Category — PAK-US ties

QUETTA: International relief agencies –United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Unicef, World Health Organisation and the World Food Programme – have suspended all activities in Balochistan after threats issued by the outlawed Baloch Liberation United Front against their staff.
Sources said that these organisations had shut their offices and their foreign staff, who would soon be shifted to Islamabad for better security, had been advised to stay indoors. The voluntary repatriation of Afghan refugees, resumed by the UNHCR in April this year, has been suspended.
UN organisations had earlier suspended their operations in Balochistan after the kidnapping of UNHCR Quetta chief John Solecki in February this year.
The provincial government has increased security around offices of UN organisations.
‘We are providing maximum security to officials of UN-affiliated organisations in Quetta,’ a senior police officer said.
On Sunday, the Baloch Liberation United Front had warned of attacking UN officials and said that despite assurances the UN had done nothing for resolving issues like the recovery of missing people. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/provinces/13+relief+agencies+stop+work+in+balochistan-za-16

By Kamila Hyat
We are all accustomed to the many words of wisdom delivered periodically by our interior minister. His recent orders banning ‘anti-government’ emails and SMS texts inspired acts of great public creativity, as the surge of messages and jokes sent out across the country grew in number. The primary targets did not change.

But sometimes the comments made by our ministers leave one aghast. The assurance that the establishment of ‘check-posts’ on the Balochistan-Afghanistan border would bring ‘good news’ from that province is among these remarks. Despite the recent capture of an alleged Baloch suicide bomber who stated he had been trained in Afghanistan and insinuations that insurgency in the province is linked to Indian intervention backed by Kabul, most of us know the problem simmers on within Balochistan itself. It is perfectly possible the Indians and their allies in Afghanistan have played some part in stirring the bubbling cauldron and keeping it simmering. The arms that flood Balochistan have after all come from somewhere. New Delhi we know is perfectly capable of seeking to destabilise its neighbour. But the ‘outside’ elements involved in Balochistan use the tensions that exist in the region to further their purposes. If we are to solve the issues of our largest province, this is a reality we must squarely face up to. Shying away from it will only add to the difficulties we confront as a federation and as a nation made up of people from many diverse cultures.

Over the past two months, six eminent academics have died in Balochistan. The victims appear to have been targeted on the basis of their ethnicity. Some had lived in the province for years. This of course is extremely bad news. There is immense potential for inter-communal strife in Balochistan. Pre-dominantly Pakhtun orthodox groups, some of whom have links to the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan have already been using this card to rally support among the large number of non-Baloch settlers. Handbills call for ‘Islam to be defended’ against ‘infidels’. There are insinuations that the Baloch are ‘bad’ Muslims and ‘bad’ citizens. Other racial slurs circulate widely, with echoes picked up too in other provinces. The potential then for still more instability in the country’s most troubled province is immense. There has as yet been no meaningful effort to dampen the fires. The conference involving all Baloch parties that the prime minister had promised to convene has, oddly, not been called. The continued blockage of Baloch nationalist websites means such groups are denied even the basic right to be heard and to make their views known. The Senate has been told Baloch nationalists will not be involved in any process of talks. This of course means less possibility of a solution and a greater likelihood that the intense rage in Balochistan will not be quietened.

The extent of the feelings that exist is now not hidden. Nationalist leader Hyrbyair Marri has said in London that he does not recognise Pakistan, Brahamdagh Bugti, the fiery grandson of the late Nawab Akbar Bugti, has used still stronger language and former chief minister Akhtar Mengal has scoffed at the notion of provincial autonomy, insisting that this will not now be enough. These words hurt ‘patriots’; perhaps they incite immense fury in some places. But we need to keep our calm, to reassess what we mean by patriotism and whether a federation within which so much angst exists can be indefinitely held together. It is in the interests of Pakistan – and the Baloch – to create more harmony between the units that make up the state. This can happen only by bringing the nationalists into the process of dialogue and accepting that their views are backed by people across the province. It is for this reason foolhardy to ignore the nationalists. The fact is that in homes, faded pin-ups of ‘heroes’ such as slain nationalist fighters decorate walls or appear unexpectedly atop washing machines and refrigerator doors. The people who have placed them there, the ordinary citizens who passionately believe their province has been discriminated against, need to be won over and somehow persuaded that they can play a meaningful role in a unified state.

It has been argued Balochistan cannot on its own survive. This may be accurate and there are also statistics which bring into question the number of ethnic Balochis in their home territory. The old bogey of East Pakistan and the ethnic hatreds that flared up there have been raised in the senate. Good advice on the need to talk to all groups there has also been given in the Upper House. But there is as yet no evidence that it will be taken or strategy altered. Sometimes one wonders who is calling the shots in Balochistan. Both the president and the prime minister have suggested sensible measures to solve the problems. It is a mystery why there has been no attempt to follow up on these; why missing people have not been tracked down or major dissident forces asked to sit around a table and discuss the issues that exist.

There are compelling reasons why this should happen. The unrest in Balochistan opens up doors and corridors that can be used to interfere in what is happening. India and Afghanistan have been identified as culprits, and with possible reason. But the US too has its eyes on this part of the world. Some think tanks have proposed a break-up of the region as a means to ‘tame’ both Iran and Pakistan. This may not happen immediately. But a US role in Balochistan and some kind of tie-in with nationalists is not a possibility that can be completely disregarded. It is something we need to be wary of. The best counter-strategy against any moves from outside quarters, no matter where they may be based, is of course to dampen the resentments in Balochistan.

If this were not reason enough to do more than setting up barricades at the borders, we need to keep tracks too on the Taliban threat. The extent of the dangers this poses have been highlighted by the fiery battles in Swat and other places. There is still no accurate assessment of the death and destruction that has resulted. There is a risk that we may yet see further conflict, focused in Waziristan. Acting against nationalists in Balochistan – many of whom espouse secular values – could open up space for the Taliban. They have already demonstrated they have a base in the province. Gatherings of their leaders have taken place openly even in Quetta.

This looming threat makes it all the more imperative that Balochistan be calmed. The only way to do this is to engage all players in an open discussion. A failure to do this may not result in the break-up of the federation; the state of Pakistan will almost undoubtedly be able to hang on to Balochistan, if necessary through force. But we must ask if the energy and effort necessary to do this weakens the nation in the longer run and adds to the many problems it already faces on far too many fronts. http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=190512

By Kamal Siddiqi The writer is editor reporting, The News
When Interior Minister Rehman Malik, who was recently snubbed by the prime minister on the SMS censorship issue, says that he has good news about Balochistan, we should be worried. So far, the People’s Party government has been unable to live up to the expectations of either the Baloch people or the settlers there. In fact, it has become part of the problem there.

President Zardari tell us that he can solve the problem because it is a political issue. He assures us that since he is half Baloch himself, he can fully comprehend what the issues are. But so far, apart from the initiative taken by the president in his first months in office, things are not getting better in Pakistan’s largest and most resource-rich province. In fact, they are getting worse.

People in towns and cities across Balochistan live in fear of what the future holds for them. Many families, a significant number of them Baloch, have moved to Karachi so that they can live more peaceful lives. There have been a marked number of admissions in Karachi schools of children who were previously studying in Balochistan. People have moved houses and businesses – possibly, this silent migration was behind tensions with the Baloch in Karachi last year.

As tensions rise, the death toll climbs in Balochistan. Several hundred people have been killed over the past couple of years, ostensibly by Baloch nationalists who want to rid the province of outsiders.

We are not sure entirely who killed these innocent people, many of whom did not even know why they were being targeted. People tell of horror stories where buses had been stopped and outsiders identified and shot. Is this what Pakistan is being reduced to? How much of these actions are a genuine expression of anger, and how many are “inspired”?

The settlers are not the only victims. An unknown number of ethnic Baloch people, many of whom possibly have nothing to do with the conflict that has now taken root there, are also missing. We all know what happened when the courts tried to take up this issue. And many Pakistanis don’t want to go that route again. But the question is, which route do we take from here.

The feeling of alienation amongst the Baloch has not come overnight. Neither is this the first time the Baloch have complained of being neglected and short- changed. It is an irony that can only happen in Pakistan, that Sui gas reached Murree first and was supplied to Quetta later. Baloch grievances are not addressed and are taken lightly.

Take, for example, the parliamentary committee that was formed to look into the complaints of the people of Balochistan. The members of this committee, which was formed in Gen Musharraf’s time, themselves say that their work is not taken seriously. And then we wonder why the Baloch are angry.

There is practically no concept of governance in Balochistan. A chain of successive chief ministers have only complied with what Islamabad has directed them to do. The same is the case with governors and the entire Balochistan government machinery. Any initiative to address the complaints of the Baloch or find local solutions is met with resistance in Islamabad. The fate of Gen Abdul Qadir Baloch, who lasted only six months as governor, is well known. There can be no home grown solutions.

The government in Balochistan has a simple formula — live and let live. In several instances in the past, almost all members of the Balochistan Provincial Assembly were made ministers. These ministers were never held accountable for their actions or spending. As a consequence, the province is almost always broke. But the politicians and ministers – both from the left and the right – have made lots of hay.

The irony of Balochistan is that despite being rich in terms of resources, its government is always facing financial problems. Apart from the gas from which it gets little or no royalty, its others minerals – – like gold and copper – are silently siphoned away while the people of the province remain one of the poorest in Pakistan. But that is half the story – the resources that the province does get are spent on idiotic schemes and for the benefit of the leaders. The people get next to nothing.

To give credit where it is due, President Musharraf was the force behind the coastal highway. It is one of Pakistan’s most scenic and strategic roads. And yet, the dream of Gwadar as a coastal dreamland crashed the day he resigned from office. Gwadar is now slowly receding back into oblivion.

It is also an irony, and one which shows how desperate the people are – that the same tribal chieftains who exploit the poor are also now seen as champions of the people. They are leading the struggle against the Centre. Given that their priorities are different from those of the common Baloch man and woman, one can only see where this leads to.

For most Pakistanis, however, the questions are deeper. For how long will we allow the government to mishandle the issues in Balochistan? Why, may we ask, have those who in 2005 criminally assaulted Dr Shazia in Sui not still brought to book? If President Musharraf needs to be brought to book, it should be for interfering with the due process of law by exonerating an army official from the case on television, at a time when investigations were being conducted.

In the same light, why have we not brought to book people who in 2008 buried five women alive for the “crime” of deciding who they should marry? Why has President Zardari not taken action against the provincial minister who was involved in this crime, given that the minister is from the PPP? If nothing else, the president should take a leaf out of Mian Nawaz Sharif’s book who sacked a Punjab MPA for credit card fraud.

We want to know what became of the investigation into the killings of Ghulam Muhammad Baloch, Lala Munir Baloch and Sher Muhammad Bugti, three Baloch leaders whose bodies were found in Turbat in April this year. These honourable men were members of a committee formed by the government to investigate the case of missing persons in the province, notably abducted UN worker John Solecki, who was later freed.

Rehman Malik now tells us that India is behind the troubles in Balochistan. This is an insult to the people of the province, because their grievances are genuine. Instead of addressing these problems, Islamabad is once again looking for scapegoats on the one hand and absolving itself of past sins on the other.

By playing the India card, Islamabad wants to kill many birds. First, it wants to prove that India too has been up to mischief. It wants to tell the world that Pakistan is not the only country where terror outfits are bred and tolerated. Islamabad also wants to tell people at home that the troubles in Balochistan are only because of external forces. With this premise, any action that Islamabad may contemplate in the province would have the endorsement of the people.

While India may have some role to play in creating trouble, the problem actually lies with us. We need to wake up to Balochistan. If we do not do this soon, outside forces – and not just India as our leaders claim, will exploit the situation. While our leaders neglect Balochistan, the province is of particular interest to others. For the Taliban, for India and Afghanistan, for Iran as well as China and for America. All for their own reasons. How long can we blame others for what are essentially our own failings? http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=190049

Baloch rights: edit in The Dawn, July 26
MUCH is said but little has been done to address the problems plaguing Balochistan. The grievances felt by the Baloch are genuine, and they have not only been ignored but exacerbated by the actions of the federation over the course of several decades. The government now at the helm in Islamabad made a promising start when it issued a public apology for the “the atrocities and injustices committed” in Balochistan. That was seen as a statement of positive intent, even by some nationalist forces, but the lack of follow-up relegated the apology to the realm of rhetoric. In the dying days of March 2008, Yousuf Raza Gilani pledged that the Concurrent Legislative List would be abolished within a year. That hasn’t happened. Broken promises are what the people of Balochistan have come to expect from the centre. It is time for deep and intrinsic change.
We are now told by the interior minister that there will be “good news” about Balochistan in a matter of weeks. This is a typically vague statement, short on content and high on hyperbole. Instead of mouthing off, we should be soul-searching. It must be admitted and recognised that, much to the detriment of the ‘smaller’ provinces, a form of neocolonialism has been at work in Pakistan all along. Regional rights over resources have been appropriated by the centre with little dividend accruing to the provinces. Successive governments have colla-borated with tribal chieftains who want to keep their areas backward so that the system remains intact and influence is retained by a chosen few. Education is denied because knowledge is a tool that could be used by the poor to better their lot in life. Industry is discouraged in parts of Sindh and Balochistan because monthly paychecks are likely to shrink the ranks of sharecroppers. The people have been rendered voiceless and the state is a party to this crime.
It is said that foreign agents are fomenting the insurgency in Balochistan, which is most likely true. At the same time, however, it ought to be acknowledged that the state is creating the conditions that can be exploited by outside forces. Given its natural riches, Balochistan should be the most prosperous province in Pakistan. In reality it is the poorest. It was not just the Musharraf era in which Baloch dissidents simply ‘disappeared’. The practice of branding political opponents as ‘anti-state’ must end and the government needs to ask itself whether its actions are forcing insurgents to seek outside help, which is what happened in East Pakistan. There has been enough talk and it is now time to act. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/baloch-rights-679

What ‘good news’ from Balochistan: edit in The daily Times, July 26
Just as unknown killers shot to death a professor of Government Degree College Quetta — two days after the killing of the principal of a Government High school –Interior Minister Mr Rehman Malik told the Senate in Islamabad that there could be “good news in two to four weeks about Balochistan” as a result of secret “back-channel” contacts. He did not name India as a mischief-maker and left the reference to “back-channel contacts” hanging in the air; but he did speak about his recent meeting with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and the agreement he had reached with him on the establishment of “three bio-metric checkposts on the border” to stop the movement of militants he said were being trained at training camps in Afghanistan.
The senators had raised other questions, however. For instance, why had Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani not yet convened a promised all-parties conference on Balochistan? They had also voiced their concern about what they called an “East Pakistan-like situation” in Balochistan where non-Baloch settlers, including teachers, were being killed, and the national flag and anthem were not allowed to be observed in educational institutions in some areas. But Mr Malik was firm about having no truck with the separatists among the Baloch. He pledged action — of an unspecified nature — against Hyrbair Marri, the leader in exile of the Balochistan Liberation Army, who had recently told a TV channel that he “did not recognise Pakistan”. But Mr Malik insisted, “With some back-channel talks going on, God-willing, problems will be resolved.” More specifically, he said that because of efforts to “persuade those estranged”, it is possible that he might come up with “a better good” news in two to four weeks.
Anyone in Pakistan will tell you that the crisis of Balochistan will not be resolved by putting up a few checkposts on the Balochistan-Afghanistan border. While it is true that India is fishing in troubled waters in the province, its problems have not been created by it. The mention of Balochistan in the recent Indo-Pak joint statement at Sharm al Sheikh may have sent a shiver of unfamiliar triumph up Islamabad’s spine, but it has not led to any softening of the Indian attitude. In fact quite the opposite has happened.
Pakistan has been “path dependent” — tied to past policy decisions that deter policy change in light of new developments — on its Taliban policy in Afghanistan and is now facing its backlash. Balochistan is no longer a place made tough by the simple question of Baloch rights, it is also a region under Talibanisation. The killing of teachers is not far divorced in thinking from the destroying of girls’ schools in the tribal areas and the NWFP. It is no longer the Baloch sardars who have to be placated; we have to look at the growing strength of the immigrant Pashtun who threaten the local polity with their linkages with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
There is a Tehreek-e Taliban Balochistan (TTB) that undercuts the secular Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PKAMP), vows lack of connection with Baitullah Mehsud, boasts “no enmity” with the JUI, and now speaks for people other than the Baloch. The grievances of the Baloch have been inquired into in great detail in the past by Senate committees. Much of what Pakistan has to do to save Balochistan has been spelled out there and can be the basis of negotiations. But the province is too disturbed to allow that process to take place.
Mr Rehman Malik is hamstrung also by nationalist backlash against his soft approach towards India. If you want to get ahead in Pakistan these days, be hawkish with India. But expect no respite from New Delhi, either. Balochistan needs to be tackled but before the talks with the Baloch begin the terrorists have to be taken care of. The media is hostile to the PPP government and will accept only mid-term elections as a precondition before it is helpful. The petroleum minister in Islamabad is already thinking of taking the Iranian gas pipeline through the sea.
Good news will take some time coming. Pakistan’s national politics is opposed to the deep self-correction that the state requires in foreign policy as well as the internal policy about the non-state actors which the state used to patronise in the past. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\07\26\story_26-7-2009_pg3_1

Damani dam breach: edit in The dawn, July 26
Another dam in Balochistan has breached after the recent torrential rains, once again causing misery and destruction. Although the incident is not comparable to the 2005 Shakidor dam-burst in coastal Balochistan in which hundreds of people went missing or died, the recent breach in the under-construction Damani dam has reportedly affected 15,000 people, submerged over a dozen villages and inundated over 1,200 hectares of agricultural land. The immediate needs of the affected people include food, shelter and medicine. Once the waters subside they will need monetary and other help to repair their damaged homes and rebuild their agricultural lands.
Post-disaster relief is no doubt an important responsibility of the local and provincial governments as well as of the army and relief agencies. But of equal, if not more, importance are pre-emptive measures to ward off a disaster or mitigate its effects. Dam failures during the monsoon rains have become common in recent years in Balochistan which has some 300 big and small dams. Of particular concern is the fact that the threat comes more from new dams. Shakidor dam was built in 2003 and the Damani dam was under construction. Clearly, greater checks, at regular intervals, on under-construction and built dams are in order.
What is also required is structural enhancement so that dams vulnerable to breaching do not threaten communities. A detailed evacuation plan to minimise harm to the communities when the structure fails should also be drawn up. This would entail installing an effective early-warning system and educating communities on ways and means to evacuate their villages when the threat of flooding becomes imminent. Considering the potentially immense damage and loss of life that can be caused. www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/damani-dam-breach-679

The Pakistan government has, after tremendous Indian and international pressure, decided to charge sheet the key executors of the attack on Mumbai in November last. Such an action was overdue after the Indian government had presented irrefutable evidence of the involvement of Pakistani nationals in carrying out the attack which was compared to the 9/11 attacks in its audacity.

However, it is quite obvious that mere filing of charge sheet in a court of law was only the first step in prosecuting terrorists and their supporters. Pakistan now must move quickly to present evidence and testimonies to prove these charges. Pakistan has enough evidence to do so. The terrorists named in the charge sheet have been in the custody of the security officials for over six months, enough time to piece together the evidence based on their testimony and corroborative evidence gathered by investigating agencies in the meantime.

Intelligence agencies of foreign countries have also provided considerable evidence of the involvement of the persons charge sheeted in the Mumbai attacks. The Indian government has submitted several dossiers containing irrefutable evidence against the persons named in the charge-sheet and much more.

Considering the gravity of the crime and the global attention, it is the responsibility of the Pakistan government to see that the trial of the accused persons is conducted in a fast-track anti-terrorism court. There is a precedent to lean on. The trial of the main accused in the Daniel Pearl murder case in 2002 was completed within six months with the trial court sentencing Syed Omar Sheikh to death for his role in the killing of US journalist Daniel Pearl.

There are considerable advantages for Pakistan to do so. First, and the most important, it will generate public confidence in the State’s determination to wipe out terrorism from the country which has over the years become an existential threat. There is considerable public expectation within Pakistan on this issue. No less is the international community’s expectation from Pakistan which has benefited immensely from generous munificence from them. A serious and determined pursuit of the Mumbai terror case would bring confidence among Pakistan’s well-wishers including China which are relying heavily on it to contain the sweeping fires of terror threatening to singe regions around the new sanctuary of al Qaida and the Taliban.

A determined pursuit of the case filed in the court would, however, remain the first step. The next critical step would be to expand the scope of investigations to file charges against the supporters and allies of the persons accused in the charge sheet. This would mean chargesheeting LeT chief Hafiz Saeed, its deputy Abdur Rahman Makki and its spokesperson Yahya Mujahid to begin with. They should be charged with conspiracy, abetment and for carrying out anti-national activities. The Mumbai attack, which shook India, also dented Pakistan’s image considerably.

The Pakistan government must also move quickly to shut down the funding channels of these persons. The US Treasury has already blacklisted many of them. Lack of funds would cripple groups like LeT.

The Indian dossiers have clearly pointed out the linkages between LeT and some officers in ISI and Pakistan Army. The Pakistan government must carry out an investigation of the involvement of both retired and serving officers in the Mumbai Conspiracy. Some of these officers have, incidentally, been named by Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto weeks before she was assassinated in December 2007. The role of these officers in training and facilitating terrorists sent to Mumbai by LeT. The testimony of the lone surviving terrorist, Ajmal Amir Kasab, has revealed that several batches of recruits were trained at LeT’s training campus outside Muzaffarabad, Baitul Mujahideen. The Pakistan government must not delay in shutting down the campus and its allied facilities in the mountains nearby. The structures must be bulldozed and the vacated land secured with fencing. Similar actions must be taken on LeT’s headquarters at Murdike. Without harming the future of several hundred madrasa students and others living or studying there, the government can put the complex under the care of an administrator who could either be a serving or a retired judge.

These actions have in fact become imperative for Pakistan for its own survival. LeT, for instance, is known to be actively colluding with the Taliban targeting Pakistani State and its Army for more than a year now. LeT cadres have been fighting alongside the Taliban in Swat, Waziristan and other areas. LeT’s hand has been found in the series of attacks that shook cities like Lahore and Islamabad in the recent past. The group’s ploy to search for recruits in the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps in North West Frontier Province by projecting itself as a welfare organisation should raise alarm bells in Islamabad as also in other world capitals.

Pakistan’s determination to fight terrorism will thus rest on how it pursues the Mumbai terrorist case. It will be the litmus test of its sincerity.

By Iqbal Ahmad Khan
AT the heart of Pakistan’s foreign and security policies lies India and at the heart of our India policy lies Kashmir, Pakistan’s jugular vein as the country’s founder described it.

Kashmir has bedevilled Pakistan-India relations, is the source of insecurity and instability in the region and a cause of serious concern for the international community.

India reneged on its commitments to Pakistan, the United Nations and the Kashmiris to the holding of a plebiscite in the state. Six rounds of Bhutto-Swaran Singh talks, focused entirely on Kashmir, in 1962-3, proved inconclusive. The negotiations took place in the wake of India’s Himalayan debacle at the hands of China and on the serious prodding of the United States and Great Britain.

Having exhausted the path of diplomacy with an intransigent India, Pakistan embarked on a strategy to bring India to the table in a serious and meaningful engagement on the dispute. In 1965 Pakistan launched Operation Gibraltar in a bid to get Kashmiris to rise against their Indian occupiers. That did not happen. Instead, Pakistan and India got involved in a full-scale war, which neither could afford. After 17 days both were exhausted.

Whatever implications the war might have had for India, its consequences for Pakistan were disastrous. The perceived economic growth that Pakistan had been enjoying for several years and which was widely quoted as a model for Third World countries came to an abrupt halt. Western sanctions were imposed on Pakistan; East Pakistanis were extremely disenchanted leading Mujibur Rahman to launch his six-point programme and the country was engulfed in political turmoil. Six years later Pakistan was embroiled in another war with India. Its outcome was the disintegration of the country.

The East Pakistan tragedy should have prompted an earnest and urgent review of our policy towards India. The security establishment, however, was successful in having recommendations of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission report, which called for the trial of Gen Yahya and his confederacy of generals, shelved. It also managed to have high priority assigned and substantial resources allocated to the rebuilding of the armed forces. After all, East Pakistan had to be avenged.

The military, once again, began to loom large in Pakistan’s politics leading to its logical conclusion. Not only was the democratic government overthrown in a coup d’état, but Pakistan’s most popular and accomplished prime minister was dispatched to the gallows.

The Indian factor again played a major role in Pakistan’s reaction to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. The military dictator, who had usurped power on July 5, 1977, enthusiastically embraced the US which lent a new lease of life to his shaky and sanctioned government. The uni-dimensional military-based relationship with the US improved the military balance vis-à-vis India.

The victory of the Mujahideen against a superpower prompted him and his coterie of generals to (a) adopt the ‘strategic depth’ doctrine by ensuring that the new regime in Kabul should be so ingratiated to Pakistan as to invariably do its bidding; (b) employ the CIA-ISI Mujahideen model, successfully used in the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, against India in occupied Kashmir. The former strategy led to the emergence of the Taliban Frankenstein; the latter to such jihadi outfits as the Lashkar-i-Taiba, Jaish-i-Mohammad and the Harkat-ul-Ansar.

It did not take long for Al Qaeda, the Taliban and others to establish a nexus for the use of terror against their adversaries. Neither were the Taliban able to provide strategic depth, nor were the jihadis able to coerce India into settling the Kashmir dispute. The policy, in fact, dangerously backfired, with these battle-hardened and self-sustaining militants posing an existentialist threat to Pakistan itself.

As if the failure of our strategy was not enough of a setback, an emboldened military embarked upon a course that brought serious embarrassment and disgrace to the country. The overthrow in October 1999 of a legally constituted, democratically elected popular government was a direct consequence of the Kargil episode — once again the outcome of our policy of confronting India.

The multiple wars and skirmishes with India (futile at best) and the ensuing instability and insecurity in the region have adversely impacted on the internal political dynamics of Pakistan. The imbalance of a powerful military and a fragile democracy has seriously undermined the political process and impaired the healthy growth of civil institutions. The pursuit of highly ambitious and inherently unrealistic policies of ‘strategic depth’ and ‘coercive diplomacy’ have overstretched our limited resources and subjected our foreign relations to avoidable stresses.

A policy of confrontation with India — and its close cousins militancy and coup d’états — contains within itself the seeds of our destruction and must be avoided like the plague. It has become a millstone around our neck.

The real threat to Pakistan comes not from India, but from militant extremism. The second biggest source of instability emanates, also not from India, but from the widespread poverty and the low levels of human development that characterise our society. We need to divert the enormous time and resources that we continue to invest in our confrontation with India towards fighting militancy and getting rid of the all-pervasive poverty, ignorance and disease. Pakistan’s history and its present precarious condition demand a serious and honest appraisal of its traditional India policy with the objective of establishing a close, cooperative and tension-free relationship. Realpolitik and sound common sense dictate that Pakistan and India should live in peace and friendship.

The proposed change in our India policy is not tantamount to an acceptance of India’s hegemony. On the contrary, an economically vibrant, politically stable, socially cohesive nuclear Pakistan with 170 million economically empowered, healthy and educated citizens should be able to exude enough confidence and maturity to deter any entity contemplating domination. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/time-to-shun-the-past-279

By: Irfan Bukhari in The Nation, July 8
ISLAMABAD – Terming convention of APCs and formation of committees to resolve Balochistan issue as ‘futile exercise’, Baloch leaders Tuesday opposed the Prime Minister’s proposal of convening All Parties Conference on the issue of the province.
Senator Shahid Hassan Bugti of Jamhuri Wattan Party while talking to TheNation said that APC could not solve the thorny issue of Balochistan and noted that those tactics were meant to pass time. “In the past when the government had announced to convene APC on Balochistan, all nationalist parties of the province had declined to participate in it. APCs and committees are no more solution to the crisis of Balochistan, rather the government will have to take practical steps now,” he added.
Bugti said that Baloch leaders who were actual stakeholders should be taken on board for permanent solution of the issue. When asked what his party’s recommendations were regarding Balochistan crisis, Bugti said when the government would be serious to resolve the issue, all Baloch leaders as well as parties would give their recommendations regarding it. “The government first implement those recommendations which were given to it by Parliamentary Committee on National Security a few weeks earlier in which there were a number of suggestions to extinguish the fire in the province,” he stated.
It is pertinent to mention here that Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani on Monday (July 6) in his meeting with Balochistan Chief Minister Nawab Mohammad Aslam Raisani in Islamabad had said that All Parties Conference on Balochistan would be convened soon.
Sanaullah Khan Baloch of BNP said that the past experiences had told Balochs that APCs and committees were a useless exercise which hadn’t brought any fruit yet. “But, if the government announces exact date and the agenda of such conference, nationalist parties of Balochistan could deliberate over participation or non-participation in it,” he added.
He said that before convening APC, conducive environment should be made so that all Baloch leaders could participate in it with confidence. “The government will have to take confidence building measures before taking such an initiative,” Sanaullah stated, adding that until now such exercises had been proved just an eye-wash. “Such conferences were held in the past to befool international community that the government was serious in resolving Balochistan crisis,” he added.
“BNP opposes the idea that all political parties be taken on board on the Balochistan issue, as there are only two parties involved in the conflict; The Balochs and the Centre,” he observed, adding that since the Balochs were the victims of the conflict and the centre was the actor, therefore, the Balochs and Islamabad should directly negotiate to resolve the issue without including irrelevant political parties in the process.
Senator Mir Mohabbat Khan Marri of PML-Q also opposed the idea of convening APC on Balochistan, saying that at a time when Balochs were not admitting Pakistan, how they would admit the authority of political parties of the country and give weight to their recommendations. “The sense of deprivation is mounting day by day in the province, therefore, the government must take practical measures to redress people’s grievances,” he added.
He said that some Baloch leaders with the support of India and Afghanistan were engaged in exploiting the situation and were raising voices of freedom. “I am fighting against such elements without having any support from the government,” he added.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online//Politics/08-Jul-2009/Balochs-want-direct-talks-on-issues

By Man Mohan Kaul
If there are any doubts about who is calling the shots in Pakistan, here is further evidence that says that the Army does it.

The Pakistan Army has made it clear to the country’s Parliament. lt that cannot withdraw its forces from its present location. The context here is clearly the Indian border.

The Army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, said at an in-camera briefing to MPs on May 15 that the Army cannot be withdrawn from its locations of covering the expected attack routes on the border with India.

Specifically, he told the MPs that the Army would not mount its operations as per the diktats and preferences of any outside force.

The context here is very clear: US President Barack Obama impressed upon President Asif Ali Zardari when the two met early in May that Pakistan Army should withdraw its forces from the relatively peaceful border and re-deploy its personnel and equipment in the current fight against the Taliban.

Zardari responded by agreeing to it in principle and later said while interacting with the American that some units had actually been shifted.

But he spoke too early and Kayani has all but vetoed the move.

Only one newspaper carried the story that was probably an official leak from the Army General Headquarters. No one is prepared to vouch whether the account is accurate but Pakistan watchers are confident that this was a report based on the briefing Kiani gave the lawmakers.

It was about the four-hour in-camera briefing. Had the Army taken a decision and was the Parliament being simply informed? This remains a matter of conjecture. .

Either way, it reflects the thinking of the Pakistan Army and the lawmakers were being told who is the real boss when it comes to matters pertaining to national security and that too, where India is involved.

If there is a formal decision by the Army, no announcement was made: perhaps it was not found necessary. The Army simply let its mind be known and did not want the fledgling civilian government to take the diplomatic rap from the Obama Administration.

Here, one is not even speculating on the angry Indian reaction despite the preoccupation with the elections and formation of a new government.

The Pakistan Army is upset that the Americans have been trying hard in their Afghan-Pak thinking to make Pakistan withdraw the bulk of its Army from positions of confronting India to its western borders where the Taliban trouble is still going strong.

What is clear is that Pakistan Army is simply not willing to withdraw from positions of checkmating Indian military forces.

On the other hand, it plans to up its ante on the border with India, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir, to tell the Americans that their assessment of the situation on the Indo-Pak border is grossly inadequate and ill-informed.

The next question arises whether Pakistan would continue to resist American pressures to relieve the bulk of its troops to serve on its northwestern frontier.

This remains a billion dollar question, literally and figuratively, since the US is bending backwards to salvage the sinking Pakistani economy and fund its defence acquisitions in the name of fighting the Taliban.

One assessment is that the US has also prodded the other NATOP nations and Japan to pool in a whopping $ 23 billion over the next five years.

But Obama Administration and the US/Nato concerns and efforts are a present-day developments, while Pakistan’s struggle to maintain its identity that it fears could be obliterated by India is as old as its own life.

It does not require Kiani to spell it out and the Pakistani lawmakers to understand and appreciate that Pakistan’s very existence has depended upon opposing India.

The very emergence of Pakistan was because its founding father felt convinced that Muslims could not live in a Hindu-dominated India.

It needs recalling here that Pakistan in its very first year of existence devoted some 43 per cent of its budget to defence. It was meant in Muslim League government’s thinking that it would prevent Pakistan from being gobbled up by India.

But that set the benchmark. High defence spending aimed at defending Pakistan against Indian threat, real or perceived, has been the story of Pakistan for the last six decades. This is now almost an article of faith for all conservative sections. To move away would be such a radical shift in Pakistan policy that it is hard to imagine it can ever be agreed to.

The Americans are recommending such a radical departure from traditional Pakistani view that has congealed into an ideology. The conservative political class – the whole of it, actually — does think that India is an existential and permanent threat to Pakistan.

To move away from the original is now too hard an exercise. No regime in Pakistan – military, civilian, quasi-civilian-quasi-military – not to speak of the liberals and the once-influential socialists, ever could deny the demands of the country’s armed forces. Everything is just brushed aside when it comes to “defendant of the nation”, particularly when this ‘defence’ is enmeshed with the “defence of Islam,” and “Kashmir”

Pakistan joined, willy-nilly under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the global war against terrorism, doing a complete U-turn in the support the Taliban rulers of Kabul. But decades before that, Pakistan had joined the West-led military alliances that were meant to counter the communists who ruled Russia.

That Pakistan has managed to sup with the Chinese since the 1960s, and that china remains a communist nation that the US and the West view with concern is a different story altogether.

Pakistan agreed to join the west in lieu of military and some economic aid. The Americans were clear headed. They had made it plain from day one that their aid is not to be used against India. But did that ever happen?

When he launched his misadventure in 1965, its grandiose name was “Operation Gibraltar”, Ayub Khan believed that the America who not do much beyond shouting and protesting if Pakistan used its aided equipment against India

He did use it in 1965 war and the Americans were, expectedly, angry. They imposed sanctions on Pakistan; aid was suspended for some years.

But the Americans always knew that Pakistan would do such a thing when needed. They showed their anger more for the record than actual punishment of Pakistan. It was more to please India. Later America relented and the aid was resumed.

New sanctions were imposed on Pakistan and were fairly quickly lifted each time Pakistan used the American-supplied military hardware against India.

The situation is no different and all concerned – the Pakistanis, the Americans and even the Indians – know it. The Indian dismay at the Obama Administration’s Af-Pak policy is precisely on this ground. Only, in the more complex situation that develops in the new century, it finds open protests against the US and the West counter-productive.

Pakistan and its Army cannot possibly annoy Americans in any big way. Without American aid Pakistan Army cannot be sustained. It now requires anything from $ 500 million to 1 billion a year in foreign exchange.

This is only consideration. There are others: Can Pakistan say no to what Americans may insist on? Can Pakistan sustain a policy of defiance to America? It is easier said in a conference or in a briefing.

Some political posturing is permissible by the donors but not in terms of fundamental choices. And this is precisely the message conveyed through Kayani’s briefing to the country’s lawmakers.

Kayani’s message is: If Pakistan Army is expected to take its forces off the Indian border, then why have the Army at all? Taliban, or for that matter, even Al Qaida, are recent phenomena and will come and go. India will still be around to “gobble up” Pakistan

by Farooq Ganderbali

Pakistan’s existence as a separate country is becoming bleak with the changing security scenario in this beleaguered country. The Islamic nation is grappling with the never ending cycle of violence.  The continuous high profile guerrilla attacks in Lahore, Islamabad, NWFP and areas in the space of a month have heightened fears of Islamist militancy engulfing Pakistan. The attacks are showing the depth of insecurity in Pakistan, while television channels carry the news of attacks to the entire world.

Think tanks, policy makers and media around the world are describing entire Pakistan as an unstable country. They had been warning earlier too in the run up of this situation that the Pakistani security agencies are patronising terror groups like Al Qaeda and Taliban in the tribal areas. This is true to a significant extent. But that’s not the whole picture. The truth is that the border regions of Pakistan have a plethora of factors that make the area the perfect operating base for Islamic militants. Some of these have to do with geography, others with corruption, and still yet with Pakistan’s long history of communal violence and hatred of Hindu India.

Pakistan’s leaders know al Qaeda is encouraging a Taliban insurgency in Pakistani tribal lands bordering Afghanistan, and seeking to destabilise the Muslim nation of 170 million people. Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, an al Qaeda ally based in the South Waziristan tribal region has claimed responsibility for the assault on the Lahore police school, which killed eight cadets.

The Tribal areas have effectively slipped out of the control of Pakistani authorities. The writ of Pakistan government no longer rules here. Number of factors are responsible for reaching this situation. Pakistan suffers from high levels of corruption within the ranks of its police and security services. On top of that, the police often do not carry out their assigned duties of investigating crime and protecting the populace. Instead, it works the other way around, where the police are often engaged in criminal activities themselves, particularly in remote areas of the country where official investigation of mistreatment is almost unheard of.

There is the decades-old problem of collusion with the Islamic militants. This largely has its roots in the long-standing conflict between India and Pakistan and the fraternization between Pakistan and the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan War. During that conflict, the Pakistani intelligence services demanded that any weapons destined for the guerrillas pass through them. All in all, Pakistan’s security forces have been sympathizing with and aiding Islamic fighters, whether in Kashmir or Afghanistan, for well over two decades and such sympathies are difficult to simply reverse on a moments notice, especially in a nation like Pakistan.

U.S. Military commanders have made public accusations that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has maintained ties with groups close to al Qaeda and the Taliban. Nuclear-armed and a hiding place for al Qaeda, Pakistan has become a foreign policy nightmare for the United States and other allies in the West. The government in Pakistan doesn’t want to launch a massive overwhelming assault on the terrorists hiding out in its border provinces. Pakistan knows the gravity of the internal threat but its army would be uncomfortable taking troops away from the eastern border with India, particularly on the Jammu and Kashmir where they have assumed the role of Terror facilitators.

Even if the terrorists are breathing down their throats Pakistan is not changing its military strategy. Many other countries facing terrorism have effectively dealt with the situation. Egypt, for example, has largely suppressed the threat of widespread terrorism in their country through a perpetual state of emergency. It’s true that the Egyptian security forces are corrupt in the extreme and frequently resort to torture to extract information, but they differ from the Pakistanis in that they are loyal to the secular government and they have no love for terrorists.

Thus, they have no problem implementing massive widespread crackdowns in force to suppress extremism. In the absence of such determination, Taliban and related groups have increased their control in the border provinces, subsidized by drug profits from neighboring Afghanistan. The Pakistani government frequently wavers between wanting to wipe out the al Qaeda elements in their country and making deals with them. The common perception about the government and the military is that they are facing a crisis of credibility. There is no strategic plan or vision over how to deal with extremism and terrorism. As a show off Pakistani security agencies have been carrying out some operations against terrorists, but it is on record to say that none of its operations has ever achieved the success due to some obvious reasons.  They have been giving huge concessions to the terrorists, which most of the time amount to the surrender. In 2006 the government gave up control of large portions of Waziristan to the Taliban and released hundreds of hard-core fighters from their prisons. South Waziristan was under open rule by the Taliban in 2006 after the Pakistanis essential threw up their hands in frustration.

Rooting out terrorists from the region is difficult enough, but the prospect of the Pakistani government simply quitting the battle has been a nightmare to US and NATO forces. Sooner or later, depending on how the situation plays out, cross-border strikes may be necessary to deal with the problem once and for all. In the meantime, unable or unwilling to get its act together, Pakistan continues to suffer from routine attacks and the subversion of central authority.

The government in Pakistan too has not been able to perform upto mark. It is ruled by a weak and manipulative leadership that is without much public support. Its leaders are trying to survive through political manipulations. This is aggravating the already serious security vacuum in the country and is providing fresh oxygen to the various terrorist groups operating from the Pakistani territory.