A
Aaj key KAALAM 10 June, 2009
- Thread starter arshad_lahore
- Start date
- Promote your thread
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
The endgame target: a weak nuclear defanged Pakistan
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Shireen M Mazari
First, a brief comment on the Obama address, since much has already been written about it. Certainly, for a US president, the address was a major shift in approach but it was sad to see how he referred to the 3,000 plus innocent victims of 9/11, but not a word about the well over one million Muslim deaths as a result of the Bush-launched retaliatory war stretching from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nor was Obama willing to concede that the 9/11 attackers were Saudis and not from this part of the world. It was also sad to see rhetoric accepting that force would not resolve Pakistan's problems but the reality of continuing use of force through drones.
The one major positive substantive policy shift beyond mere rhetoric was the reaching out to Iran for talks without preconditions. This should be an eye-opener for the servile past and present leadership of this nation Iran stood by its nationalist posture and brought the US to where it wanted: a dialogue amongst two sovereign powers. On the Middle East one has to wait and see what actually happens on the ground since Obama also seemed unwilling to accept the electoral success of Hamas which led him to state the bizarre claim that Hamas has "some support amongst the Palestinians!"
But there is little positive for Pakistan that one can expect from the US even under Obama. But then when we have a continuing compliant leadership willing to do all that the US bids, why should Obama adopt a healthier and more positive approach to Pakistan? The sight of the president and a mere ambassador, Holbrooke, standing side by side at a press conference really said it all. International beggars and grovellers our leaders have stripped us of all national dignity. The cowardice of our leadership was exposed by Holbrooke when he revealed that the Pakistani leadership had not taken up the drone issue with the US leadership at all. It is in this context, that many of us are concerned over the chief justice's meeting with Holbrooke now held on what can only be termed as terrible advice from the Foreign Office. Was it a deliberate ploy by the government to adversely impact the public perception of the chief justice? Was it simply coincidental that this meeting was advised by the government when the chief justice had made a reference to the NRO?
Meanwhile, with an unabated spread of violence across the country, and the renewed negative focus on our nuclear assets, we need to continue to connect the dots and realise the serious targeting of these assets and of those who will in the final analysis ensure their safety. Coincidences are becoming the hallmark of so many developments across the national spectrum, that there is also a need to see whether there is a deliberateness involved or are the timings truly coincidental. For instance, is it a mere coincidence that the ethnic battle is going on unabated in Karachi just when the nation is focused on the now-widening military action from Swat to FATA? Is this part of the overall plan to keep all parts of the country ignited so that the instability paradigm being plugged by the US and our other foreign detractors continues to sound credible and prepares the ground for taking control of our nuclear assets?
As for the military operation, it is becoming ever more evident that this may be open-ended since there is still no overarching political strategy for the post-military scenario. One sees no effort to build the civil capacity for taking over from the military. It appears as if the civil government has simply handed over all responsibility to the military and has gone into a state of mental paralysis instead of ensuring that local governance and security capacity is created within the civil administration.
Is it a mere coincidence that our military is being propelled into endless operations within the country at a time when India has begun a campaign against the Pakistan army? According to a Times of India report (May 16), Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has told Obama that some of Pakistan's nuclear sites are already in 'radical' hands! Reaching out to anti-nuclear lobbies in countries like Japan, Indian analysts like Brahma Chellaney (closely linked to the Indian establishment) have begun a campaign declaring that it is Pakistan's 'military insiders' who are a threat to the country's nuclear assets. Probably basing his erroneous assumption on the fact that the Indian military has become increasingly Hindutva-oriented, he asserts that the Pakistan army has been infiltrated by a jihadist culture and both "Islamists (Jehadi, Islam, Islamists all these terms are randomly used interchangeably by Chellaney) and US-sponsored generals" are labelled as threats to international peace and security. This theme is played out to its ridiculous conclusion that the US must take over Pakistan's nukes!
Chellaney is just one of a handful of Indian and US analysts who periodically revive the campaign against Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The leader of the pack is David Albright whose histrionics against Pakistan have become so absurd that Peter Lee, a businessman who has been writing on Asian affairs for over thirty years, felt compelled to write an article entitled, "The world does not have a Pakistan nukes problem -- it has a David Albright problem" the title says it all. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter not only exposed Albright's claims to being a UN weapons inspector in an article "The nuclear expert who never was", he also pointed out that "Albright has a track record of making half-baked analyses derived from questionable sources seem mainstream. He breathes false legitimacy into these factually-challenged stories by cloaking himself in a resume that is disingenuous." Incidentally it was Scott Ritter who also wrote that Holbrooke was the wrong man for the job when Holbrooke was appointed as special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan and many of his arguments are now becoming more evident.
While one expects external detractors to play the anti-Pakistan nuke game, is it a mere coincidence that some of our local papers have suddenly become full of locally written articles full of forebodings regarding our nukes? Is it a mere coincidence that one of the leading native critics of our nuclear weapons, a physicist, has simultaneously appeared in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists alongside physicist Albright for some years now? There is a two-pronged strategy that is now becoming obvious in relation to Pakistan's nukes: externally the drummed-up scare over our command and control despite the fact that it is the US that has revealed the disarray of its own command and control and internally using local critics of Pakistan's nuclear weapons to sow doubts regarding the relevancy of atomic weapons (although if this was the case why the US is pursuing a programme for mini-nukes, etc) and to create a falsehood that such a capability is a liability for Pakistan.
Why is there such renewed attention on our nukes? It would appear that we have moved beyond India in certain critical developments. We already had the uranium enrichment advantage (India's was a plutonium-based weapon); now we have managed the plutonium-based skills also. Our delivery systems have moved from trial tests to training tests, and second strike capability is on the horizon also.
No wonder our foreign detractors are desperate to gain access at all costs. A new, third prong has been added to their strategy the floating of trial balloons of offers of civil nuclear assistance kept deliberately vague to see how much access can be gained through non-US sources that may have more credibility in the country. The talk of French nuclear assistance is part of this game we had begun to reach out to France during the India-US nuclear deal negotiations; now Sarkozy, a close ally of the US, has moved on this front and there is a deliberate ambivalence that is still being maintained. A story was also leaked of a US offer of civil nuclear assistance but insiders have denied this.
This is a dangerous game that is being played with Pakistan. Of course, if our leaders had the gumption, they would insist that our new impending safeguards agreements with the IAEA should only be on the Indian model. Our leaders should ask France and the US to support us in our move to demand that the IAEA give us the same country-specific safeguards agreement given to India for civilian facilities. Otherwise, all offers on nuclear cooperation are suspect and should be refuted but that requires a major shift in our rulers' prevailing subservient mind set.
The writer is a defence analyst.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Shireen M Mazari
First, a brief comment on the Obama address, since much has already been written about it. Certainly, for a US president, the address was a major shift in approach but it was sad to see how he referred to the 3,000 plus innocent victims of 9/11, but not a word about the well over one million Muslim deaths as a result of the Bush-launched retaliatory war stretching from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nor was Obama willing to concede that the 9/11 attackers were Saudis and not from this part of the world. It was also sad to see rhetoric accepting that force would not resolve Pakistan's problems but the reality of continuing use of force through drones.
The one major positive substantive policy shift beyond mere rhetoric was the reaching out to Iran for talks without preconditions. This should be an eye-opener for the servile past and present leadership of this nation Iran stood by its nationalist posture and brought the US to where it wanted: a dialogue amongst two sovereign powers. On the Middle East one has to wait and see what actually happens on the ground since Obama also seemed unwilling to accept the electoral success of Hamas which led him to state the bizarre claim that Hamas has "some support amongst the Palestinians!"
But there is little positive for Pakistan that one can expect from the US even under Obama. But then when we have a continuing compliant leadership willing to do all that the US bids, why should Obama adopt a healthier and more positive approach to Pakistan? The sight of the president and a mere ambassador, Holbrooke, standing side by side at a press conference really said it all. International beggars and grovellers our leaders have stripped us of all national dignity. The cowardice of our leadership was exposed by Holbrooke when he revealed that the Pakistani leadership had not taken up the drone issue with the US leadership at all. It is in this context, that many of us are concerned over the chief justice's meeting with Holbrooke now held on what can only be termed as terrible advice from the Foreign Office. Was it a deliberate ploy by the government to adversely impact the public perception of the chief justice? Was it simply coincidental that this meeting was advised by the government when the chief justice had made a reference to the NRO?
Meanwhile, with an unabated spread of violence across the country, and the renewed negative focus on our nuclear assets, we need to continue to connect the dots and realise the serious targeting of these assets and of those who will in the final analysis ensure their safety. Coincidences are becoming the hallmark of so many developments across the national spectrum, that there is also a need to see whether there is a deliberateness involved or are the timings truly coincidental. For instance, is it a mere coincidence that the ethnic battle is going on unabated in Karachi just when the nation is focused on the now-widening military action from Swat to FATA? Is this part of the overall plan to keep all parts of the country ignited so that the instability paradigm being plugged by the US and our other foreign detractors continues to sound credible and prepares the ground for taking control of our nuclear assets?
As for the military operation, it is becoming ever more evident that this may be open-ended since there is still no overarching political strategy for the post-military scenario. One sees no effort to build the civil capacity for taking over from the military. It appears as if the civil government has simply handed over all responsibility to the military and has gone into a state of mental paralysis instead of ensuring that local governance and security capacity is created within the civil administration.
Is it a mere coincidence that our military is being propelled into endless operations within the country at a time when India has begun a campaign against the Pakistan army? According to a Times of India report (May 16), Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has told Obama that some of Pakistan's nuclear sites are already in 'radical' hands! Reaching out to anti-nuclear lobbies in countries like Japan, Indian analysts like Brahma Chellaney (closely linked to the Indian establishment) have begun a campaign declaring that it is Pakistan's 'military insiders' who are a threat to the country's nuclear assets. Probably basing his erroneous assumption on the fact that the Indian military has become increasingly Hindutva-oriented, he asserts that the Pakistan army has been infiltrated by a jihadist culture and both "Islamists (Jehadi, Islam, Islamists all these terms are randomly used interchangeably by Chellaney) and US-sponsored generals" are labelled as threats to international peace and security. This theme is played out to its ridiculous conclusion that the US must take over Pakistan's nukes!
Chellaney is just one of a handful of Indian and US analysts who periodically revive the campaign against Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The leader of the pack is David Albright whose histrionics against Pakistan have become so absurd that Peter Lee, a businessman who has been writing on Asian affairs for over thirty years, felt compelled to write an article entitled, "The world does not have a Pakistan nukes problem -- it has a David Albright problem" the title says it all. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter not only exposed Albright's claims to being a UN weapons inspector in an article "The nuclear expert who never was", he also pointed out that "Albright has a track record of making half-baked analyses derived from questionable sources seem mainstream. He breathes false legitimacy into these factually-challenged stories by cloaking himself in a resume that is disingenuous." Incidentally it was Scott Ritter who also wrote that Holbrooke was the wrong man for the job when Holbrooke was appointed as special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan and many of his arguments are now becoming more evident.
While one expects external detractors to play the anti-Pakistan nuke game, is it a mere coincidence that some of our local papers have suddenly become full of locally written articles full of forebodings regarding our nukes? Is it a mere coincidence that one of the leading native critics of our nuclear weapons, a physicist, has simultaneously appeared in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists alongside physicist Albright for some years now? There is a two-pronged strategy that is now becoming obvious in relation to Pakistan's nukes: externally the drummed-up scare over our command and control despite the fact that it is the US that has revealed the disarray of its own command and control and internally using local critics of Pakistan's nuclear weapons to sow doubts regarding the relevancy of atomic weapons (although if this was the case why the US is pursuing a programme for mini-nukes, etc) and to create a falsehood that such a capability is a liability for Pakistan.
Why is there such renewed attention on our nukes? It would appear that we have moved beyond India in certain critical developments. We already had the uranium enrichment advantage (India's was a plutonium-based weapon); now we have managed the plutonium-based skills also. Our delivery systems have moved from trial tests to training tests, and second strike capability is on the horizon also.
No wonder our foreign detractors are desperate to gain access at all costs. A new, third prong has been added to their strategy the floating of trial balloons of offers of civil nuclear assistance kept deliberately vague to see how much access can be gained through non-US sources that may have more credibility in the country. The talk of French nuclear assistance is part of this game we had begun to reach out to France during the India-US nuclear deal negotiations; now Sarkozy, a close ally of the US, has moved on this front and there is a deliberate ambivalence that is still being maintained. A story was also leaked of a US offer of civil nuclear assistance but insiders have denied this.
This is a dangerous game that is being played with Pakistan. Of course, if our leaders had the gumption, they would insist that our new impending safeguards agreements with the IAEA should only be on the Indian model. Our leaders should ask France and the US to support us in our move to demand that the IAEA give us the same country-specific safeguards agreement given to India for civilian facilities. Otherwise, all offers on nuclear cooperation are suspect and should be refuted but that requires a major shift in our rulers' prevailing subservient mind set.
The writer is a defence analyst.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Catastrophic results
Part I
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Random thoughts
Dr A Q Khan
The history of the human race is full of seemingly small incidents that have led to catastrophic results.
This holds true both for the distant past and for more recent events.
The first episode relates to the most un-diplomatic and arrogant behaviour displayed by Alauddin Khwarizm Shah. The Khwarezmid Empire was a highly developed area with a well-developed civilisation and high standard of education. It had been conquered by the famous Muslim general Qatiba bin Muslim in 714 A.D. (93 A.H.) It had beautiful gardens, lakes, rivers and orchards, and included present-day Iran, Afghanistan, Punjab and the area east of Uzbekistan and north of the Amu River. The city of Gergania was adopted as the capital and renamed Khwarizm.
Visitors to the area in those days described Gergania as the largest, most beautiful, richest city in existence. The nearby city of Khiva was maintained in its original form by the Russians as a national heritage centre of historic significance. The country's dynasty was founded by Khwarizm Shah and his kingdom extended all the way to the Indus River. However, all the wealth and grandeur caused him to become so arrogant that he humiliated the Caliph of Baghdad, the most revered figure in the Islamic world at that time. The result was that the Caliph encouraged Genghis Khan to reign him in and cut him down to size. Though possessing a large army, Alauddin avoided direct confrontation with Genghis Khan and stayed away from the Mongol army. In this manner the public became disheartened and lost all hope of facing up to the threat.
In the year1219 AD, while Alauddin was actively trying to destabilise the whole Muslim world by inciting neighbouring Muslim kingdoms and willing to attack even Baghdad, Genghis Khanthe valiant Mongol Emperor had extended his empire to northern China and eastern Europe. Their only common border was Utrar, a frontier town in Khwarizm. Realising that Alauddin had a vast empire and was a powerful King, Genghis Khan decided to cultivate friendly relations with him. He sent a letter and gifts suggesting trade and good-neighbourly relations. Alauddin was pleased by this and sent some expensive gifts in reciprocation. Genghis Khan then sent a caravan of about 400 Muslim traders to Khwarizm, which stopped at Utrar. The governor of Utrar, Ainalgaq, was Alauddin's uncle. When he saw all the valuable goods and the beautiful horses, he lost all sense of reality and thought only of getting hold of the goods. He falsely informed Alauddin that the traders were actually spies in disguise and should not be allowed to proceed. Alauddin, stupidly and without thinking out the consequences, ordered all the traders to be killed. Ainalgaq complied and confiscated all the goods. One trader survived, as he had been away from the camp at the time. He went back and informed Genghis Khan. Nontheless the Mongol emperor still showed tolerance and sent an emissary to Alauddin, asking him to either punish the governor for his mischief or to hand him over for dispensing justice. Alauddin , in his arrogance, had the emissary murdered. Genghis Khan sent yet another emissary, who complained about violation of diplomatic norms and Khwarizm's stooping to disgraceful acts. This emissary was also killed. When news of this reached Genghis Khan, he is reported to have gone to a nearby hill, raised his hands towards the sky and said: "O Creator of this world, Alauddin is not a king. He is a thief. He has violated all norms of diplomacy. Please give me the strength to destroy him." Alauddin, possessing an army of almost 500,000 soldiers and horses, sent troops to Utrar, Bokhara and Samarqand to protect them but the Mongol army swept aside all resistance like a whirlwind and wiped out each and every living soul in these cities.
The most unfortunate aspect of this episode is the fact that the Caliph Al-Nasir was indulging in intrigues against Khwarizm Shah and encouraging the Mongols to attack Khwarizm. Instead of forming a united front with Khwarizm Shah and Shamsuddin Altamash, king of India, Al-Nasir refused to help Jalaluddin, Alauddin's valiant son who had taken command of the available troops and put up stiff resistance to Genghis Khan for years. He was finally cornered on the bank of the river Indus and when he saw no way out, he and a few colleagues leapt into the river on horseback and swam to the other side. It is said that he was finally murdered by a Kurd whose brother had been slain by Khwarizmi soldiers. Thus were sown the seeds of the destruction of the Islamic Empire. Due to a last-minute change in plans by the Mongol emperor, Altamash of India was saved from Mongol wrath. In 1259 A.D. the last Caliph, Mustasim, was trampled to death by galloping horsemen on the orders of Genghis Khan's grandson Hulagu Khan history had taken its revenge. According to historians, the Mongols massacred more than 10 million Muslims in Bukhara, Merv, Samarqand, Bamiyan, Nishapur and Baghdad. Muslim disunity resulted in the total destruction of various kingdoms and subsequent colonialisation, first by the Mongols and then by the Russians and Europeans.
It seems people never learn from history. What happened almost 800 years ago seems to be repeating itself again. Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan would not be facing the situation they are in today if they had followed the Islamic religious edicts of mutual help, brotherhood, justice, kindness and avoidance of oppressive, unlawful wars. Jalaluddin Khwarizm Shah was a valiant warrior and fought bravely against the Mongols but was not helped by short-sighted Muslim rulers. Ultimately the Muslims faced the wrath of the Mongols and paid the price more than 10 million dead, cities razed and a whole Muslim empire had disappeared. In 1260 the Mongols tasted their first defeat near Nazareth at the hands of the valiant Mameluk sultan Al-Zahir Baybars of Egypt and then, in 1277, at Van near the Syrian border.
There will be more similar episodes in the next column.
Part I
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Random thoughts
Dr A Q Khan
The history of the human race is full of seemingly small incidents that have led to catastrophic results.
This holds true both for the distant past and for more recent events.
The first episode relates to the most un-diplomatic and arrogant behaviour displayed by Alauddin Khwarizm Shah. The Khwarezmid Empire was a highly developed area with a well-developed civilisation and high standard of education. It had been conquered by the famous Muslim general Qatiba bin Muslim in 714 A.D. (93 A.H.) It had beautiful gardens, lakes, rivers and orchards, and included present-day Iran, Afghanistan, Punjab and the area east of Uzbekistan and north of the Amu River. The city of Gergania was adopted as the capital and renamed Khwarizm.
Visitors to the area in those days described Gergania as the largest, most beautiful, richest city in existence. The nearby city of Khiva was maintained in its original form by the Russians as a national heritage centre of historic significance. The country's dynasty was founded by Khwarizm Shah and his kingdom extended all the way to the Indus River. However, all the wealth and grandeur caused him to become so arrogant that he humiliated the Caliph of Baghdad, the most revered figure in the Islamic world at that time. The result was that the Caliph encouraged Genghis Khan to reign him in and cut him down to size. Though possessing a large army, Alauddin avoided direct confrontation with Genghis Khan and stayed away from the Mongol army. In this manner the public became disheartened and lost all hope of facing up to the threat.
In the year1219 AD, while Alauddin was actively trying to destabilise the whole Muslim world by inciting neighbouring Muslim kingdoms and willing to attack even Baghdad, Genghis Khanthe valiant Mongol Emperor had extended his empire to northern China and eastern Europe. Their only common border was Utrar, a frontier town in Khwarizm. Realising that Alauddin had a vast empire and was a powerful King, Genghis Khan decided to cultivate friendly relations with him. He sent a letter and gifts suggesting trade and good-neighbourly relations. Alauddin was pleased by this and sent some expensive gifts in reciprocation. Genghis Khan then sent a caravan of about 400 Muslim traders to Khwarizm, which stopped at Utrar. The governor of Utrar, Ainalgaq, was Alauddin's uncle. When he saw all the valuable goods and the beautiful horses, he lost all sense of reality and thought only of getting hold of the goods. He falsely informed Alauddin that the traders were actually spies in disguise and should not be allowed to proceed. Alauddin, stupidly and without thinking out the consequences, ordered all the traders to be killed. Ainalgaq complied and confiscated all the goods. One trader survived, as he had been away from the camp at the time. He went back and informed Genghis Khan. Nontheless the Mongol emperor still showed tolerance and sent an emissary to Alauddin, asking him to either punish the governor for his mischief or to hand him over for dispensing justice. Alauddin , in his arrogance, had the emissary murdered. Genghis Khan sent yet another emissary, who complained about violation of diplomatic norms and Khwarizm's stooping to disgraceful acts. This emissary was also killed. When news of this reached Genghis Khan, he is reported to have gone to a nearby hill, raised his hands towards the sky and said: "O Creator of this world, Alauddin is not a king. He is a thief. He has violated all norms of diplomacy. Please give me the strength to destroy him." Alauddin, possessing an army of almost 500,000 soldiers and horses, sent troops to Utrar, Bokhara and Samarqand to protect them but the Mongol army swept aside all resistance like a whirlwind and wiped out each and every living soul in these cities.
The most unfortunate aspect of this episode is the fact that the Caliph Al-Nasir was indulging in intrigues against Khwarizm Shah and encouraging the Mongols to attack Khwarizm. Instead of forming a united front with Khwarizm Shah and Shamsuddin Altamash, king of India, Al-Nasir refused to help Jalaluddin, Alauddin's valiant son who had taken command of the available troops and put up stiff resistance to Genghis Khan for years. He was finally cornered on the bank of the river Indus and when he saw no way out, he and a few colleagues leapt into the river on horseback and swam to the other side. It is said that he was finally murdered by a Kurd whose brother had been slain by Khwarizmi soldiers. Thus were sown the seeds of the destruction of the Islamic Empire. Due to a last-minute change in plans by the Mongol emperor, Altamash of India was saved from Mongol wrath. In 1259 A.D. the last Caliph, Mustasim, was trampled to death by galloping horsemen on the orders of Genghis Khan's grandson Hulagu Khan history had taken its revenge. According to historians, the Mongols massacred more than 10 million Muslims in Bukhara, Merv, Samarqand, Bamiyan, Nishapur and Baghdad. Muslim disunity resulted in the total destruction of various kingdoms and subsequent colonialisation, first by the Mongols and then by the Russians and Europeans.
It seems people never learn from history. What happened almost 800 years ago seems to be repeating itself again. Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan would not be facing the situation they are in today if they had followed the Islamic religious edicts of mutual help, brotherhood, justice, kindness and avoidance of oppressive, unlawful wars. Jalaluddin Khwarizm Shah was a valiant warrior and fought bravely against the Mongols but was not helped by short-sighted Muslim rulers. Ultimately the Muslims faced the wrath of the Mongols and paid the price more than 10 million dead, cities razed and a whole Muslim empire had disappeared. In 1260 the Mongols tasted their first defeat near Nazareth at the hands of the valiant Mameluk sultan Al-Zahir Baybars of Egypt and then, in 1277, at Van near the Syrian border.
There will be more similar episodes in the next column.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Cock the hammer, it's time for action
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Mosharraf Zaidi
The writer advises governments, donors and NGOs on public policy.
The targeted killings taking place in Karachi have brought back memories of the 1990s and Operation Cleanup. That military operation effectively routed the street power of Version 1.0 of the MQM, disabled the organization of the MQM to mobilize young people for demonstrations of street power, and through the courts system, systematically delegitimized its leadership. It was an operational victory that disembowelled Karachi and its politics. Sensing that undercurrent of bitter resentment against the operation, Gen Musharraf and the military adopted a different strategy when they took power in 1999. The idea was to re-engage the MQM, largely on the back of the economic promise of Karachi, a massive urban area, by all international standards, that was left far behind in the global race between cities for investment capital, jobs and infrastructure. Karachi's retarded growth in the 1990s was not only a problem for Karachi, and for Muhajirs. It was a Pakistani problem. Solving the problem would produce many benefits, from rejuvenating the microeconomy of Karachi, to healing the political economy of Pakistan.
The strategy seemed to have worked. By engaging the MQM, the military was able to defuse much of the tension that had defined relations between urban Sindh and the Pakistani establishment. The engagement of course, came in the shape of making the MQM a partner in the traditional patron-pillage model of Pakistani politics. It did not come in the shape of substantive improvements in governance, but rather in the bells and whistles of roads, bridges, parks -- not to mention pomp and privilege for MQM ministers at the federal and provincial levels that had previously been hard to win, and easily lost. Of course, even though it achieved some things immediately, the strategy was also wrought with danger. The original grievances of the people that formed the MQM were never, ever, really addressed. One needn't have endorsed the original agenda of the MQM to see how linearly consistent it was Muhajir identity in urban Sindh. Simply put, the MQM wanted an end to the affirmative action (or positive discrimination) quota system in Sindh province and it wanted the repatriation of the almost 300,000 Pakistanis stranded in Bangladesh, back to Pakistan.
Instead of challenging the established political Holy Cow of Sindh's quotas, or beginning a process of reconciliation with itself, by absorbing the stranded Pakistanis of Bihar into Pakistan, the military supported Musharraf to do simply what any dictator would do. He bought his way out of the problem by providing the massive infrastructure grants to the MQM-dominated Karachi district government (but only after the people of Karachi got smart and elected an MQM administration at the local level).
The army and its chief, much the same way that the bureaucracy (and any given district commissioner) would have done, decided that a political force (like the MQM) cannot simply be killed off, or wished away. The plan was to simply mainstream the MQM into Pakistan's politics, neutralize the violent streak of a still nascent political entity, and allow the people of Karachi to live in a city they deserved -- peaceful, prosperous and ready for the 21st century. As formulated, it was a pretty good plan.
Of course, very much like a district commissioner, Gen Musharraf did what all bureaucrats trained to think in short-term tactics, instead of long-term strategy, do. He did whatever was necessary to achieve desirable outcomes in the present, disregarding both the past, and the future. Disregarding the past was a dangerous mistake because the clues to the MQM's political legitimacy did not lie in the party's ability to mobilize young people to exercise street power, it lay in the issues around which the All Pakistan Muhajir Students' Organization (APMSO) was originally formed, and which the MQM ostensibly stood for in its early days.
Disregarding the future was an ever more dangerous mistake, because there was no attempt during the Musharraf-era of trying to address the blemishes on the MQM's reputation, and hold people to account for indiscretions, crimes and misdemeanours. How could a military dictator dictate political ethics or moral equilibrium to a political party? Of course, he couldn't. But the point is that the baggage of being a steadfast ally of Musharraf is very heavy baggage to carry.
The mistake that Pakistanis will make, in trying to understand the latest string of violence in Karachi is to either demonize or defend specific political parties -- the MQM, the ANP, and others. But arresting violence in Karachi is not fundamentally about politics, even though violence wears political clothes all the time. It is about the Pakistani state and its duty to protect citizens from violence -- no matter who is pulling the trigger. Failure to protect citizens is a grave failure. All around the country, this failure is increasingly prevalent.
Pakistan simply cannot afford the luxury of normative discussions about good and evil. Those days are over, and the era of endlessly meandering moral questions and answers in Pakistan needs to come to screeching halt if this country is to survive, in any meaningful way, these most testing of times.
It seems that no matter what the cause, and what the era, Karachi is like a theatre for mayhem ready to go, raring to go in fact, at the drop of whatever hat one can find -- where people that like to kill people can do it, and do it with impunity. No matter who is doing the killing, it is almost always innocent Pakistanis that are the ones dying. Everyone remembers the targeting of Shia doctors in the 1990s, but no Sunni was safe from bullets and bombs either. Muhajirs were not safe, and neither were Sindhis, Pakhtuns, Punjabis or Baloch. Now the battle lines are drawn differently, but similarly. The Winter '08 and Spring '09 collection was a barrage of ANP versus the MQM violence. And it seems the Summer '09 is going to be peppered with the MQM versus the MQM.
Some will call identity politics a poison. They'd be wrong. The ability of perpetrators of violence to indulge in violence, and to get away with it is the poison. There is really only one antidote to such poison. It is a state that can stand up to being bullied. It is a frontline police service capable of disincentivizing violence. Such a service must not only be a deterrent, it must also be ready to "cock the hammer", when "its time for action".
If someone wants to make living in Pakistan unsafe -- whether in Karachi, or Bajaur (or any place in between) -- the Pakistani state has to make the cost of doing so, prohibitively high. In other words, to quote Barack Obama, from a year ago, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." The Pakistani state has to start bringing guns to knife fights.
So far, the equation in Pakistan is that indulging in violence of any kind only accrues material and political benefits -- hardly any costs. As we're finding out in Swat, the tough guys aren't so tough when Pakistan demonstrates the kind of chutzpah that any state claiming to be an Islamic republic should have -- a keen eye for the violent guy. Using that keen eye to identify and disable violence is not only a functional necessity; it is the morally correct thing to do.
The caveat is that to uphold and retain moral superiority in the face of perpetrators of violence, the executors of violence need to have moral authority. Traditional politicians, (and indeed military officers that don't get out much) all continue to believe that their land holdings, wealth, popularity or uniforms afford them some kind of moral authority. They are wrong. Mad mullahs have discovered, thankfully, that their pulpits too are no source of moral authority.
Where there should be moral authority, Pakistanis have traditionally afforded little of it. Policemen that are dying left, right and centre in the line of duty. They fall silently and with little pomp. They not only need to be feted for their bravery, they need better equipment, better training, and a legal and regulatory framework that does away with the ambivalence of the Police Order 2002, the amendments to the order, and the impact of the rightful death of the magistracy as it had existed previously -- affording agents of the executive branch -- commissioners, district commissioners and assistant commissioners -- levels of authority that are completely inconsistent with democracy.
Unpacking this is a job, that is sadly far beyond the capacity of a ruling political elite that is still blinded by petty patronage. In NWFP and Balochistan, led by whatever second-tier resources that remain in the emaciated, but once proud and competent District Management Group, provincial governments are begging to be allowed to press the refresh button, and return to the "good old days" of magistracy. That train has left the station. A return to a Gen Zia's version of local governments (the 1979 law), as an escape from Gen Musharraf's version (the 2001 law) is like cutting off the nose to spite the face. It is a typically Pakistani state response to a problem. If this state wants to survive, it will have to do better.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Mosharraf Zaidi
The writer advises governments, donors and NGOs on public policy.
The targeted killings taking place in Karachi have brought back memories of the 1990s and Operation Cleanup. That military operation effectively routed the street power of Version 1.0 of the MQM, disabled the organization of the MQM to mobilize young people for demonstrations of street power, and through the courts system, systematically delegitimized its leadership. It was an operational victory that disembowelled Karachi and its politics. Sensing that undercurrent of bitter resentment against the operation, Gen Musharraf and the military adopted a different strategy when they took power in 1999. The idea was to re-engage the MQM, largely on the back of the economic promise of Karachi, a massive urban area, by all international standards, that was left far behind in the global race between cities for investment capital, jobs and infrastructure. Karachi's retarded growth in the 1990s was not only a problem for Karachi, and for Muhajirs. It was a Pakistani problem. Solving the problem would produce many benefits, from rejuvenating the microeconomy of Karachi, to healing the political economy of Pakistan.
The strategy seemed to have worked. By engaging the MQM, the military was able to defuse much of the tension that had defined relations between urban Sindh and the Pakistani establishment. The engagement of course, came in the shape of making the MQM a partner in the traditional patron-pillage model of Pakistani politics. It did not come in the shape of substantive improvements in governance, but rather in the bells and whistles of roads, bridges, parks -- not to mention pomp and privilege for MQM ministers at the federal and provincial levels that had previously been hard to win, and easily lost. Of course, even though it achieved some things immediately, the strategy was also wrought with danger. The original grievances of the people that formed the MQM were never, ever, really addressed. One needn't have endorsed the original agenda of the MQM to see how linearly consistent it was Muhajir identity in urban Sindh. Simply put, the MQM wanted an end to the affirmative action (or positive discrimination) quota system in Sindh province and it wanted the repatriation of the almost 300,000 Pakistanis stranded in Bangladesh, back to Pakistan.
Instead of challenging the established political Holy Cow of Sindh's quotas, or beginning a process of reconciliation with itself, by absorbing the stranded Pakistanis of Bihar into Pakistan, the military supported Musharraf to do simply what any dictator would do. He bought his way out of the problem by providing the massive infrastructure grants to the MQM-dominated Karachi district government (but only after the people of Karachi got smart and elected an MQM administration at the local level).
The army and its chief, much the same way that the bureaucracy (and any given district commissioner) would have done, decided that a political force (like the MQM) cannot simply be killed off, or wished away. The plan was to simply mainstream the MQM into Pakistan's politics, neutralize the violent streak of a still nascent political entity, and allow the people of Karachi to live in a city they deserved -- peaceful, prosperous and ready for the 21st century. As formulated, it was a pretty good plan.
Of course, very much like a district commissioner, Gen Musharraf did what all bureaucrats trained to think in short-term tactics, instead of long-term strategy, do. He did whatever was necessary to achieve desirable outcomes in the present, disregarding both the past, and the future. Disregarding the past was a dangerous mistake because the clues to the MQM's political legitimacy did not lie in the party's ability to mobilize young people to exercise street power, it lay in the issues around which the All Pakistan Muhajir Students' Organization (APMSO) was originally formed, and which the MQM ostensibly stood for in its early days.
Disregarding the future was an ever more dangerous mistake, because there was no attempt during the Musharraf-era of trying to address the blemishes on the MQM's reputation, and hold people to account for indiscretions, crimes and misdemeanours. How could a military dictator dictate political ethics or moral equilibrium to a political party? Of course, he couldn't. But the point is that the baggage of being a steadfast ally of Musharraf is very heavy baggage to carry.
The mistake that Pakistanis will make, in trying to understand the latest string of violence in Karachi is to either demonize or defend specific political parties -- the MQM, the ANP, and others. But arresting violence in Karachi is not fundamentally about politics, even though violence wears political clothes all the time. It is about the Pakistani state and its duty to protect citizens from violence -- no matter who is pulling the trigger. Failure to protect citizens is a grave failure. All around the country, this failure is increasingly prevalent.
Pakistan simply cannot afford the luxury of normative discussions about good and evil. Those days are over, and the era of endlessly meandering moral questions and answers in Pakistan needs to come to screeching halt if this country is to survive, in any meaningful way, these most testing of times.
It seems that no matter what the cause, and what the era, Karachi is like a theatre for mayhem ready to go, raring to go in fact, at the drop of whatever hat one can find -- where people that like to kill people can do it, and do it with impunity. No matter who is doing the killing, it is almost always innocent Pakistanis that are the ones dying. Everyone remembers the targeting of Shia doctors in the 1990s, but no Sunni was safe from bullets and bombs either. Muhajirs were not safe, and neither were Sindhis, Pakhtuns, Punjabis or Baloch. Now the battle lines are drawn differently, but similarly. The Winter '08 and Spring '09 collection was a barrage of ANP versus the MQM violence. And it seems the Summer '09 is going to be peppered with the MQM versus the MQM.
Some will call identity politics a poison. They'd be wrong. The ability of perpetrators of violence to indulge in violence, and to get away with it is the poison. There is really only one antidote to such poison. It is a state that can stand up to being bullied. It is a frontline police service capable of disincentivizing violence. Such a service must not only be a deterrent, it must also be ready to "cock the hammer", when "its time for action".
If someone wants to make living in Pakistan unsafe -- whether in Karachi, or Bajaur (or any place in between) -- the Pakistani state has to make the cost of doing so, prohibitively high. In other words, to quote Barack Obama, from a year ago, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." The Pakistani state has to start bringing guns to knife fights.
So far, the equation in Pakistan is that indulging in violence of any kind only accrues material and political benefits -- hardly any costs. As we're finding out in Swat, the tough guys aren't so tough when Pakistan demonstrates the kind of chutzpah that any state claiming to be an Islamic republic should have -- a keen eye for the violent guy. Using that keen eye to identify and disable violence is not only a functional necessity; it is the morally correct thing to do.
The caveat is that to uphold and retain moral superiority in the face of perpetrators of violence, the executors of violence need to have moral authority. Traditional politicians, (and indeed military officers that don't get out much) all continue to believe that their land holdings, wealth, popularity or uniforms afford them some kind of moral authority. They are wrong. Mad mullahs have discovered, thankfully, that their pulpits too are no source of moral authority.
Where there should be moral authority, Pakistanis have traditionally afforded little of it. Policemen that are dying left, right and centre in the line of duty. They fall silently and with little pomp. They not only need to be feted for their bravery, they need better equipment, better training, and a legal and regulatory framework that does away with the ambivalence of the Police Order 2002, the amendments to the order, and the impact of the rightful death of the magistracy as it had existed previously -- affording agents of the executive branch -- commissioners, district commissioners and assistant commissioners -- levels of authority that are completely inconsistent with democracy.
Unpacking this is a job, that is sadly far beyond the capacity of a ruling political elite that is still blinded by petty patronage. In NWFP and Balochistan, led by whatever second-tier resources that remain in the emaciated, but once proud and competent District Management Group, provincial governments are begging to be allowed to press the refresh button, and return to the "good old days" of magistracy. That train has left the station. A return to a Gen Zia's version of local governments (the 1979 law), as an escape from Gen Musharraf's version (the 2001 law) is like cutting off the nose to spite the face. It is a typically Pakistani state response to a problem. If this state wants to survive, it will have to do better.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Military operation and the fallout in Lower Dir
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Nasim Zehra
Originally under the control of the Nawab of Dir the area has been divided, subdivided and seen battles for ownership by local groups. The latest battle is one that the state of Pakistan must solely take responsibility for. A decades-long blundering and short-sighted policy has finally taken its toll. Now tanks and troops roll in to rectify the damage. Not an easy undertaking. Hundreds of thousands of the population is displaced, foreign insurgents freely hound our places and people are striking unholy alliances. The weakened state, rather a collaborating state is now attempting to make amends. It's a tough task. But one that cannot be ignored.
The strategic significance of Lower Dir is illustrated by the fact that on its west lies Afghanistan, on its south is Malakand and Bajaur, in its north is Chitral and on its east lies Swat. Of Lower Dir's approximately 130,000 population essentially 79 percent have left for safer places.
The local forces essentially consist of the Frontier Corps, known as Dir Scouts in the area. The Taliban have mounted offensive attacks gradually since end- March. Tensions have now spread to Upper Dir has well. The military commander maintain there is peace in five of the seven Lower Dir tehsils but what is seem while driving towards Maidaan,Chakdara and Gulabad signs of peace and security are not visible.
By mid-March violence raged in the area. The dates were of significance. None other than the local Frontier Corps commanders correlated the signing of first the February agreement between the NWFP government and the TNSM and the Nizam-e-Adl in April.
This reassertion of the Taliban was helped by the movements in the neighbouring Mohmand Agency's Mohmaghat post. Mohmand provides the basic linkage between Bajaur, Dir and Waziristan. The significance of Bajaur is relevant for Lower Dir as well. With Kandharo, the place where the Taliban had their base where there had training camps and force concentration, has road access to Lower Dir.
It was in Kandharo that the Taliban declared the existence of an alternate Lal Masjid. Soon after the Lal Masjid operation was conducted the local Taliban set up a "Lal Masjid" in a mosque adjacent to the Hajisahib Tarangazis shrine. It is this mosque which the Taliban turned into their base. On a huge wall there are names of the Taliban who were killed during the operation. Kandharo, hence, is the hub from where Taliban are supplied to other surrounding areas, including Lower Dir.
The state has hitherto not been able to prevent the movement of inter-agency Taliban. Indeed, a tall order! What however is important is that the government must stop the easy movement of foreign militants from Kunar and Nagharhar in Afghanistan to the Suran Valley and beyond.
Buoyed by their foreign support, for example in Lower Dir, about 10 school kids were killed in a suicide bombing attack. Following that about 10 major blasts took place, killing dozens of locals. An estimated 80 people died. A local commercial bank manager was kidnapped and later killed. Similarly a DCO was also killed in early April. The kidnappers demanded a Rs20-million ransom. Finally they killed him. A similar fate awaited a local tehsildar. The hitherto banned FM radio station became active. Regular Taliban intercepts picked up indicated influx of foreign Taliban using the Kunar Valley-Suran Valley routes near Momandghat post bordering Bajaur and the Mohmand Agency.
Finally the government and the GHQ agreed to launch an operation between the night of April 25-26, with the Dir Scouts using two army units and an armoured unit. An about 2,000-strong force, including logistical support, was launched. Maidan aread was attacked. The significance of Maidan lies in its being the hub of Sufi Mohammad, the TNSM chief. The famous Qambar Bazaar passes through this stronghold--essentially Sufi Mohammad's residential area. Sufi Mohmamad's following has naturally been the strongest here. Above the Qambar Bazaar lies a strategically important post, the Kalapani post.
Kalapani lies at a height, just the perfect vantage point from where to hit the enemy from a height. Linked to Kalapani is a matted road which comes onto Qambar Bazaar, giving access to those who control the Kalapnai post. Two other important posts that fall in the Maidan area are the Lala Qila and the Qambar posts.
According to the army's own estimates they are a fighting a force of no more than 500 to 600 Taliban. However, in the fishbowl battlefield of Maidan the strategic heights count. All Bajaur commanders repeatedly indicate that numerical superiority does not matter in the counter-insurgency battles fought in the mountainous terrain. The battle is treacherous. The IEDs are vastly spread. The locals can be on either side. Along the Timergarah-Maidan Road there are no guaranteed safe paths. In a quarter kilometre distance the media was taken by the army surrounded by hundred armed men, a tank ahead of us and dozens of troops perched on the jeep in which we sat. This is no safety zone in which civilians will return.
The Taliban too manage to go on the offensive. For example recently in Hayat Sarai the Taliban laid an ambush was a major surprise attack by the Taliban. Taliban had RPGs and mines and gave the army a tough fight.
It's a tough task all around. The occasional civilians seen on the roads wear the look of fear. Initially they worked with locals worked with an approach to co-existence with the Taliban initially. They asked them to say their prayers in the mosque, they offered to provide them protection, to pray for Allah's blessings. But subsequently they demanded that these people make financial contributions and also contribution. There is an appreciation that the operation may have brought destruction but there is hope that it may bring peace and security in the region.
Irrespective of what news may trickle out from either the Taliban or the army the fact is that the battle for Kalpani post and the control of the Qambar-Timergarah road still rages. Indeed reports suggest that the battle will be over soon. It is unlikely that a definitive answer is in the offing.
The counterinsurgency strategy is a tough one to implement.
The writer is an Islamabad-based security analyst.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Nasim Zehra
Originally under the control of the Nawab of Dir the area has been divided, subdivided and seen battles for ownership by local groups. The latest battle is one that the state of Pakistan must solely take responsibility for. A decades-long blundering and short-sighted policy has finally taken its toll. Now tanks and troops roll in to rectify the damage. Not an easy undertaking. Hundreds of thousands of the population is displaced, foreign insurgents freely hound our places and people are striking unholy alliances. The weakened state, rather a collaborating state is now attempting to make amends. It's a tough task. But one that cannot be ignored.
The strategic significance of Lower Dir is illustrated by the fact that on its west lies Afghanistan, on its south is Malakand and Bajaur, in its north is Chitral and on its east lies Swat. Of Lower Dir's approximately 130,000 population essentially 79 percent have left for safer places.
The local forces essentially consist of the Frontier Corps, known as Dir Scouts in the area. The Taliban have mounted offensive attacks gradually since end- March. Tensions have now spread to Upper Dir has well. The military commander maintain there is peace in five of the seven Lower Dir tehsils but what is seem while driving towards Maidaan,Chakdara and Gulabad signs of peace and security are not visible.
By mid-March violence raged in the area. The dates were of significance. None other than the local Frontier Corps commanders correlated the signing of first the February agreement between the NWFP government and the TNSM and the Nizam-e-Adl in April.
This reassertion of the Taliban was helped by the movements in the neighbouring Mohmand Agency's Mohmaghat post. Mohmand provides the basic linkage between Bajaur, Dir and Waziristan. The significance of Bajaur is relevant for Lower Dir as well. With Kandharo, the place where the Taliban had their base where there had training camps and force concentration, has road access to Lower Dir.
It was in Kandharo that the Taliban declared the existence of an alternate Lal Masjid. Soon after the Lal Masjid operation was conducted the local Taliban set up a "Lal Masjid" in a mosque adjacent to the Hajisahib Tarangazis shrine. It is this mosque which the Taliban turned into their base. On a huge wall there are names of the Taliban who were killed during the operation. Kandharo, hence, is the hub from where Taliban are supplied to other surrounding areas, including Lower Dir.
The state has hitherto not been able to prevent the movement of inter-agency Taliban. Indeed, a tall order! What however is important is that the government must stop the easy movement of foreign militants from Kunar and Nagharhar in Afghanistan to the Suran Valley and beyond.
Buoyed by their foreign support, for example in Lower Dir, about 10 school kids were killed in a suicide bombing attack. Following that about 10 major blasts took place, killing dozens of locals. An estimated 80 people died. A local commercial bank manager was kidnapped and later killed. Similarly a DCO was also killed in early April. The kidnappers demanded a Rs20-million ransom. Finally they killed him. A similar fate awaited a local tehsildar. The hitherto banned FM radio station became active. Regular Taliban intercepts picked up indicated influx of foreign Taliban using the Kunar Valley-Suran Valley routes near Momandghat post bordering Bajaur and the Mohmand Agency.
Finally the government and the GHQ agreed to launch an operation between the night of April 25-26, with the Dir Scouts using two army units and an armoured unit. An about 2,000-strong force, including logistical support, was launched. Maidan aread was attacked. The significance of Maidan lies in its being the hub of Sufi Mohammad, the TNSM chief. The famous Qambar Bazaar passes through this stronghold--essentially Sufi Mohammad's residential area. Sufi Mohmamad's following has naturally been the strongest here. Above the Qambar Bazaar lies a strategically important post, the Kalapani post.
Kalapani lies at a height, just the perfect vantage point from where to hit the enemy from a height. Linked to Kalapani is a matted road which comes onto Qambar Bazaar, giving access to those who control the Kalapnai post. Two other important posts that fall in the Maidan area are the Lala Qila and the Qambar posts.
According to the army's own estimates they are a fighting a force of no more than 500 to 600 Taliban. However, in the fishbowl battlefield of Maidan the strategic heights count. All Bajaur commanders repeatedly indicate that numerical superiority does not matter in the counter-insurgency battles fought in the mountainous terrain. The battle is treacherous. The IEDs are vastly spread. The locals can be on either side. Along the Timergarah-Maidan Road there are no guaranteed safe paths. In a quarter kilometre distance the media was taken by the army surrounded by hundred armed men, a tank ahead of us and dozens of troops perched on the jeep in which we sat. This is no safety zone in which civilians will return.
The Taliban too manage to go on the offensive. For example recently in Hayat Sarai the Taliban laid an ambush was a major surprise attack by the Taliban. Taliban had RPGs and mines and gave the army a tough fight.
It's a tough task all around. The occasional civilians seen on the roads wear the look of fear. Initially they worked with locals worked with an approach to co-existence with the Taliban initially. They asked them to say their prayers in the mosque, they offered to provide them protection, to pray for Allah's blessings. But subsequently they demanded that these people make financial contributions and also contribution. There is an appreciation that the operation may have brought destruction but there is hope that it may bring peace and security in the region.
Irrespective of what news may trickle out from either the Taliban or the army the fact is that the battle for Kalpani post and the control of the Qambar-Timergarah road still rages. Indeed reports suggest that the battle will be over soon. It is unlikely that a definitive answer is in the offing.
The counterinsurgency strategy is a tough one to implement.
The writer is an Islamabad-based security analyst.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Private diplomacy
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Ahmed Quraishi
The extent of foreign interference in Pakistan has turned our country into Swiss cheese. The ostensible meeting that a US diplomat organized at her private residence between an Indian diplomat and several senior Pakistani government officials is the latest sign of how dangerously soft the Pakistani state has become. The Foreign Office was obviously pushed by other departments of the government to issue a subtle warning to bureaucrats to intimate the government if foreign diplomats approach them and try to conduct private diplomacy outside regular channels. The conduct of 'private diplomacy' has become so prevalent in the past three years and the profile of those involved so high that it is bound to have serious implications for national security.
While there is nothing strange about foreign diplomats in Islamabad relying on cocktail parties for information gathering because they can no longer move freely due to security, especially for US diplomats, there is still a huge question mark over this particular incident. Except for the Indian diplomat, no other foreigners were invited to meet the senior Pakistani bureaucrats, among them a senior member of the prime minister's secretariat.
The subtle reminder by the Foreign Office to government officials is a good idea but is not enough. This reminder has to expand to include powerful people, party leaders and politicians. Over the past three years, and right under the noses of our intelligence agencies, a foreign government has organized all-expense-paid trips for mayors and district-level officials in Balochistan, NWFP and Sindh to the United States. These were not your average get-to-know visits. They included meetings with US government officials and military-linked representatives whose jobs do not involve any mayoral or city-government concerns.
This was not limited to mayors and district officials. Leaders from major Pakistani political parties have been conducting private diplomacy without the knowledge of the government, and without any protest from the Pakistani side. The problem with these contacts is that no one knows what part of the foreign government is organizing this effort. Last August something stunning happened in this regard when the US State Department discovered that Washington's envoy to the UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad was directly in contact with the head of a major Pakistani political party, now our president, often speaking to him more than once every week, without the Department knowing anything about it.
The stunning part is that while the Pakistani government had no problem with this, it was the US government that protested. "What sort of channel is this, governmental, private, personnel?" A senior US government officer questioned Mr Khalilzad. "Please advise and help me so that I understand what's going on here." The fact that Mr Khalilzad's answer was not made public adds to the mystery and should have raised concerns in Islamabad as well. But it didn't.
To be fair, Pakistani politicians may not have exactly started this. The original sin was committed by a military man, former President Pervez Musharraf, who in late 2006 allowed two junior foreign diplomats America's Richard Boucher and Britain's Peter Lyall Grant to engineer domestic Pakistani politics. This was the beginning of overt foreign interference in Pakistani affairs. The overt examples of private diplomacy flourished after that.
Political parties and individual officials have no right to conduct private diplomacy with foreign governments. But after Mr Musharraf's indiscretion, serious transgressions have gone unnoticed. In another serious incident, our ambassador to Washington actually bypassed the Foreign Office to arrange in March in Dubai a secret meeting between our president and a much junior US government officer. Why our president consented to this is another question but the real concern here is how a Pakistani diplomat can do this with impunity.
The political parties act needs to be amended to proscribe direct contact between politicians and foreign governments without the presence of a government representative. To do this the mindset in Islamabad needs to be changed top to bottom. A nuclear-armed nation on a strategically precarious rollercoaster can ill afford to become exposed like a Swiss cheese.
The writer works for Geo TV.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Ahmed Quraishi
The extent of foreign interference in Pakistan has turned our country into Swiss cheese. The ostensible meeting that a US diplomat organized at her private residence between an Indian diplomat and several senior Pakistani government officials is the latest sign of how dangerously soft the Pakistani state has become. The Foreign Office was obviously pushed by other departments of the government to issue a subtle warning to bureaucrats to intimate the government if foreign diplomats approach them and try to conduct private diplomacy outside regular channels. The conduct of 'private diplomacy' has become so prevalent in the past three years and the profile of those involved so high that it is bound to have serious implications for national security.
While there is nothing strange about foreign diplomats in Islamabad relying on cocktail parties for information gathering because they can no longer move freely due to security, especially for US diplomats, there is still a huge question mark over this particular incident. Except for the Indian diplomat, no other foreigners were invited to meet the senior Pakistani bureaucrats, among them a senior member of the prime minister's secretariat.
The subtle reminder by the Foreign Office to government officials is a good idea but is not enough. This reminder has to expand to include powerful people, party leaders and politicians. Over the past three years, and right under the noses of our intelligence agencies, a foreign government has organized all-expense-paid trips for mayors and district-level officials in Balochistan, NWFP and Sindh to the United States. These were not your average get-to-know visits. They included meetings with US government officials and military-linked representatives whose jobs do not involve any mayoral or city-government concerns.
This was not limited to mayors and district officials. Leaders from major Pakistani political parties have been conducting private diplomacy without the knowledge of the government, and without any protest from the Pakistani side. The problem with these contacts is that no one knows what part of the foreign government is organizing this effort. Last August something stunning happened in this regard when the US State Department discovered that Washington's envoy to the UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad was directly in contact with the head of a major Pakistani political party, now our president, often speaking to him more than once every week, without the Department knowing anything about it.
The stunning part is that while the Pakistani government had no problem with this, it was the US government that protested. "What sort of channel is this, governmental, private, personnel?" A senior US government officer questioned Mr Khalilzad. "Please advise and help me so that I understand what's going on here." The fact that Mr Khalilzad's answer was not made public adds to the mystery and should have raised concerns in Islamabad as well. But it didn't.
To be fair, Pakistani politicians may not have exactly started this. The original sin was committed by a military man, former President Pervez Musharraf, who in late 2006 allowed two junior foreign diplomats America's Richard Boucher and Britain's Peter Lyall Grant to engineer domestic Pakistani politics. This was the beginning of overt foreign interference in Pakistani affairs. The overt examples of private diplomacy flourished after that.
Political parties and individual officials have no right to conduct private diplomacy with foreign governments. But after Mr Musharraf's indiscretion, serious transgressions have gone unnoticed. In another serious incident, our ambassador to Washington actually bypassed the Foreign Office to arrange in March in Dubai a secret meeting between our president and a much junior US government officer. Why our president consented to this is another question but the real concern here is how a Pakistani diplomat can do this with impunity.
The political parties act needs to be amended to proscribe direct contact between politicians and foreign governments without the presence of a government representative. To do this the mindset in Islamabad needs to be changed top to bottom. A nuclear-armed nation on a strategically precarious rollercoaster can ill afford to become exposed like a Swiss cheese.
The writer works for Geo TV.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
A changed Pakistan
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Masood Sharif Khan Khattak
Way back in the 1960s Pakistan was truly on the move. The early Ayub years gave us the "Green Revolution" because of the construction and commissioning of dams such as Mangla and Tarbela. Barrages were erected all the way down to the Guddu near Hyderabad. These dams and barrages gave birth to an efficient network of canals and small distributaries which in the sixties not only made Pakistan self-sufficient but surplus in agricultural products. In the 60s the building that we all know as Habib Bank Plaza in Karachi was the tallest building all the way from the Middle East down to Singapore. In the 60s almost every army, navy and air force in the Middle East was being manned by Pakistani officers and men. We literally raised those armed forces. Many airlines that operate from the Gulf have actually been trained, organised and manned by PIA staff when they initially started operations. Today they are amongst the best in the world while PIA is in a total mess.
In 1972 it was Pakistan that created history and paved the way for the world to move in the direction that it actually has moved by being instrumental in bringing about President Richard Nixon's visit to Beijing (then Peking). That visit helped both China and USA equally and opened the world to be shaped as it is today. Not long after that, in 1979, if Pakistan had not taken on the USSR on its own initially, along with the Afghan Mujahideen, the world today would have been very different.
One can go on recounting many more aspects of Pakistan to show what a potently viable country it should have been today with an economy strong enough to stand it in good stead for exercising an independent foreign policy as well as in bringing about an environment in which the country would have had a content population which would, in turn, have excluded space to all sorts of disruptions.
What, then, went wrong and why do people now talk in terms of whether Pakistan will be able to outlast its present crisis? Pakistan indeed lost its way in the years that followed the incidents I have quoted; military coups, the judicial murder of an elected prime minister, frequent derailing of the political process, an erratic foreign policy pursued by a bunch of minds that were driven by reasons other than prudent statecraft, importing of self-seeking bankers and making them prime ministers, denying of provincial autonomy to the federating units, allowing ethnic and other kinds of militancy to grow, letting fiefdoms be created right under the nose of the state, making talent become subservient to cronyism, treating education as if it was insignificant and so much more is all responsible for the dire straits we find ourselves in after having made a great start in the early years of our freedom.
It is said that South Korea laid its foundations for progress and prosperity on Pakistan's First Five Year Plan. Pakistan never made a second five-year plan and in fact the First Five Year Plan was followed by ad hocism. Who knows, had Pakistan followed its own First Five Year Plan like South Korea did, in the subsequent years Pakistan too may well have been one of the biggest economies of the world today. (South Korea is now the fourth-biggest of Asia and the world's15th.)
Most Pakistanis are known to have a strong faith in the country's ability to bounce back from the wilderness. Pakistan is not a country that can be written off because a handful of insurgents have taken the state on frontally and because the state has not responded as responsibly as it ought to have ever since the crisis was evolving. Reacting to situations when crises explode in the face cannot be the best of situations for any state. The present crisis should never have got to where it now stands. Now that it has and now that it has to be handled, let all Pakistanis take strength form the fact that this great country needs to be put back on the track from which it got derailed in the 60s. We Pakistanis have to once again regain our lost glory and win back our rightful, respectable and dignified place in the comity of nations. We can and must do it.
The writer is former director general of the Intelligence Bureau and former vice president of the PPP Parliamentarians.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Masood Sharif Khan Khattak
Way back in the 1960s Pakistan was truly on the move. The early Ayub years gave us the "Green Revolution" because of the construction and commissioning of dams such as Mangla and Tarbela. Barrages were erected all the way down to the Guddu near Hyderabad. These dams and barrages gave birth to an efficient network of canals and small distributaries which in the sixties not only made Pakistan self-sufficient but surplus in agricultural products. In the 60s the building that we all know as Habib Bank Plaza in Karachi was the tallest building all the way from the Middle East down to Singapore. In the 60s almost every army, navy and air force in the Middle East was being manned by Pakistani officers and men. We literally raised those armed forces. Many airlines that operate from the Gulf have actually been trained, organised and manned by PIA staff when they initially started operations. Today they are amongst the best in the world while PIA is in a total mess.
In 1972 it was Pakistan that created history and paved the way for the world to move in the direction that it actually has moved by being instrumental in bringing about President Richard Nixon's visit to Beijing (then Peking). That visit helped both China and USA equally and opened the world to be shaped as it is today. Not long after that, in 1979, if Pakistan had not taken on the USSR on its own initially, along with the Afghan Mujahideen, the world today would have been very different.
One can go on recounting many more aspects of Pakistan to show what a potently viable country it should have been today with an economy strong enough to stand it in good stead for exercising an independent foreign policy as well as in bringing about an environment in which the country would have had a content population which would, in turn, have excluded space to all sorts of disruptions.
What, then, went wrong and why do people now talk in terms of whether Pakistan will be able to outlast its present crisis? Pakistan indeed lost its way in the years that followed the incidents I have quoted; military coups, the judicial murder of an elected prime minister, frequent derailing of the political process, an erratic foreign policy pursued by a bunch of minds that were driven by reasons other than prudent statecraft, importing of self-seeking bankers and making them prime ministers, denying of provincial autonomy to the federating units, allowing ethnic and other kinds of militancy to grow, letting fiefdoms be created right under the nose of the state, making talent become subservient to cronyism, treating education as if it was insignificant and so much more is all responsible for the dire straits we find ourselves in after having made a great start in the early years of our freedom.
It is said that South Korea laid its foundations for progress and prosperity on Pakistan's First Five Year Plan. Pakistan never made a second five-year plan and in fact the First Five Year Plan was followed by ad hocism. Who knows, had Pakistan followed its own First Five Year Plan like South Korea did, in the subsequent years Pakistan too may well have been one of the biggest economies of the world today. (South Korea is now the fourth-biggest of Asia and the world's15th.)
Most Pakistanis are known to have a strong faith in the country's ability to bounce back from the wilderness. Pakistan is not a country that can be written off because a handful of insurgents have taken the state on frontally and because the state has not responded as responsibly as it ought to have ever since the crisis was evolving. Reacting to situations when crises explode in the face cannot be the best of situations for any state. The present crisis should never have got to where it now stands. Now that it has and now that it has to be handled, let all Pakistanis take strength form the fact that this great country needs to be put back on the track from which it got derailed in the 60s. We Pakistanis have to once again regain our lost glory and win back our rightful, respectable and dignified place in the comity of nations. We can and must do it.
The writer is former director general of the Intelligence Bureau and former vice president of the PPP Parliamentarians.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Can Obama work a miracle?
By Mazhar Qayyum Khan | Published: June 10, 2009
Obama's was a singularly remarkable speech. It is hard to find a leader in his position, president of a superpower, who has spoken about the burning issues of the day in such a disarmingly candid and manifestly rational way in recent times. In thoughts, tone and words he sounded genuinely concerned at the dangerous course of events - the spread of "violent extremism", the persistent tension in the Middle East needing a mere spark to flare up, the unchecked proliferation of nuclear weapons, for instance - that have made life miserable.
Pointing to a Quranic commandment, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth," President Barack Hussain Obama assured his listeners that he would try to follow the dictate - "to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us". And, indeed, no one (no political thinker or an ordinary newspaper reader or a man in the street) would belittle the formidable nature of challenges that confront the world. He swayed the minds of those present in the hall of Cairo University, who erupted in thunderous applause 43 times in a span of 50 minutes that his address took, demonstrating that they wholeheartedly went along with his utterances, yet all the while conscious of the real prospect that Mr Obama had, at the start of his talk, underscored that "no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust...that change cannot happen overnight".
The US President reverted to the holy Quran several times to strike a helpful chord with the Muslim world. No doubt, he impressed them. When he discussed, albeit cursorily, the issues that rankle with Muslims he seemed to understand their grievances, and the glimpses of solutions he gave sounded on the face of it acceptable to them. If words were enough to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, to get over the centuries'-old mistrust, Mr Obama carried the day but things are not so easy, and mere speeches even if they were scores in number, let alone one speech, cannot work miracles.
The Muslim world has for long been at the receiving end of political and social injustice meted out to them by the colonialist powers, and to the burden of history that the two civilisations carry with them has been added a long line of brutal events in which mainly the Muslim world continues to suffer (the Palestinian tragedy, for example) directly or indirectly at the hands of Western powers led by the US. Muslims would like the US President to follow up his words with definite moves. The new beginning that he visualises would have to wait at least till then. His address, which brought out the contribution of the Muslim world to human civilisation, could pave the way for fighting "negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear" that he promised. But to change the mindset could take generations, and for Muslims to respond likewise about America's stereotype in their minds would depend upon how Mr Obama delivers on the positive indications he gave in his speech.
As the audience learnt, some of his ideas must have come as a shock to those listeners who had vested interests in certain issues or had preconceived notions about them. They certainly were not expecting him to so sharply diverge from the line the previous American administrations had been taking.
Hopefully, Mr Obama's address would set in motion policies that could narrow the divide currently existing between Muslims on the one hand and the United States and the West on the other. It was most extensively broadcast around the globe, and attracted large audiences of people of all faiths and not just Muslims and the Western public. The attraction of a President of the United State of African origin was so great and the reputation he had built since he entered the presidential race that he was determined to reset policies for the good of mankind was so compelling that even those who had little acquaintance with the English language were seen watching him to deliver the address.
Broadly speaking, the issues President Obama pinpointed affected the lives of everyone on earth.
* "Violent extremism", by which he meant the raging fires of insurgencies in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, has caused dark shadows of insecurity around the world.
* The agonising cries of Palestinians reverberate wherever a right-minded person lives and wherever a Muslim heart beats. No less painful are the acts of Palestinian militants against the people of Israel.
* Obama's wish for a nuclear-free world rings like a utopian dream. Nevertheless, the ideal is worth working for to banish the spectre of doom that keeps hovering around.
* Lauding the virtues of democracy while in Egypt, which is ruled by an implacable dictator, reflected his courage as well as commitment to the cause.
* His views on religious freedom and women's rights would have irked the fanatical elements. Those Western countries, which see a lurking danger in every little girl wearing a dupatta or scarf and disregard the compulsions of culture and tradition to which she belongs must have been put off by his open denunciation of the violation of the principle of freedom of choice in dress provided it does not offend the accepted norms of decency.
* On the question of 'economic development and opportunity', he talked of exchange programmes, increase in the number of scholarships to Muslims and transfer of technology to Muslim majority countries.
In a globalised world of today it has become virtually impossible for a country to live as an isolated island of peace, while some parts of the world are being torn apart with strife. The remedy lies in sinking differences that give rise to the feelings of hostility and antiparty among nations and creating a climate of cooperation and partnership. It is this reasoning perhaps that led President Obama to say: "Yet in this new age, such attitudes (attempts at subjugating others) are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared."
Pious words, no doubt. They create an impression of genuineness and feeling of goodwill but at the same time impose a big responsibility upon President Hussain Obama to seriously work for translating them into reality. Can he work that miracle?
By Mazhar Qayyum Khan | Published: June 10, 2009
Obama's was a singularly remarkable speech. It is hard to find a leader in his position, president of a superpower, who has spoken about the burning issues of the day in such a disarmingly candid and manifestly rational way in recent times. In thoughts, tone and words he sounded genuinely concerned at the dangerous course of events - the spread of "violent extremism", the persistent tension in the Middle East needing a mere spark to flare up, the unchecked proliferation of nuclear weapons, for instance - that have made life miserable.
Pointing to a Quranic commandment, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth," President Barack Hussain Obama assured his listeners that he would try to follow the dictate - "to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us". And, indeed, no one (no political thinker or an ordinary newspaper reader or a man in the street) would belittle the formidable nature of challenges that confront the world. He swayed the minds of those present in the hall of Cairo University, who erupted in thunderous applause 43 times in a span of 50 minutes that his address took, demonstrating that they wholeheartedly went along with his utterances, yet all the while conscious of the real prospect that Mr Obama had, at the start of his talk, underscored that "no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust...that change cannot happen overnight".
The US President reverted to the holy Quran several times to strike a helpful chord with the Muslim world. No doubt, he impressed them. When he discussed, albeit cursorily, the issues that rankle with Muslims he seemed to understand their grievances, and the glimpses of solutions he gave sounded on the face of it acceptable to them. If words were enough to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, to get over the centuries'-old mistrust, Mr Obama carried the day but things are not so easy, and mere speeches even if they were scores in number, let alone one speech, cannot work miracles.
The Muslim world has for long been at the receiving end of political and social injustice meted out to them by the colonialist powers, and to the burden of history that the two civilisations carry with them has been added a long line of brutal events in which mainly the Muslim world continues to suffer (the Palestinian tragedy, for example) directly or indirectly at the hands of Western powers led by the US. Muslims would like the US President to follow up his words with definite moves. The new beginning that he visualises would have to wait at least till then. His address, which brought out the contribution of the Muslim world to human civilisation, could pave the way for fighting "negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear" that he promised. But to change the mindset could take generations, and for Muslims to respond likewise about America's stereotype in their minds would depend upon how Mr Obama delivers on the positive indications he gave in his speech.
As the audience learnt, some of his ideas must have come as a shock to those listeners who had vested interests in certain issues or had preconceived notions about them. They certainly were not expecting him to so sharply diverge from the line the previous American administrations had been taking.
Hopefully, Mr Obama's address would set in motion policies that could narrow the divide currently existing between Muslims on the one hand and the United States and the West on the other. It was most extensively broadcast around the globe, and attracted large audiences of people of all faiths and not just Muslims and the Western public. The attraction of a President of the United State of African origin was so great and the reputation he had built since he entered the presidential race that he was determined to reset policies for the good of mankind was so compelling that even those who had little acquaintance with the English language were seen watching him to deliver the address.
Broadly speaking, the issues President Obama pinpointed affected the lives of everyone on earth.
* "Violent extremism", by which he meant the raging fires of insurgencies in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, has caused dark shadows of insecurity around the world.
* The agonising cries of Palestinians reverberate wherever a right-minded person lives and wherever a Muslim heart beats. No less painful are the acts of Palestinian militants against the people of Israel.
* Obama's wish for a nuclear-free world rings like a utopian dream. Nevertheless, the ideal is worth working for to banish the spectre of doom that keeps hovering around.
* Lauding the virtues of democracy while in Egypt, which is ruled by an implacable dictator, reflected his courage as well as commitment to the cause.
* His views on religious freedom and women's rights would have irked the fanatical elements. Those Western countries, which see a lurking danger in every little girl wearing a dupatta or scarf and disregard the compulsions of culture and tradition to which she belongs must have been put off by his open denunciation of the violation of the principle of freedom of choice in dress provided it does not offend the accepted norms of decency.
* On the question of 'economic development and opportunity', he talked of exchange programmes, increase in the number of scholarships to Muslims and transfer of technology to Muslim majority countries.
In a globalised world of today it has become virtually impossible for a country to live as an isolated island of peace, while some parts of the world are being torn apart with strife. The remedy lies in sinking differences that give rise to the feelings of hostility and antiparty among nations and creating a climate of cooperation and partnership. It is this reasoning perhaps that led President Obama to say: "Yet in this new age, such attitudes (attempts at subjugating others) are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared."
Pious words, no doubt. They create an impression of genuineness and feeling of goodwill but at the same time impose a big responsibility upon President Hussain Obama to seriously work for translating them into reality. Can he work that miracle?
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Obama reaches out to Muslim world
By Dr Syed Farooq Hasnat | Published: June 10, 2009
President Barack Obama's Cairo speech to the Muslims, around the world is unique in a number of ways. It departed from the world vision of his predecessor George W. Bush. Secondly, unlike the Bush administration, he extended a hand of friendship, towards the Muslim masses as well as leaders. Thirdly, it recognized the importance and respect that the Muslims and their religion deserve. Fourthly, President Obama, to the frown of the Israeli lobby and warmonger Senators and Representatives in Washington, D.C., took pains to address the plight of the Palestinians. He said, "And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress." The President went on to say, emphatically: "So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own". These words were unheard during the previous administration. Twice in his tenure, Mr. Bush allowed and encouraged the Israelis to butcher hapless Palestinian women and children - once in Lebanon and then in the beached Gaza strip. To make matters worse he supported the growth of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian lands - giving more Israeli control over the lives of the residents, which in turn generated world wild resentment, hatred and militancy, amongst the Muslims.
Previously, for eight long years of the Bush Administration the American policy was dictated by hardliner neocons, who based their agenda on ideology and military might of the US. The support of Bush Administration came from the hard core Christian conservatives, who in their ideas and judgments resembled a lot with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda - the only difference being that of language and terminology. Bush administration got a lifelong chance to exert its ideology, when 9/11 happened. In the guise of "war against Islamic terrorism", it tried to revisit 17th-18th century style of colonialism in the Middle East and elsewhere, but could not succeed. A country like Iraq was invaded, without any valid reason and Iran remained under constant threat of attack. During his presidential campaign, candidate Obama was charged with being a Muslim or an Arab. His hardliner opponents also condemned him as a sympathizer of the Muslims. All Obama did was to change the course from hate and tensions, generated by the neocons, to a realistic US global vision, which is to understand that US is no more a superpower, that can at will dictate its terms to other societies. Rather, the world is quickly moving towards multiple centers of economic and political power. For that a policy of understanding and accommodation is needed to serve the American interests and to address its security concerns. In order to dispel global perception of being a bully, the US president emphasized that his country "is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire." President Obama represents the real Americans, who are friendlier, liberal and accommodating, which was reflected in his address to the people of the Muslim societies. Earlier, he had declared in Turkey that "United States is not and will never be at war with Islam," and that he wishes to establish relations with the Muslim people on the basis of mutual respect and understanding.
The American president spent quite a bit of his address on issues of education and social welfare in the lacking Muslim societies. He promised to spend at least $1.5 billion each year for the next five years in Pakistan for that purpose. In spite of chest thumping, self praise and some boosting by the official circles, Pakistan's education structure is in a big mess and progressively it has slipped down in the companionship of the least literate societies. Because of the lack of imagination and planning, the prospects for the future are equally bleak. Higher education and research in public sector is nonexistent as a culture of greed and luxury has overtaken the educators of this vital stratum, and they have transformed themselves as petty bureaucrats, spending most of their time in useless and result less gatherings, while paying no attention to investigation and innovation. Professionalism has been dealt a severe blow, as short cuts, cheating of various kinds, plagiarism and sycophancy has taken a high seat. Incompetence has become the order of the day. One good aspect of the promised aid is that this time, even at the annoyance of the high ups, its dispensation will be monitored. In the past most of the assistance was consumed by corrupt bureaucrats and military generals, leaving very little for the people to benefit. But aid alone would not do, drastic steps are needed to pull up the dragged education sector.
Barack Hussein Obama reminded the Muslims of their contribution towards research and innovation. He convincingly said, "As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality".
In spite of all the nice words that Obama has to say about the Muslims, countries like Pakistan must realize that they have to build themselves and to rely on their own efforts. As well, these societies have to solve their conflicts and problems within themselves, utilizing their societal structures and strengths. The US assistance at this delicate juncture can be helpful but ultimate responsibility for the security and wellbeing of the Pakistanis depend solely on how serious and dedicated are the policy makers.
The writer is Scholar, Middle East Institute, Washington, D.C.
By Dr Syed Farooq Hasnat | Published: June 10, 2009
President Barack Obama's Cairo speech to the Muslims, around the world is unique in a number of ways. It departed from the world vision of his predecessor George W. Bush. Secondly, unlike the Bush administration, he extended a hand of friendship, towards the Muslim masses as well as leaders. Thirdly, it recognized the importance and respect that the Muslims and their religion deserve. Fourthly, President Obama, to the frown of the Israeli lobby and warmonger Senators and Representatives in Washington, D.C., took pains to address the plight of the Palestinians. He said, "And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress." The President went on to say, emphatically: "So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own". These words were unheard during the previous administration. Twice in his tenure, Mr. Bush allowed and encouraged the Israelis to butcher hapless Palestinian women and children - once in Lebanon and then in the beached Gaza strip. To make matters worse he supported the growth of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian lands - giving more Israeli control over the lives of the residents, which in turn generated world wild resentment, hatred and militancy, amongst the Muslims.
Previously, for eight long years of the Bush Administration the American policy was dictated by hardliner neocons, who based their agenda on ideology and military might of the US. The support of Bush Administration came from the hard core Christian conservatives, who in their ideas and judgments resembled a lot with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda - the only difference being that of language and terminology. Bush administration got a lifelong chance to exert its ideology, when 9/11 happened. In the guise of "war against Islamic terrorism", it tried to revisit 17th-18th century style of colonialism in the Middle East and elsewhere, but could not succeed. A country like Iraq was invaded, without any valid reason and Iran remained under constant threat of attack. During his presidential campaign, candidate Obama was charged with being a Muslim or an Arab. His hardliner opponents also condemned him as a sympathizer of the Muslims. All Obama did was to change the course from hate and tensions, generated by the neocons, to a realistic US global vision, which is to understand that US is no more a superpower, that can at will dictate its terms to other societies. Rather, the world is quickly moving towards multiple centers of economic and political power. For that a policy of understanding and accommodation is needed to serve the American interests and to address its security concerns. In order to dispel global perception of being a bully, the US president emphasized that his country "is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire." President Obama represents the real Americans, who are friendlier, liberal and accommodating, which was reflected in his address to the people of the Muslim societies. Earlier, he had declared in Turkey that "United States is not and will never be at war with Islam," and that he wishes to establish relations with the Muslim people on the basis of mutual respect and understanding.
The American president spent quite a bit of his address on issues of education and social welfare in the lacking Muslim societies. He promised to spend at least $1.5 billion each year for the next five years in Pakistan for that purpose. In spite of chest thumping, self praise and some boosting by the official circles, Pakistan's education structure is in a big mess and progressively it has slipped down in the companionship of the least literate societies. Because of the lack of imagination and planning, the prospects for the future are equally bleak. Higher education and research in public sector is nonexistent as a culture of greed and luxury has overtaken the educators of this vital stratum, and they have transformed themselves as petty bureaucrats, spending most of their time in useless and result less gatherings, while paying no attention to investigation and innovation. Professionalism has been dealt a severe blow, as short cuts, cheating of various kinds, plagiarism and sycophancy has taken a high seat. Incompetence has become the order of the day. One good aspect of the promised aid is that this time, even at the annoyance of the high ups, its dispensation will be monitored. In the past most of the assistance was consumed by corrupt bureaucrats and military generals, leaving very little for the people to benefit. But aid alone would not do, drastic steps are needed to pull up the dragged education sector.
Barack Hussein Obama reminded the Muslims of their contribution towards research and innovation. He convincingly said, "As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality".
In spite of all the nice words that Obama has to say about the Muslims, countries like Pakistan must realize that they have to build themselves and to rely on their own efforts. As well, these societies have to solve their conflicts and problems within themselves, utilizing their societal structures and strengths. The US assistance at this delicate juncture can be helpful but ultimate responsibility for the security and wellbeing of the Pakistanis depend solely on how serious and dedicated are the policy makers.
The writer is Scholar, Middle East Institute, Washington, D.C.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
The final blow
By Farooq Hameed Khan | Published: June 10, 2009
Operation Rah-i-Rast has successfully achieved its immediate objectives of routing the Taliban militants including elimination of its middle and lower-tier leadership and securing the major cities and villages in Swat valley, yet the battle is far from being over.
The Taliban's military strategy calls for a temporary retreat when faced with a military defeat or total annihilation. Instead of fighting till the last fighter in the face of combined US and Northern Alliance onslaught in 2001, the Taliban abandoned Kabul and fled to the mountains only to regroup and launch hit-and-run attacks on Coalition forces within a few months. The battle for Mingora, was expected to be prolonged and bloody, but after initial resistance and heavy losses, the militants fled, enabling the Army to secure Mingora earlier than expected.
While the Taliban's command, control, communication and training network have been more or less destroyed in Swat valley, the fact that the top Taliban leadership and remaining militants have scattered into the mountains or moved to adjoining areas gives them the ability to regroup at a later stage.
To prevent the militants' re-emergence, the momentum of Operation Rah-i-Rast must be maintained to keep up the hot pursuit till their total elimination or surrender including the top leadership. All possible routes of infiltration and logistic support from Afghanistan must be blocked to prevent reinforcements aiding the Taliban militants, now on the run. With the Taliban myth shattered and the stunning fightback by the local lashkar in upper Dir, such armed uprisings need to be encouraged in other areas to help isolate and wipe out the remaining militants.
Operation Rah-i-Rast has finally exposed the involvement of the foreign hand that was being repeatedly referred to in the recent past. While Pak Army was engaged in intense operations in Swat valley, a US two star general amusingly stated, 'we are witnessing some interesting movement across the borders into Pakistan'. He was obviously referring to the hordes of Indian and foreign intelligence agencies' sponsored Tajiks, Uzbeks, Afghans and Indian agents infiltrating across the Durand Line in aid of the militants. Hundreds of these foreign militants have been killed or captured by the Army. Well General, who is playing the double game?
The Army, has also destroyed or captured large caches of US, Russian, Israeli and Indian origin weapons and ammunition from Taliban militant strongholds. Pak Army officers and men involved in Operation Rah-i-Rast have confirmed the use of sophisticated weapons including sniper rifles, rocket launchers etc by the well trained Taliban militants. Indian, Afghan and US currency were commonly found from the captured and dead militantsThe US Foreign Policy Journal had also highlighted in its earlier issue this year, that the Indians were neck deep in supporting the Tehrik-i-Taliban in Pakistan. It states, 'while the US media has frequently reported on Pakistani ties to the jihadi elements launching attacks in Afghanistan, it has less mentioned the Indian support for insurgent forces attacking Pakistan Army'.
Earlier in 2009, the Americans had admitted that the Pentagon did not have 'complete' record of about one third of the 242,000 weapons the US provided to the Afghan Army or for a further 135,000 weapons other countries sent. I still recall while serving in General Headquarters way back in the early nineties how meticulously the US Defence representatives in the American Embassy in Islamabad would periodically reconcile the serial numbers and location of each of those dozens of Stinger missiles that were left behind by the US forces or remained in Mujahideen custody for many years after the Afghan war.
It is unbelievable that the weapons from NATO/Afghan Army inventories went missing right under the nose of NATO and US forces in Afghanistan without their knowledge or to put it more aptly, has all this happened with their connivance and tacit approval? No one more responsible than the DG ISPR had sarcastically remarked, "stop worrying" about Pakistan's nukes and start worrying about the weapons gone 'missing' in Afghanistan".
One striking feature of Operation Rah-e-Rast is the high officer to jawan casualty ratio, almost 1:7, implying the shahadat of one officer for every 700 shaheed jawans. This strongly reflects the inspiring leadership, motivation and the spirit of comradeship that binds the officer leaders with their soldiers, that generates the true qualitative edge of our Army over any adversary. The Army has not only retained its core values but continues to build on its inner strength and cohesion that remain the envy of our enemies.
If Pak Army has successfully broken the back of the Swat militancy in key towns and villages, all credit to the PAF for the innumerable well planned and executed precision airstrikes that destroyed militant bases, ammo dumps, training centers, underground command structures etc in the inaccessible mountain terrain. The fact that the Air Chief visited troops in Mingora along with the COAS, speaks truly of inter service cooperation and special commitment of the PAF in such operations. Visit by the President and Supreme Commander or some from the army of ministers to meet troops on ground or even inquire about the wounded in CMHs are now overdue.
A recent article in The Washington Post by Christine Fair, a senior American political scientist associated with the Rand Corporation, a Washington Think Tank, indicates their mindset vis-a-vis trust in Pakistan's ruling elite. This write up calls for establishing a World Bank administered Trust Fund to oversee the expenditure of billions of dollars going to Pakistan so that they do not disappear into the pockets of well-connected kleptocrats and their cronies instead of helping the Pakistanis in need. This article appears in the backdrop of corruption scams involving government functionaries reported in the media almost every other day.
The real test of the government's credibility and sincerity to the cause of the IDPs therefore lies in the transparent and streamlined system of expenditure and accountability of all foreign aids and grants in support of the IDPs. At the domestic level, proliferation of many relief funds including those on behalf of the President, PM, Speaker, Governor, Chief Minister etc is likely to result in poor coordination and financial mismanagement etc. The government must rationalize the number of these funds and make public their receipts and expenditures on regular basis so as to put at rest apprehensions about their accounting and judicious utilization.
At a time when valiant officers and men of the Army and the civilians were shedding blood and sacrificing their lives in the battle for Pakistan, there came reports of our Embassy's grandiose royal dinners with some of our entertainment starved leaders enjoying the luxuries and nightlife of Washington and New York. The public has a right to ask if it was only their responsibility to offer sacrifices for the country; could not our worthy leaders have deferred their thirst for extravagance and fun for a more appropriate occasion later on.
If only the tales of heroism of many Shaheed sons of the soil like Capt Najam, Capt Asim, Capt Bilal, Lt Atif, Major Abid Majeed Malik, and the martyred jawans are known to the party swingers of Washington and New York, perhaps their heads would drop in permanent shame.
Operation Rah-e-Rast marks the beginning of the decisive battle to eliminate the militants to the last and restore the writ of the state. The operation must continue till all military objectives are fully achieved and lasting peace and security are ensured. In no way should the military gains of Operation Rah-i-Rast including the sacrifices of the courageous young officers and men be compromised for sake of political expediency.
The writer is a retired Brigadier and Chairman Editorial Board of National Defence Times
By Farooq Hameed Khan | Published: June 10, 2009
Operation Rah-i-Rast has successfully achieved its immediate objectives of routing the Taliban militants including elimination of its middle and lower-tier leadership and securing the major cities and villages in Swat valley, yet the battle is far from being over.
The Taliban's military strategy calls for a temporary retreat when faced with a military defeat or total annihilation. Instead of fighting till the last fighter in the face of combined US and Northern Alliance onslaught in 2001, the Taliban abandoned Kabul and fled to the mountains only to regroup and launch hit-and-run attacks on Coalition forces within a few months. The battle for Mingora, was expected to be prolonged and bloody, but after initial resistance and heavy losses, the militants fled, enabling the Army to secure Mingora earlier than expected.
While the Taliban's command, control, communication and training network have been more or less destroyed in Swat valley, the fact that the top Taliban leadership and remaining militants have scattered into the mountains or moved to adjoining areas gives them the ability to regroup at a later stage.
To prevent the militants' re-emergence, the momentum of Operation Rah-i-Rast must be maintained to keep up the hot pursuit till their total elimination or surrender including the top leadership. All possible routes of infiltration and logistic support from Afghanistan must be blocked to prevent reinforcements aiding the Taliban militants, now on the run. With the Taliban myth shattered and the stunning fightback by the local lashkar in upper Dir, such armed uprisings need to be encouraged in other areas to help isolate and wipe out the remaining militants.
Operation Rah-i-Rast has finally exposed the involvement of the foreign hand that was being repeatedly referred to in the recent past. While Pak Army was engaged in intense operations in Swat valley, a US two star general amusingly stated, 'we are witnessing some interesting movement across the borders into Pakistan'. He was obviously referring to the hordes of Indian and foreign intelligence agencies' sponsored Tajiks, Uzbeks, Afghans and Indian agents infiltrating across the Durand Line in aid of the militants. Hundreds of these foreign militants have been killed or captured by the Army. Well General, who is playing the double game?
The Army, has also destroyed or captured large caches of US, Russian, Israeli and Indian origin weapons and ammunition from Taliban militant strongholds. Pak Army officers and men involved in Operation Rah-i-Rast have confirmed the use of sophisticated weapons including sniper rifles, rocket launchers etc by the well trained Taliban militants. Indian, Afghan and US currency were commonly found from the captured and dead militantsThe US Foreign Policy Journal had also highlighted in its earlier issue this year, that the Indians were neck deep in supporting the Tehrik-i-Taliban in Pakistan. It states, 'while the US media has frequently reported on Pakistani ties to the jihadi elements launching attacks in Afghanistan, it has less mentioned the Indian support for insurgent forces attacking Pakistan Army'.
Earlier in 2009, the Americans had admitted that the Pentagon did not have 'complete' record of about one third of the 242,000 weapons the US provided to the Afghan Army or for a further 135,000 weapons other countries sent. I still recall while serving in General Headquarters way back in the early nineties how meticulously the US Defence representatives in the American Embassy in Islamabad would periodically reconcile the serial numbers and location of each of those dozens of Stinger missiles that were left behind by the US forces or remained in Mujahideen custody for many years after the Afghan war.
It is unbelievable that the weapons from NATO/Afghan Army inventories went missing right under the nose of NATO and US forces in Afghanistan without their knowledge or to put it more aptly, has all this happened with their connivance and tacit approval? No one more responsible than the DG ISPR had sarcastically remarked, "stop worrying" about Pakistan's nukes and start worrying about the weapons gone 'missing' in Afghanistan".
One striking feature of Operation Rah-e-Rast is the high officer to jawan casualty ratio, almost 1:7, implying the shahadat of one officer for every 700 shaheed jawans. This strongly reflects the inspiring leadership, motivation and the spirit of comradeship that binds the officer leaders with their soldiers, that generates the true qualitative edge of our Army over any adversary. The Army has not only retained its core values but continues to build on its inner strength and cohesion that remain the envy of our enemies.
If Pak Army has successfully broken the back of the Swat militancy in key towns and villages, all credit to the PAF for the innumerable well planned and executed precision airstrikes that destroyed militant bases, ammo dumps, training centers, underground command structures etc in the inaccessible mountain terrain. The fact that the Air Chief visited troops in Mingora along with the COAS, speaks truly of inter service cooperation and special commitment of the PAF in such operations. Visit by the President and Supreme Commander or some from the army of ministers to meet troops on ground or even inquire about the wounded in CMHs are now overdue.
A recent article in The Washington Post by Christine Fair, a senior American political scientist associated with the Rand Corporation, a Washington Think Tank, indicates their mindset vis-a-vis trust in Pakistan's ruling elite. This write up calls for establishing a World Bank administered Trust Fund to oversee the expenditure of billions of dollars going to Pakistan so that they do not disappear into the pockets of well-connected kleptocrats and their cronies instead of helping the Pakistanis in need. This article appears in the backdrop of corruption scams involving government functionaries reported in the media almost every other day.
The real test of the government's credibility and sincerity to the cause of the IDPs therefore lies in the transparent and streamlined system of expenditure and accountability of all foreign aids and grants in support of the IDPs. At the domestic level, proliferation of many relief funds including those on behalf of the President, PM, Speaker, Governor, Chief Minister etc is likely to result in poor coordination and financial mismanagement etc. The government must rationalize the number of these funds and make public their receipts and expenditures on regular basis so as to put at rest apprehensions about their accounting and judicious utilization.
At a time when valiant officers and men of the Army and the civilians were shedding blood and sacrificing their lives in the battle for Pakistan, there came reports of our Embassy's grandiose royal dinners with some of our entertainment starved leaders enjoying the luxuries and nightlife of Washington and New York. The public has a right to ask if it was only their responsibility to offer sacrifices for the country; could not our worthy leaders have deferred their thirst for extravagance and fun for a more appropriate occasion later on.
If only the tales of heroism of many Shaheed sons of the soil like Capt Najam, Capt Asim, Capt Bilal, Lt Atif, Major Abid Majeed Malik, and the martyred jawans are known to the party swingers of Washington and New York, perhaps their heads would drop in permanent shame.
Operation Rah-e-Rast marks the beginning of the decisive battle to eliminate the militants to the last and restore the writ of the state. The operation must continue till all military objectives are fully achieved and lasting peace and security are ensured. In no way should the military gains of Operation Rah-i-Rast including the sacrifices of the courageous young officers and men be compromised for sake of political expediency.
The writer is a retired Brigadier and Chairman Editorial Board of National Defence Times
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
"ISI not a rogue agency"
By S.m. Hali | Published: June 10, 2009
June 4, 2009, a panel discussion was held at Washington's International Spy Museum to discuss the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's premier intelligence agency. The participants were Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer, currently a senior fellow for foreign policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, who has been a senior advisor to three US presidents on Middle East and South Asian issues and co-chaired President Obama's strategic review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan March 2009. He is also the author of The Search for Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future. Shuja Nawaz, Director of the South Asia Center of the Atlantic Council of the United States and brother of the late General Asif Nawaz former Chief of Army Staff was the other participant. Shuja Nawaz is the author of FATA: A Most Dangerous Place and Crossed Swords Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within, which, according to The Washington Post Book World, "fleshes out the history of the Pakistani army in a dense but carefully researched book... conclude(s) that the military domination of Pakistani society has stunted the country's political growth, and that the army's obsession with Indian hegemony has perverted relations with neighbors and allies... explores the flaws in US and Pakistani thinking that helped allow the Taliban's comeback."
The third panelist, Teresita Schaffer Director, South Asia Program of Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has had a 30-year career in the US Foreign Service, where she devoted most of her career to international economic issues and to South Asia, on which she was one of the State Department's principal experts and also served as the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka. Some of her publications include "Kashmir: Fifty Years of Running in Place," in Grasping the Nettle (USIP, 2004). Her CSIS publications include Kashmir: The Economics of Peace Building (2005), Pakistan's Future and U.S. Policy Options (2004), and Rising India and U.S. Policy Options in Asia (2002). Schaffer speaks French, Swedish, German, Italian, Hebrew, Hindi, and Urdu, and has studied Bengali and SinhaleseInterestingly, the US media reported, there was a time in Washington when it would have been difficult to collect 50 people to hear someone talk about Pakistan. But on Thursday, more than 150 people paid $15 each to hear the three scholars discuss ISI. The topic according to the Spy Museum handout was: 'Pakistan Today: The ISI, India, and What the Future Holds'. The talk focused on the real or perceived links between the ISI and those who carried out the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The pressing questions, "How does the history of the ISI - and its partnership with the CIA during the 1980s - affect its actions and worldview? How do the United States and Pakistan look on their partnership in today's circumstances?" were addressed by the panelists. Ambassador Schaffer reviewed US-Pakistan relations since early 1950s, when Pakistan was America's most 'allied ally.' The relationship grew stronger during the Afghan war but weakened in 1990 when Pakistan became the 'most sanctioned ally.' After 9/11, the relationship improved. But, she explained, from the very beginning there's a clash of interests between the two allies.
Shuja Nawaz explained how the ISI evolved from a small, insignificant agency within the army to one of the world's premier spy agencies. He recalled that it was a politician - Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto - who founded the ISI's political cell while Gen Zia-ul-Haq and others further expanded this role. The ISI, however, became a leading spy agency during the Afghan war and has retained its role since then. Shuja went on to defend the ISI and refuted its connections with Lashkar-i-Taiba.
Bruce Riedel, who on May 30th had authored a scathing account of the dangers posed by Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling in the hands of terrorists, defined the ISI's alleged links to various militant groups as 'fighting some, tolerating others and patronizing a few.' But he warned that 'the ISI has clearly been penetrated by some of these extreme jihadist groups' that it created to do jihad first in Afghanistan and then in Kashmir. 'When you have attacks inside fortified compounds'-like the one last week in Lahore-'those are being done by someone who's working a double game. But that doesn't mean the agency itself is a rogue organization. It means it's been penetrated.' Mr. Riedel, however, said that there were no indications that the ISI had a cooperative relationship with Al-Qaeda or the Pakistani Taliban, but groups like Lashkar-i-Taiba saw little problem cooperating with one another. 'Selective counter-terrorism is weak counter-terrorism, because the bad guys tend to operate together,' he said. Mr. Riedel noted that recently a major terrorist cell was exposed in Karachi. The target was to go after senior officials in the city government. That cell had as its leadership a troika: one member of the Pakistani Taliban, one member of Lashkar-i-Taiba, and one member of Al-Qaeda. 'They are prepared to work together. They're not prepared, so far at least, to turn on each other,' he noted.
Despite such concerns, Mr. Riedel said, the ISI continued to be one of CIA's most important partners in the war against extremists. He concluded that "The ISI is not a rogue intelligence agency, as it mostly follows the prerogatives of the Pakistani military or civilian leadership". This is a far cry from his description of Pakistan, in his book on Al-Qaeda published by Brookings Institution Press (September 1, 2008), mentioned earlier where he warns "Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world today, where every nightmare of the 21st century terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the danger of nuclear war, dictatorship, poverty and drugs come together in one place". Throughout the book he is concerned about the shadowy role of ISI in bombings, assassinations and even Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear bombs.
It appears that ISI will continue to be targeted by its detractors because of its effectiveness.
By S.m. Hali | Published: June 10, 2009
June 4, 2009, a panel discussion was held at Washington's International Spy Museum to discuss the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's premier intelligence agency. The participants were Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer, currently a senior fellow for foreign policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, who has been a senior advisor to three US presidents on Middle East and South Asian issues and co-chaired President Obama's strategic review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan March 2009. He is also the author of The Search for Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future. Shuja Nawaz, Director of the South Asia Center of the Atlantic Council of the United States and brother of the late General Asif Nawaz former Chief of Army Staff was the other participant. Shuja Nawaz is the author of FATA: A Most Dangerous Place and Crossed Swords Pakistan, Its Army, and the Wars Within, which, according to The Washington Post Book World, "fleshes out the history of the Pakistani army in a dense but carefully researched book... conclude(s) that the military domination of Pakistani society has stunted the country's political growth, and that the army's obsession with Indian hegemony has perverted relations with neighbors and allies... explores the flaws in US and Pakistani thinking that helped allow the Taliban's comeback."
The third panelist, Teresita Schaffer Director, South Asia Program of Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has had a 30-year career in the US Foreign Service, where she devoted most of her career to international economic issues and to South Asia, on which she was one of the State Department's principal experts and also served as the US Ambassador to Sri Lanka. Some of her publications include "Kashmir: Fifty Years of Running in Place," in Grasping the Nettle (USIP, 2004). Her CSIS publications include Kashmir: The Economics of Peace Building (2005), Pakistan's Future and U.S. Policy Options (2004), and Rising India and U.S. Policy Options in Asia (2002). Schaffer speaks French, Swedish, German, Italian, Hebrew, Hindi, and Urdu, and has studied Bengali and SinhaleseInterestingly, the US media reported, there was a time in Washington when it would have been difficult to collect 50 people to hear someone talk about Pakistan. But on Thursday, more than 150 people paid $15 each to hear the three scholars discuss ISI. The topic according to the Spy Museum handout was: 'Pakistan Today: The ISI, India, and What the Future Holds'. The talk focused on the real or perceived links between the ISI and those who carried out the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The pressing questions, "How does the history of the ISI - and its partnership with the CIA during the 1980s - affect its actions and worldview? How do the United States and Pakistan look on their partnership in today's circumstances?" were addressed by the panelists. Ambassador Schaffer reviewed US-Pakistan relations since early 1950s, when Pakistan was America's most 'allied ally.' The relationship grew stronger during the Afghan war but weakened in 1990 when Pakistan became the 'most sanctioned ally.' After 9/11, the relationship improved. But, she explained, from the very beginning there's a clash of interests between the two allies.
Shuja Nawaz explained how the ISI evolved from a small, insignificant agency within the army to one of the world's premier spy agencies. He recalled that it was a politician - Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto - who founded the ISI's political cell while Gen Zia-ul-Haq and others further expanded this role. The ISI, however, became a leading spy agency during the Afghan war and has retained its role since then. Shuja went on to defend the ISI and refuted its connections with Lashkar-i-Taiba.
Bruce Riedel, who on May 30th had authored a scathing account of the dangers posed by Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling in the hands of terrorists, defined the ISI's alleged links to various militant groups as 'fighting some, tolerating others and patronizing a few.' But he warned that 'the ISI has clearly been penetrated by some of these extreme jihadist groups' that it created to do jihad first in Afghanistan and then in Kashmir. 'When you have attacks inside fortified compounds'-like the one last week in Lahore-'those are being done by someone who's working a double game. But that doesn't mean the agency itself is a rogue organization. It means it's been penetrated.' Mr. Riedel, however, said that there were no indications that the ISI had a cooperative relationship with Al-Qaeda or the Pakistani Taliban, but groups like Lashkar-i-Taiba saw little problem cooperating with one another. 'Selective counter-terrorism is weak counter-terrorism, because the bad guys tend to operate together,' he said. Mr. Riedel noted that recently a major terrorist cell was exposed in Karachi. The target was to go after senior officials in the city government. That cell had as its leadership a troika: one member of the Pakistani Taliban, one member of Lashkar-i-Taiba, and one member of Al-Qaeda. 'They are prepared to work together. They're not prepared, so far at least, to turn on each other,' he noted.
Despite such concerns, Mr. Riedel said, the ISI continued to be one of CIA's most important partners in the war against extremists. He concluded that "The ISI is not a rogue intelligence agency, as it mostly follows the prerogatives of the Pakistani military or civilian leadership". This is a far cry from his description of Pakistan, in his book on Al-Qaeda published by Brookings Institution Press (September 1, 2008), mentioned earlier where he warns "Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world today, where every nightmare of the 21st century terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the danger of nuclear war, dictatorship, poverty and drugs come together in one place". Throughout the book he is concerned about the shadowy role of ISI in bombings, assassinations and even Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear bombs.
It appears that ISI will continue to be targeted by its detractors because of its effectiveness.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Mass exodus and devastation
By Ghulam Asghar Khan | Published: June 10, 2009
Since the time Islamabad acquiesced to Washington's demands to use brute force to eradicate radical influence of the fundamentalist in the Swat valley and other tribal areas, as part of the so-called AfPak war to secure US interests in Central Asia, the human cost and long-term politico-social consequences are now becoming clear.
The army spokesman claimed over the weekend that the troops had largely dissipated all the armed resistance in the Swat valley, Lower Dir and Buner districts of the NWFP and was in full control. The pivotal victory had been the seizure of Mingora, the largest city in the valley. The military spokesman said that after a week or more of fighting, the troops now controlled most of the central business district and the surrounding suburbs. As a result of the operation, the militants reportedly lost 286 dead, while the survivors escaped under various disguises so as to melt into the civilian populace.
Underscoring the prevalent social conditions caused by the militant revolt against the government, the "UN World Food Program" reported on Sunday that 45 million of Pakistan's 172 million people are undernourished, with the worst conditions facing people in the less developed regions of the tribal areas, NWFP, Balochistan and parts of Sindh. Poverty has soared since the 1990s, when 26 million were considered so poor that they couldn't even adequately feed themselves. Now, the social conditions have been made much worse by the military operation in the area. It has not only emptied Mingora, but driven out most of ethnic Pashtun population in the three targeted districts. The current UN estimate is that 2.4 million people have been internally displaced in just over a month, making it the largest displacement on the Indian Subcontinent since the 1947 partition.
And to make their miseries worst-confounding, the mass exodus took place during the harvest season, meaning that thousands of small farmers, who could barely subsist before the offensive, were not able to bring in their crops and large numbers of their livestock, either died in melee or was lostReportedly, 500,000 IDPs are sheltering with relatives or compassionate strangers in the district of Mardan, while hundreds of thousands have sought refuge with their families in Peshawar, or in neighbouring districts.
The latest visit to Pakistan by the US special envoy Richard Holbrooke on Wednesday underscores the massive military operation that is taking place in the NWFP, is a proxy war on behalf of US imperialism. As part of Washington' s wider policy to transform Afghanistan into a US client state in Central Asia, it is pressurizing Islamabad to suppress the local Islamist movements that allegedly extend support to the Afghan resistance across the Durand Line. Holbrook's talks with the President and Prime Minister of Pakistan on Wednesday were to essentially insist that the offensive against the TNSM/Taliban must continue, regardless of the social consequences to the millions of people in the NWFP, or even the political costs for the Pakistani government.
In an interview with "The Wall Street Journal" Defence Secretary Robert Gates said that the momentum in Afghanistan was with the Taliban, who were inflicting heavy US casualties and held de facto control of swaths of the country. "American public support for the Afghan War will dissipate in less than a year unless the Obama administration achieves a perceptible shift in momentum," Gates predicted.
Pakistani troops, not American, will therefore serve as Obama's cannon fodder in bloody battles with an estimated 15,000 Taliban fighters. In exchange for the services rendered, Islamabad would get the financial assistance it needs to stave off the so-called economic collapse. Isn't it strange that Obama officials talk about Pakistan as if they own it? The most important ingredient in this volatile approach is the attempt by Washington to use its military might to oust any civilian or military ruler who has the courage to defy. Far from any digression, the Obama administration took an aggressive new turn in extending the Afghan war into Pakistan aimed at advancing US interests in the region.
By Ghulam Asghar Khan | Published: June 10, 2009
Since the time Islamabad acquiesced to Washington's demands to use brute force to eradicate radical influence of the fundamentalist in the Swat valley and other tribal areas, as part of the so-called AfPak war to secure US interests in Central Asia, the human cost and long-term politico-social consequences are now becoming clear.
The army spokesman claimed over the weekend that the troops had largely dissipated all the armed resistance in the Swat valley, Lower Dir and Buner districts of the NWFP and was in full control. The pivotal victory had been the seizure of Mingora, the largest city in the valley. The military spokesman said that after a week or more of fighting, the troops now controlled most of the central business district and the surrounding suburbs. As a result of the operation, the militants reportedly lost 286 dead, while the survivors escaped under various disguises so as to melt into the civilian populace.
Underscoring the prevalent social conditions caused by the militant revolt against the government, the "UN World Food Program" reported on Sunday that 45 million of Pakistan's 172 million people are undernourished, with the worst conditions facing people in the less developed regions of the tribal areas, NWFP, Balochistan and parts of Sindh. Poverty has soared since the 1990s, when 26 million were considered so poor that they couldn't even adequately feed themselves. Now, the social conditions have been made much worse by the military operation in the area. It has not only emptied Mingora, but driven out most of ethnic Pashtun population in the three targeted districts. The current UN estimate is that 2.4 million people have been internally displaced in just over a month, making it the largest displacement on the Indian Subcontinent since the 1947 partition.
And to make their miseries worst-confounding, the mass exodus took place during the harvest season, meaning that thousands of small farmers, who could barely subsist before the offensive, were not able to bring in their crops and large numbers of their livestock, either died in melee or was lostReportedly, 500,000 IDPs are sheltering with relatives or compassionate strangers in the district of Mardan, while hundreds of thousands have sought refuge with their families in Peshawar, or in neighbouring districts.
The latest visit to Pakistan by the US special envoy Richard Holbrooke on Wednesday underscores the massive military operation that is taking place in the NWFP, is a proxy war on behalf of US imperialism. As part of Washington' s wider policy to transform Afghanistan into a US client state in Central Asia, it is pressurizing Islamabad to suppress the local Islamist movements that allegedly extend support to the Afghan resistance across the Durand Line. Holbrook's talks with the President and Prime Minister of Pakistan on Wednesday were to essentially insist that the offensive against the TNSM/Taliban must continue, regardless of the social consequences to the millions of people in the NWFP, or even the political costs for the Pakistani government.
In an interview with "The Wall Street Journal" Defence Secretary Robert Gates said that the momentum in Afghanistan was with the Taliban, who were inflicting heavy US casualties and held de facto control of swaths of the country. "American public support for the Afghan War will dissipate in less than a year unless the Obama administration achieves a perceptible shift in momentum," Gates predicted.
Pakistani troops, not American, will therefore serve as Obama's cannon fodder in bloody battles with an estimated 15,000 Taliban fighters. In exchange for the services rendered, Islamabad would get the financial assistance it needs to stave off the so-called economic collapse. Isn't it strange that Obama officials talk about Pakistan as if they own it? The most important ingredient in this volatile approach is the attempt by Washington to use its military might to oust any civilian or military ruler who has the courage to defy. Far from any digression, the Obama administration took an aggressive new turn in extending the Afghan war into Pakistan aimed at advancing US interests in the region.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
In Cairo, a small step forward
By Mahir Ali
Wednesday, 10 Jun, 2009
The commonest reaction to Barack Obamas speech in Cairo last week has been the most obvious one: that words are not enough.
In fact, the US president acknowledged as much himself, saying: Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead.
No one can reasonably deny, however, that the speech in several ways measured up to the hype that preceded it. It contained a number of thoughts and ideas that billions of people have long yearned to hear from an American head of state, as well as sentences that could not convincingly have been uttered by a different president.
It isnt difficult to dismiss with a degree of contempt the reaction of the far right in the US, some of whose organs took exception even to the fact that Obama began his address with the traditional Muslim greeting. Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for George W, was on equally weak ground when he commented: President Bush would never have criticised our military or our intelligence community on foreign soil. [Obama] basically threw our military under the bus in front of a Muslim audience.
For better or for worse, he did no such thing. He mentioned only in passing his strictures against torture and the decision to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Obama did describe the invasion of Iraq as a war of choice which is about the kindest thing anyone could reasonably say about that conflict.
Another strand of criticism has focused on what Obama had to say about the Palestinian-Israeli situation: the Zionist Organisation of America characterised his comments as strongly biased and its president, Morton Klein, said the presidents remarks may well signal the beginning of a renunciation of Americas strategic alliance with Israel. If only the latter were indeed the case! Obamas take on that conflict was, if not exactly unexceptionable, at least decidedly an advance on the perceptions of his predecessors. He was unequivocal on the subject of Americas bond with Israel, but at the same time characterised the position of the Palestinians as intolerable. The significance of that word cannot lightly be dismissed.
Obama was uncompromising on Israels right to exist, tracing the aspiration for a Jewish homeland to the history of European anti-Semitism and, inevitably, the Holocaust. It would have been good to hear him concede that the European Judeocide spearheaded by the Nazis was by no stretch of the imagination a crime perpetrated by Palestinians. He did not do that, but he did suggest that the latters right to an independent homeland is at least as valid as any claim to Jewish statehood.
He acknowledged also that Hamas enjoys a degree of popular support. And he pulled few punches in excoriating the expansion of Jewish settlements on occupied territory. He must, no doubt, have heard Israeli spokesmen claim that Bush acquiesced orally to a so-called freeze on settlements not actually limiting their growth. According to a report in The New York Times, quoting Israeli officials, Israel agreed to the road map and to move ahead with the removal of settlements and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 on the understanding that settlement growth [in the West Bank] would continue.
That this understanding was not put into writing suggests the Bush administration was aware of its indefensibility. Its also worth noting that whereas Obama is reasonably clear-cut in his opposition to the enlargement of settlements, he has had little to say about the illegitimacy, under international law, of the existing encroachments on Palestinian territory, which have been spreading under successive Israeli governments for the past four decades. And, enumerating another sin of omission, Noam Chomsky has pointed out that the president made no mention of the United States decisive role in sustaining the current conflict.
Hes on somewhat less solid ground, however, in claiming that Obama gave no indication that the US role should change or even be considered. After all, the tenor of Obamas speech is open to interpretation as a small but nonetheless vital deviation from the norm whereby US officials are uncompromisingly reluctant to concede their nations penchant for wrongdoing. The incumbents contrition tends to be implicit rather than explicit, and one cannot seriously expect him to catalogue the war crimes the US has committed or been complicit in over the decades, but its nonetheless a promising beginning.
It could, of course, be argued that his concession in Cairo that in some cases the fear and anger provoked by 9/11 led us to act contrary to our traditions and ideals was, at best, an inaccurate understatement, given that these traditions include a number of the 20th centurys most egregious follies, while the ideals have invariably been upheld by dissidents such as those who agitated for racial equality or demanded an end to the Vietnam War. It would nonetheless be churlish not to recognise that, notwithstanding its shortcomings, Obamas willingness to revisit, albeit superficially, the darkness in Americas dealings with the world is a small but important step forward. Hopefully, it will not be followed by two steps back.
In his Cairo speech, he lamented the effects of colonialism and the tendencies of the Cold War years, and specifically regretted his countrys role in toppling Irans Mossadegh government in the 1950s. He acknowledged also the futility of expecting that there could exclusively be a military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He touched on issues such as nuclear disarmament, democratisation and womens rights without most of the arrogance associated with official American pronouncements on these topics. And he demonstrated that support for Palestinian rights and aspirations is not incompatible with recognising the monstrous crimes committed against European Jews.
Not exactly Gettysburg, concluded Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent. Not exactly Churchill, but not bad. Even Hamas leader Khaled Meshal felt obliged to concede that undoubtedly Obama speaks a new language. Pre-emptive recorded speeches by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri hinted that they were panicked by the prospect of Obamas overture to Muslims. But the predictably twisted responses of Islamist and Zionist extremists only contribute to Obamas credibility.
Although it would be fatuous to deny that the scope for scepticism about the likelihood of constructive change in the Middle East has only marginally been diminished by Obamas carefully crafted and eloquently delivered peroration, there is now at least a glimmer of hope where none existed before. And, furthermore, no one in the audience deemed it appropriate to fling their footwear at the president of the United States.
By Mahir Ali
Wednesday, 10 Jun, 2009
The commonest reaction to Barack Obamas speech in Cairo last week has been the most obvious one: that words are not enough.
In fact, the US president acknowledged as much himself, saying: Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead.
No one can reasonably deny, however, that the speech in several ways measured up to the hype that preceded it. It contained a number of thoughts and ideas that billions of people have long yearned to hear from an American head of state, as well as sentences that could not convincingly have been uttered by a different president.
It isnt difficult to dismiss with a degree of contempt the reaction of the far right in the US, some of whose organs took exception even to the fact that Obama began his address with the traditional Muslim greeting. Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for George W, was on equally weak ground when he commented: President Bush would never have criticised our military or our intelligence community on foreign soil. [Obama] basically threw our military under the bus in front of a Muslim audience.
For better or for worse, he did no such thing. He mentioned only in passing his strictures against torture and the decision to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Obama did describe the invasion of Iraq as a war of choice which is about the kindest thing anyone could reasonably say about that conflict.
Another strand of criticism has focused on what Obama had to say about the Palestinian-Israeli situation: the Zionist Organisation of America characterised his comments as strongly biased and its president, Morton Klein, said the presidents remarks may well signal the beginning of a renunciation of Americas strategic alliance with Israel. If only the latter were indeed the case! Obamas take on that conflict was, if not exactly unexceptionable, at least decidedly an advance on the perceptions of his predecessors. He was unequivocal on the subject of Americas bond with Israel, but at the same time characterised the position of the Palestinians as intolerable. The significance of that word cannot lightly be dismissed.
Obama was uncompromising on Israels right to exist, tracing the aspiration for a Jewish homeland to the history of European anti-Semitism and, inevitably, the Holocaust. It would have been good to hear him concede that the European Judeocide spearheaded by the Nazis was by no stretch of the imagination a crime perpetrated by Palestinians. He did not do that, but he did suggest that the latters right to an independent homeland is at least as valid as any claim to Jewish statehood.
He acknowledged also that Hamas enjoys a degree of popular support. And he pulled few punches in excoriating the expansion of Jewish settlements on occupied territory. He must, no doubt, have heard Israeli spokesmen claim that Bush acquiesced orally to a so-called freeze on settlements not actually limiting their growth. According to a report in The New York Times, quoting Israeli officials, Israel agreed to the road map and to move ahead with the removal of settlements and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 on the understanding that settlement growth [in the West Bank] would continue.
That this understanding was not put into writing suggests the Bush administration was aware of its indefensibility. Its also worth noting that whereas Obama is reasonably clear-cut in his opposition to the enlargement of settlements, he has had little to say about the illegitimacy, under international law, of the existing encroachments on Palestinian territory, which have been spreading under successive Israeli governments for the past four decades. And, enumerating another sin of omission, Noam Chomsky has pointed out that the president made no mention of the United States decisive role in sustaining the current conflict.
Hes on somewhat less solid ground, however, in claiming that Obama gave no indication that the US role should change or even be considered. After all, the tenor of Obamas speech is open to interpretation as a small but nonetheless vital deviation from the norm whereby US officials are uncompromisingly reluctant to concede their nations penchant for wrongdoing. The incumbents contrition tends to be implicit rather than explicit, and one cannot seriously expect him to catalogue the war crimes the US has committed or been complicit in over the decades, but its nonetheless a promising beginning.
It could, of course, be argued that his concession in Cairo that in some cases the fear and anger provoked by 9/11 led us to act contrary to our traditions and ideals was, at best, an inaccurate understatement, given that these traditions include a number of the 20th centurys most egregious follies, while the ideals have invariably been upheld by dissidents such as those who agitated for racial equality or demanded an end to the Vietnam War. It would nonetheless be churlish not to recognise that, notwithstanding its shortcomings, Obamas willingness to revisit, albeit superficially, the darkness in Americas dealings with the world is a small but important step forward. Hopefully, it will not be followed by two steps back.
In his Cairo speech, he lamented the effects of colonialism and the tendencies of the Cold War years, and specifically regretted his countrys role in toppling Irans Mossadegh government in the 1950s. He acknowledged also the futility of expecting that there could exclusively be a military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He touched on issues such as nuclear disarmament, democratisation and womens rights without most of the arrogance associated with official American pronouncements on these topics. And he demonstrated that support for Palestinian rights and aspirations is not incompatible with recognising the monstrous crimes committed against European Jews.
Not exactly Gettysburg, concluded Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent. Not exactly Churchill, but not bad. Even Hamas leader Khaled Meshal felt obliged to concede that undoubtedly Obama speaks a new language. Pre-emptive recorded speeches by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri hinted that they were panicked by the prospect of Obamas overture to Muslims. But the predictably twisted responses of Islamist and Zionist extremists only contribute to Obamas credibility.
Although it would be fatuous to deny that the scope for scepticism about the likelihood of constructive change in the Middle East has only marginally been diminished by Obamas carefully crafted and eloquently delivered peroration, there is now at least a glimmer of hope where none existed before. And, furthermore, no one in the audience deemed it appropriate to fling their footwear at the president of the United States.
A
arshad_lahore
Guest
Weeks of turbulence and treachery
Irfan Husain
Wednesday, 10 Jun, 2009
I cannot recall a more turbulent month in British politics. We have seen everything from resignations to intrigue to open demands from his own party for Gordon Brown to leave. Above all, this last month has been dominated by daily revelations of the shocking misuse of benefits by parliamentarians carried by the Daily Telegraph, and echoes across the national and international media.
On Monday, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) met in Westminster to decide its leaders fate. Many had expected the rebels to carry the day, but in the event, the collection of Labour grandees and backbenchers has decided to retain Brown. The Prime Ministers cause was aided by his uncharacteristic show of humility: instead of taking on his detractors frontally, he admitted his faults and promised to do better. And while he lacks Tony Blairs disarming charm, he possesses a tenacity and a thirst for power unmatched by his opponents.
And yet Brown has much to answer for. The recent local council elections have been the worst for his party in a century. The map of Britain is an unbroken blue (the colour of the Conservatives), with a few blobs of yellow (Liberal Democrats) here and there. Labours red is conspicuous by its absence. There is thus not a single council in the UK today that is controlled by Labour. Even Wales, usually considered Labours backyard, has swung to the Tories for the first time in history.
If that wasnt bad enough, the results of the elections to the European parliament were even more dismal. Trailing third after the Conservatives and the UK Independence Party (UKIP), a right-wing, anti-EU, anti-immigration party, Labour received just 15.8 per cent of the vote. Added to these disastrous election results is the depressing economic data that continues to emphasise the poor state of the British economy.
Oddly, it is this doom and gloom that has opened the way for Gordon Browns great escape. Labour members, seeing the extent of the carnage at the polls recently, realise they will be massacred if general elections are held in the immediate future. The public is still seething with rage at its representatives over the revelations in the Telegraph. And while all the major parties have been tarred with the same brush, it is Labour, as the party in power, which has borne the brunt of public rage.
So while it is obvious that Labour will lose the general election due by next June, members hope that the defeat will not be as shattering as it would be if polls were held soon. For one, they hope the economy might improve by then, and they will be able to take credit for the recovery. And they are relying on public memory being short, and the anger over sleaze fading somewhat in a year.
One effect of the Labour meltdown has been the rise of the British National Party (BNP). This right-wing party has often been accused of blatant racism, and openly campaigns on a platform of halting immigration. Due to many Labour supporters refusal to turn out to vote, the BNP managed to win a couple of council seats as well as two seats in the European parliament. These results have sent shockwaves across Britain. Ironically, while it was Gordon Brown who was in charge of the British economy for a decade as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is being hailed as the man who might lead Britain out of the black hole in which it finds itself currently. One thing the anti-Brown plotters realise is that if Brown is removed through an internal coup, fresh elections will become almost mandatory. While constitutionally, anybody elected by the party can serve as PM until the next general election, the reality is that there would be huge pressure on the government to ask for Parliament to be dissolved, and fresh elections called. The reason lies in the fact that after Tony Blair resigned two years ago to make room for Gordon Brown, there was a demand for Labour to hold fresh elections to obtain a clear mandate for the new PM. While he toyed with the idea, Brown pulled back at the last minute, seeing a Tory resurgence in the opinion polls. He was widely derided for his lack of nerve. For another Labour PM to hold office for a year without a mandate is virtually unthinkable.
As it is, Brown has been mortally wounded by a month of painful revelations, several resignations from his cabinet, and a sharp leadership challenge. Every day, various pundits in the media ask whether he has the moral authority to rule. The question often posed is not whether he will go, but when. Had it not been for the understandable concern Labour MPs have for their own political survival, Brown would probably have been out by now. While left-wing columnists have been calling for Labour to renew itself by dumping Brown and going into fresh elections, they do not understand the allure of the power and perks that go with high office. I have little doubt that barring some major catastrophe, elections will not be held a day earlier than constitutionally required.
Meanwhile, Gordon Brown will have a very difficult time in the year that probably remains in his tenure. His power has visibly ebbed away over the last few weeks. One clear indication of his lame-duck status is the bungled cabinet reshuffle that was supposed to reinvigorate his government, and distract attention from the ongoing crisis. Reeling from a succession of resignations before and after the local council elections, Brown has been severely constrained in making the changes in the portfolios that had been widely expected. Clearly, he feared further resignations if he had pressed ahead.
Given the tough decisions the prime minister will be called upon to make, it is not certain that Brown will have the support he will need from within his cabinet and his party. What is needed at this juncture is a leader who would announce the constitutional reforms that are clearly needed; a leader who can formulate and implement the belt-tightening measures required; and a leader who commands the respect of his peers in Europe and the world. A weak and out-of-touch Brown is clearly not that leader.
John Major, an otherwise decent man, is still remembered by the Conservatives as the man who led his party to disaster in 1997. Will Gordon Brown be a similar figure in the annals of the Labour Party?
Irfan Husain
Wednesday, 10 Jun, 2009
I cannot recall a more turbulent month in British politics. We have seen everything from resignations to intrigue to open demands from his own party for Gordon Brown to leave. Above all, this last month has been dominated by daily revelations of the shocking misuse of benefits by parliamentarians carried by the Daily Telegraph, and echoes across the national and international media.
On Monday, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) met in Westminster to decide its leaders fate. Many had expected the rebels to carry the day, but in the event, the collection of Labour grandees and backbenchers has decided to retain Brown. The Prime Ministers cause was aided by his uncharacteristic show of humility: instead of taking on his detractors frontally, he admitted his faults and promised to do better. And while he lacks Tony Blairs disarming charm, he possesses a tenacity and a thirst for power unmatched by his opponents.
And yet Brown has much to answer for. The recent local council elections have been the worst for his party in a century. The map of Britain is an unbroken blue (the colour of the Conservatives), with a few blobs of yellow (Liberal Democrats) here and there. Labours red is conspicuous by its absence. There is thus not a single council in the UK today that is controlled by Labour. Even Wales, usually considered Labours backyard, has swung to the Tories for the first time in history.
If that wasnt bad enough, the results of the elections to the European parliament were even more dismal. Trailing third after the Conservatives and the UK Independence Party (UKIP), a right-wing, anti-EU, anti-immigration party, Labour received just 15.8 per cent of the vote. Added to these disastrous election results is the depressing economic data that continues to emphasise the poor state of the British economy.
Oddly, it is this doom and gloom that has opened the way for Gordon Browns great escape. Labour members, seeing the extent of the carnage at the polls recently, realise they will be massacred if general elections are held in the immediate future. The public is still seething with rage at its representatives over the revelations in the Telegraph. And while all the major parties have been tarred with the same brush, it is Labour, as the party in power, which has borne the brunt of public rage.
So while it is obvious that Labour will lose the general election due by next June, members hope that the defeat will not be as shattering as it would be if polls were held soon. For one, they hope the economy might improve by then, and they will be able to take credit for the recovery. And they are relying on public memory being short, and the anger over sleaze fading somewhat in a year.
One effect of the Labour meltdown has been the rise of the British National Party (BNP). This right-wing party has often been accused of blatant racism, and openly campaigns on a platform of halting immigration. Due to many Labour supporters refusal to turn out to vote, the BNP managed to win a couple of council seats as well as two seats in the European parliament. These results have sent shockwaves across Britain. Ironically, while it was Gordon Brown who was in charge of the British economy for a decade as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is being hailed as the man who might lead Britain out of the black hole in which it finds itself currently. One thing the anti-Brown plotters realise is that if Brown is removed through an internal coup, fresh elections will become almost mandatory. While constitutionally, anybody elected by the party can serve as PM until the next general election, the reality is that there would be huge pressure on the government to ask for Parliament to be dissolved, and fresh elections called. The reason lies in the fact that after Tony Blair resigned two years ago to make room for Gordon Brown, there was a demand for Labour to hold fresh elections to obtain a clear mandate for the new PM. While he toyed with the idea, Brown pulled back at the last minute, seeing a Tory resurgence in the opinion polls. He was widely derided for his lack of nerve. For another Labour PM to hold office for a year without a mandate is virtually unthinkable.
As it is, Brown has been mortally wounded by a month of painful revelations, several resignations from his cabinet, and a sharp leadership challenge. Every day, various pundits in the media ask whether he has the moral authority to rule. The question often posed is not whether he will go, but when. Had it not been for the understandable concern Labour MPs have for their own political survival, Brown would probably have been out by now. While left-wing columnists have been calling for Labour to renew itself by dumping Brown and going into fresh elections, they do not understand the allure of the power and perks that go with high office. I have little doubt that barring some major catastrophe, elections will not be held a day earlier than constitutionally required.
Meanwhile, Gordon Brown will have a very difficult time in the year that probably remains in his tenure. His power has visibly ebbed away over the last few weeks. One clear indication of his lame-duck status is the bungled cabinet reshuffle that was supposed to reinvigorate his government, and distract attention from the ongoing crisis. Reeling from a succession of resignations before and after the local council elections, Brown has been severely constrained in making the changes in the portfolios that had been widely expected. Clearly, he feared further resignations if he had pressed ahead.
Given the tough decisions the prime minister will be called upon to make, it is not certain that Brown will have the support he will need from within his cabinet and his party. What is needed at this juncture is a leader who would announce the constitutional reforms that are clearly needed; a leader who can formulate and implement the belt-tightening measures required; and a leader who commands the respect of his peers in Europe and the world. A weak and out-of-touch Brown is clearly not that leader.
John Major, an otherwise decent man, is still remembered by the Conservatives as the man who led his party to disaster in 1997. Will Gordon Brown be a similar figure in the annals of the Labour Party?
