined military operations in Afghanistan. Pakistan did not send forces to Afghanistan but faced with incursions of Al Qaeda and Afghan Taliban it had to take action against them in order to prevent abuse of its territory for terrorist activities.

The assumption that Pakistan will not be targeted by Al Qaeda and Taliban if it renounces alliance with the United States is rather facile. What the terrorists want is freedom to use Pakistan territory as a base for terrorist operations which Pakistan cannot permit without violating its obligation under international law and exposing itself to international sanctions as well as to possible attacks by US, NATO and other forces in Afghanistan on hideouts of terrorists in Pakistan. In addition Islamabad should have to analyze consequences of renouncing the alliance for its capacity to restrain and resist foreign and home-bred terrorists from operations in Pakistan. Still another question is whether Pakistan can acquiesce in the demand for withdrawal of forces from Waziristan, Swat and other places, and allow the militants to impose their agenda? There should be no doubt about the consequences. Surrender to demands of militants in administered or even autonomous Tribal Areas would mean free rein for them to establish their own writ, administration, laws and courts in violation of Pakistan’s constitution.

Logical analysis of implications and consequences makes it obvious that surrender is not an option. It militants were reasonable and humane law men they would not indulge in brainwashing impressionable youth to become suicide bombers and perpetrate massacres of innocent people. Those who believe it is till possible to reach an understanding with militants and extremists must therefore elaborate their assumptions and offer a strategy that might persuade the militants to revise their demands and make them consistent with the constitution and laws of the state. The new government anxious to pursue a more efficacious policy can be expected to welcome and closely examine one or more feasible alternatives.

Considering that Pakistan’s founding fathers were enlightened leaders with firm faith in moderation and respect for religions diversity, we need to study causes of the rise of religious extremism and militancy. Almost all terrorist incidents are attributed to our own people, mostly impressionable youth. Clearly, something has gone wrong in our educational system and a strategy needs to be devised to inculcate moderation and tolerance in religious beliefs. A conference in Darul Uloom, Deoband, recently issued a declaration condemning terrorism. One wishes ulema in Pakistan would convene a similar conference. Particularly necessary are authoritative scholarly interpretations of the doctrine of jihad and concept of kufr which are too often mistranslated to justify violence against those who do not accept the dogmas of extremists who appear unaware of the fact that humanity believes in dozens of religions and philosophies. Almost all people in the world are born in religions they profess and almost all die in the religion in which they are born. Clearly that is evidence enough for peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. Public media should also be harnessed to broadcast the message that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy.

A suggestion: For peaceful coexistence in our world marked by variety and diversity of religious beliefs the community of nations has formulated a large body of principles that have been endorsed also by most sates with predominantly Muslim populations. The International Bill of Human Rights includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, and two International Covenants on Civil and Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Knowledge of these principles is indispensable for peace in human society. One of the principles affirms everyone’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. And the right is as fundamental as everyone’s obligation to respect the right of others to the same. Respect for religious beliefs of others is a logical prerequisite for expectation of respect for one’s own religious belief. All parents want their children to study their religion, but children should also be enabled to learn about diversity of religious beliefs and principles endorsed by humanity and the necessity of respect for beliefs of others.

Right choice of priorities
Terrorism, economy, governance

Comment
Abdul Sattar

TWO news items on Monday highlighted the juxtaposition between terrorism and Islam. Lt. Gen. Mushtaq Baig, killed along with seven other persons by a suicide bomber in Rawalpindi, was the highest military officer and a highly qualified and experienced medical expert reputed also for piety. Secondly, 20,000 scholars assembled at Darul Uloom, Deoband, progenitor of conservative madaris in India and Pakistan, condemned terrorism reminding the world that Islam is a religion of mercy for all humanity. They also declared murder as one of gunah-i-kabira – gravest sins. Muslims should know all that but evidently masterminds who incite Muslim youth to commit such terrorist acts violate this basic tenet of faith and at their behest the scourge has spread across our land. Meanwhile, it is of some comfort to read that Pakistan People’s Party cochairman Asif Zardari told a foreign correspondent that his party regards terrorism as one of ‘very serious’ challenges facing our country. People hope this statement presages urgent attention by the government his party has been elected to lead.
Unfortunately solution to this problem is going to be hard. Extremists, foreigners and our own are rigid in their determination to impose their own agenda which is at cross purposes with the vision of our founding fathers of a democratic, moderate and progressive Pakistan ruled under a contemporary constitution framed by its leaders. Wherever they get a chance the extremists set up parallel administration, police, legal system and courts. They have too many acolytes and brain-washed followers ready to kill and get killed. In contrast, government has lost credibility due to corruption and maladministration, and courage and commitment of functionaries has suffered erosion. Few of those who promise reforms bring requisite credentials and reputation.
Hopefully, political leaders have been chastened by adversity to turn a new leaf and political parties will now bring a new resolve to improve governance. But even so they are obstructed by road blocks erected by autocratic rule in recent years. Still a smooth transition to democratic rule appears problematic. No single party commands majority at the centre to force the issue. Perhaps the principled decision of Pakistan Muslim League (N) to support a PPP-led government at the centre but not to join the coalition until the road blocks have been removed will awaken the President to the necessity of getting out of the way. Until then PPP has to shoulder the responsibility of clearing the way.
The challenge before PPP is hard. Committed to the deal on coexistence intermediated between its deceased leader and the President by Washington, PPP can at best try to persuade the President to see the writing on the wall. Meanwhile, it has done well to seek advice from legal and constitutional experts on ways to resolve the issue of reinstatement of ousted judges of superior courts. Equity demands the injustice should be rectified. So long as that is not done bar associations and civil society will not rest in peace. The matter has to be defused if not fully resolved before the anniversary of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Choudhry’s illegal suspension on March 9 last year. Supreme Court Bar Association President Aitzaz Ahsan – a star of the PPP - has given fair warning of countrywide protest. Not only Tehrik-i-Insaf, Jamaat-i Islami and other constituent parties of All Pakistan Democratic Movement are bound to agitate the issue.
PML-N also insists on prior resolution of issues relating to the President’s questionable reelection by National and Provincial Assemblies barely days before expiry of their mandate, constitutionality of November-3 emergency and admissibility of amendments decreed by him in violation of prescribed procedures for changes in the basic law of the land. These are hard nuts to crack. PPP, PML-N and Awami National Party may put together two-thirds majority in the National Assembly but not in the Senate. Perhaps the coalition will find less formal political levers to achieve the purpose within the time given to it by PML-N. Already, President Musharraf is reported to have pondered resignation. The constitution confines the head of state to ceremonial duties and requires him to refrain from policy pronouncements and free-wheeling press conferences unless previously cleared by the Prime Minister. Such deprivation of accustomed power combined with loss of respect due to barrage of criticism by media, civil society and even former Army colleagues could make fading away an attractive option.
Other even more difficult problems requiring fast-track policy decisions are economic imbalances, rocketing prices of consumer staples and shortages of power and gas supply. Swing of votes to PPP and Pakistan Muslim League (N) in the February 18 election was in no small degree attributable to popular outrage against PML (Q)’s failure to take timely remedial measures.
The new government cannot be expected to ensure a quick fix. But it should promptly task economic experts to formulate extrication strategies in order to set the country on road to higher agricultural and industrial production. Increase in procurement price of wheat to 510 rupees per 40 kilos (12.75 rupees per kilo) is too small and its announcement on February 25, two months after the passing of the sowing season, is too late. Area under wheat has declined. With smuggling to Afghanistan and India notoriously difficult to prevent, inadequate production could once again catch us in a squeeze at a time when world food production is at a low ebb and within last year wheat price has risen from $130 to $500 a ton equal to 30 rupees a kilo!
On positive side, a provident government should seek to improve governance by replacing personal fiat with institutional decision making. The executive has to shed power and the parliament and judiciary need empowerment to discharge their constitutional functions. As different political powers have won plurality in provinces, federal government should extend them cooperation in exercise of their autonomy. Any differences that emerge should be resolved strictly in accordance with the constitution. Chief of Army Staff has done well to pull Army out of politics and recall officers seconded to civilian ministries. Agencies that have infiltrated civilian administration have to be leashed and morale and confidence of civil servants has to be rebuilt.
Meanwhile, the new government would deserve the good wishes of all citizens for success in addressing the multiple challenges it confronts. It can retain this goodwill so long as it is seen to be sincerely embarked on reform.

Road ahead rocky but beckoning

Abdul Sattar

The Farsi proverb ‘Zaban-i-khalq naqqara-i-Khuda’ – Voice of people is God’s trumpet – distills the wisdom of the ancients and surely it would be wise for victorious leaders to heed the message that has come loud and clear out of the election on February 18. The core of that message is demand for rectification of the wrongs done since March 9. Until then the country was basking in the sunshine of economic progress and President’s popularity rating was high. Then civil society was convulsed by the suspension of the Chief Justice, violation of the rule of law, imposition of emergency and evisceration of the superior judiciary. Anger combined with the rage of the masses at the food and power crises to generate a powerful tsunami of protest that has swept out most of those who colluded in the iniquities. Opposition parties successfully capitalized on the opportunity but they will now be under pressure to deliver on promises of rectification of the wrong decisions of the past year. They should not expect a long honeymoon. Angry people are short of patience.
Not one but all the political parties that have benefited from the popular upsurge owe it to the electorate to work in unison. They have to because no single party is in a position to go it alone. Pakistan People’s Party commands a plurality in the National Assembly but it cannot form the government by itself. Pakistan Muslim League (N) with only about one-fourth of the total seats in the National Assembly is in even greater need of PPP’s support if only because, unlike PPP which has won an absolute majority in Sindh, PML-N depends on PPP also to form government in Punjab. The alliance between them may appear natural but it will not be without difficulties. Firstly bitterness of close contests between them during the election campaign has left bruises too fresh to forget. More substantively, they have to work out compromises between their differing strategies with regard to key issues. While the late Benazir Bhutto reportedly accepted the US suggestion for coexistence with President Pervez Musharraf, PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif will find that pill too bitter to swallow. Moreover, he has gone public after the election to call for resignation of the President and restoration of the judges of the superior courts. PPP has reservations on both these issues.
Fortunately for both PPP and PML-N formation of a national government offers a way out. Such an alliance could justify compromises and a more patient strategy for fulfillment of election promises. Awami National Party has a lot to offer in exchange for PPP’s support in NWFP. Its unblemished record of principled politics and strong commitment to good and honest governance will lend prestige to PPP and PML-N. Both should be anxious to win ANP’s association if only to improve their reputation based on record of performance on the 1990s. The plea for time to rectify difficult issues of legal and constitutional excess might win understanding as new governments have to first address current food and power crises. Nor can PML (Q) be entirely ignored because it remains the third largest party in the National Assembly with 37 seats and has won plurality in Balochistan.
The new government needs time for negotiations with the President. He may be expected to understand that political parties cannot betray their election promises without mortal damage to credibility. Civil society and the legal fraternity are important and articulate segments of society and cannot be indefinitely ignored. Besides, the glaring injustice to sixty honourable justices has to be rectified. A way out could be found in restoring the judges and using the additional strength of the superior courts to speed up delivery of justice and dispose off the accumulated case load and bring relief to litigants.
The question of constitutionality of amendments to the constitution decreed by the President after November 3 is more difficult but less urgent. Unless addressed with great care and discretion, it could trigger a confrontation between the President and the new government which both sides can ill-afford. While the President has little support in the new National Assembly, the coalition government would lack two-thirds majority in both houses of the parliament necessary for amending the constitution. A mature approach should resort to persuasion of the President to agree to return to the constitution as it existed prior to October 1999. The other point to remember is that military interventions in the past did not rely on any provision in the constitution. The best way for political governments to preclude repletion is to deny the opportunities corruption at high levels and egregious misrule provided for extra-constitutional interventions.
The question of President’s title to a second term requires a similarly sophisticated approach. Most of the members of the dying Assemblies that reelected him have been defeated in the election. Therefore neither in law nor in logic is the mandate they gave binding on the new Assemblies for the next five years. Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, the President might himself take the initiative of seeking a vote of confidence by the new Assemblies. If necessary the new government might advise him to do so. Only in extremis might the issue be brought to the floor of the National Assembly.
Fortunately, the country is well placed in the international mainstream. It can count on the goodwill and support of influential powers. Percipient observers have noted that foreign policy was not a controversial matter in the election campaign. Religious parties which exploited popular hostility towards US military intervention in Afghanistan during the 2002 election campaign remained all but silent this time around. Foreign terrorists who have abused Pakistan territory for planning and perpetrating bomb blasts and suicide attacks that have killed hundreds of innocent people are now totally isolated. A broad realization prevails that for its own sake Pakistan has to fight these terrorists and their Pakistan acolytes who have defamed Islam and provoked discrimination against Muslims in other states.
Presence of large number of election observers from European Union and the United States including powerful legislators and media persons no doubt encouraged those in government who were anxious to do their duty for fair and free elections, and discouraged and deterred others with evil intentions, so that the poll was transparent and credible. Noting with grateful appreciation the contribution of foreign friends, the nation can breathe with relief at having averted dangers of rigging, and elected members of National and Provincial Assemblies can devote their attention and energies to addressing the people’s agenda.
One can only hope and wish that the new government will also find time to promote consensus on long-term issues that underlie the problem of poverty. Development of human and physical resources provides the key to a better future. Education has to receive the highest priority. Also decision needs to be expedited on construction of new water reservoirs. Addition to water storage is indispensable for increasing agricultural production and power generation.

Tide of violence and terrorism stemmed by Armed Forces

Abdul Sattar

FIRST Swat and now Darra Adam Khel have been cleared of Taliban militants substantiating hope this mortal threat to peace and stability of tribal territories and adjoining areas of Frontier Province can be contained by determined action of the nation’s security forces. Use of state forces is unavoidable when religious mountebanks instigate fanatical followers to disrupt efforts for economic and social development, unleash violence and subject peaceful citizens to terrible suffering. These adventurers have defied persuasion to act within bounds of law and reason and continue to make unacceptable demands requiring the government in effect to abandon parts of the country to their autocratic rule. Some of them even declared the establishment of an emirate in South Waziristan and issued edicts for burning schools for girls and torching businesses they dubbed as un-Islamic.
Given the history of the tribal territories, government’s thin presence and lack of