|
|
|
US duplicity with Pakistan |
Sajjad Shaukat
DURING his trip to Islamabad on April 20 this year, while praising Pakistan’s military operations against the militants, US Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen blamed in an interview with a private TV channel that “Pakistan’s perceived foot-dragging in tackling strongholds in North Waziristan belonging to the Haqqani network and its continuing relationship with it was the most difficult part of the US-Pakistani relationship. He further revealed, “The ISI has a long-standing relationship with the Haqqani network. That doesn’t mean everyone in the ISI, but it’s there…Haqqani is supporting, funding, training fighters that are killing Americans and killing coalition partners” in Afghanistan.
In this context, on the one hand Admiral Mullen has admired the efforts of Pakistan’s Army in relation to war on terror, while on the other has shown his stereotype-thinking and blame game against Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI. His interview indicates US previous self-contradiction and duplicity regarding Pakistan. It is notable that despite Pakistan’s successful military operations against the Taliban militants and scarifies of country’s security forces including losses in political, economic and social terms in connection with war against terrorism, Washington wants Islamabad to do more, and to take military action against the Haqqani group in North Waziristan. While Islamabad has already made it clear that army is engaged in other tribal areas, so it cannot attack the militants of North Waziristan.
In the recent past, rejecting US duress, Pakistan’s army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has remarked that a decision about military action in North Waziristan will not be made on external dictation. It is mentionable that in the past, while talking about the failed attempt of the Times Square bombing, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had warned that Pakistan would face “severe consequences” if a future terrorist attack on US soil was traced back to Pakistan. She had further accused, “Some Pak officials know where Bin Laden, al Qaeda, Mullah Omar and the Afghan Taliban leadership are.” While at the same time, she admitted regarding the suspect Faisal Shahzad that investigation is being carried out by both US and Pakistani investigative bodies which are “working well together” and “Pakistan is reciprocating US concerns over the threat of terrorism.”
Notably, in 2009, when the heavy-armed Taliban entered Dir, Buner and other adjoining areas, US high officials and their media had left no stone unturned in exaggerating the Talibinisation of whole Pakistan and underestimating the capabilities of Pakistan’s armed forces in coping with the rising threat. Quite opposite to the ground realities as witnessed by the successful military operations which flushed out the Taliban out of Dir, Buner and other adjoining areas, US paradoxical approach could be judged from the statements of its high officials who had indicated that Taliban’s advancement in other regions beyond Swat, would result in total control of Pakistan by these extremists who would also captured the nuclear weapons, endangering the security of the West.
On April 22, 2009, Hillary Clinton stated that Taliban “advances pose “an existential threat” to Pakistan. On April 23, she warned that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists. Adm. Mike Mullen and General David Petraeus, Commander of US Central Command had also expressed similar thoughts. Surprisingly, when Pakistan’s armed forces ejected the Taliban insurgents out of Swat, Dir and Buner by breaking their backbone including command and control system—capturing many militants, then same American high officials started admiring the Pak Army. These self-contradictory statements of the US high officials which still continue in one or the other way, show American duplicity with Pakistan—sometimes cajoling the latter with economic and military aid and sometimes pressurizing Islamabad to ‘do more’ against the Taliban militants. It is of particular attention that despite the successful military operations by Pakistan’s armed forces and the arrest of renowned Taliban commanders including other militants and masterminds of Al-Qaeda, namely Khalid Sheikh and Abu Faraj, which became possible due to our country’s intelligence agencies—especially ISI, the US continues blame game against this superior agency.
On May 24, 2010, The Long War Journal, while quoting US military intelligence officials wrote, “The Pakistan-based Haqqani Network carried out suicide attack in Kabul on May 18 that killed a Canadian colonel, two lieutenant colonels, two US soldiers, and twelve Afghan civilians.” The Journal elaborated, “The US officials disclosed the information after a briefing by the spokesman for the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan’s top intelligence service, Saeed Ansari who claimed that the attack was organized in Pakistan with the help of ISI.” On the same date, The New York Times also reported same allegation. These are not new accusations against ISI, but are part of a perennial campaign against the agency which is the first defence line in thwarting the foreign plot against Pakistan. In 2009, The New York Times and Washington Post had disclosed in a series of allegations regarding presumed ties between ISI and militants of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—aiding Afghan Taliban and in bombing of Indian embassy in Kabul. It is mentionable that BBC, on October 7, 2009 displayed a documentary movie regarding the eighth anniversary of the US-led NATO invasion of Afghanistan. It stated that now this war is being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and “it will soon spread in Pakistan.”
This actually happened so as the US increased drone strikes on Pakistan’s tribal areas, particularly Waziristan. Although drone attacks have continued intermittently on the FATA, which have killed many innocent people, yet in one of the most lethal strikes, more than 40 civilians and policemen were killed when on March 18 this year, an unmanned US aircraft fired four missiles into a building in Datta Khel area of North Waziristan. On April 22, the American-CIA operated drone attacks killed 25 innocent people in the North Waziristan Agency.
Notably, from time to time, Pakistan’s civil and military leadership has protested against the attacks by the pilotless spy planes by pointing out that these are likely to affect war against terrorism in the country, but American policy makers do not bother for any internal backlash as they are playing a double game with Pakistan. In the recent months, controversy existed between Pakistan and the US on the question of American national Raymond Davis who shot dead two Pakistani youths in Lahore on January 27, 2011. In this respect, on the one hand, US high officials said that on the issue of Davis, America would not break relations with Pakistan; while on the other, they continued pressure on Islamabad for his immediate release.
Sources had confirmed that David Raymond and his companions were agents of the American CIA and were on an anti-Pakistan mission. In fact, he was part of the illegal activities of the Blackwater whose employees entered Pakistan in the guise of diplomats. With the help of Indian secret agency RAW and Israeli Mossad, Blackwater has rapidly established its network in Pakistan. It has recruited Pakistani nationals who are vulnerable and can work on payroll, giving them high financial incentives to work for them. Further, some reports suggest that this notorious firm has been recruiting smugglers, employees of the security companies, experts of the psychological warfare, scholars and journalists in order to fulfil anti-Pakistan designs of America, India and Israel. The agents of these agencies are behind suicide attacks, sectarian violence and targeted killings in Pakistan.
Question arises as to why the US has been showing duplicity with Pakistan. As a matter of fact, Pakistan is the only Islamic country that possesses nuclear weapons which irked the eyes of ‘nuclearized’ America, India and Israel which want to destabilize this country. Nonetheless, the Washington which had granted the status of non-NATO ally to Pakistan in the aftermath of 9/11 tragedy has been playing a double game with the latter. Besides, frustrated in coping with Al Qaeda-related militants on global and regional level, and to justify its failures in Afghanistan, the US has been displaying duplicity with Pakistan.—OP
|
| |
|
The Arab spring is 2011, not 1989 |
|
Jean-Marie Guehenno
THE Arab revolutions are beginning to destroy the cliche of an Arab world incapable of democratic transformation.
But another caricature is replacing it: according to the new narrative, the crowds in Cairo, Benghazi or Damascus, mobilised by Facebook and Twitter, are the latest illustration of the spread of Western democratic ideals; and while the “rise of the rest” may challenge the economic dominance of Western nations, the West will continue to define the political agenda of the world.
In that optimistic scenario, 1989 and 2011 are two chapters of the same story, which connect in a self-congratulatory way the political appeal of democracy and the transformative power of entrepreneurship and new technologies.
In reality, the movements that are shaking the Arab world are profoundly different from the revolutions that ended the Soviet empire. The Arab spring is about justice and equity as much as it is about democracy, because societies in which millions of young men and women have no jobs – and millions live with less than two dollars a day – crave justice as much as democracy.
As I heard one experienced Arab diplomat say, today’s revolutions are against “profiteers” as much as they are against dictators. The movements are also profoundly suspicious of foreign interference, and Western nations, which for many years have had a cozy relationship with dictators and profiteers, will be utilised, but they are unlikely to be trusted or to serve as models as they were in 1989.
The implications for our Middle Eastern policies are wide-ranging. The good news is that the focus on social justice and practical issues of development and redistribution has the potential to move the public debate further away from dreams of a return to the mythical past of the caliphate promoted by radical Islamists.
In the words of the French scholar Olivier Roy, the Arab revolutions may well become the first “post-Islamist” revolutions. But that will happen only if we in the West accept that Muslim values – which have, like Christian or Jewish values, many interpretations – can become part of the political debate, without being at the centre of it.
The more we try to polarise secular forces against Islamic movements, the more unlikely it is that secular values will win. We must abandon the illusion that the defining issue in the region is a battle between moderates and hardliners. Europe and the United States could send a strong signal by ending their policy of “a la carte democracy” and start talking to movements such as Hamas or Hezbollah – which does not mean that we in any way agree with their views.
Bringing the Muslim Brotherhood and related organisations into mainstream politics rather than trying to isolate them should be a priority. This is all the more necessary as the aspiration to justice will lead to demands that the present elites – and in particular security establishments – relinquish their grip not only on power, but also on the economy, and that demand may eventually trigger a second wave of upheavals. A more democratic Arab world is also likely to be less tolerant of the benign neglect with which the international community has often addressed the Israel-Palestine and the Israeli-Arab conflicts since 2000. That should not be seen as a threat by countries that support a resolution of the conflict in accordance with international law and a two-states solution, but it will require a “reset” of the policies of the last 10 years.
Lastly, as we discover that 2011 is not 1989, and that we are no more the trusted reference, we will have to navigate in unchartered waters: our engagement in Libya will probably have less moral clarity at the end than it has had at the start.
Political processes will inevitably be messy, and we will be tempted, especially in oil-rich nations, to pick winners and manipulate outcomes.
That would be disastrous for our long-term standing: in a region whose future has repeatedly been decided by foreigners since the end of the Ottoman empire, outside powers will have to demonstrate that this time they are genuinely willing to support home-grown political processes.
The West has to accept that it is not the central player anymore. But it need not be an indifferent and passive spectator. Finding the balance between engagement and restraint will be the policy challenge of this new phase. In Libya and possibly in some other situations, the active involvement of the United Nations to find a political solution may help us find that new balance by providing the impartiality and sufficient distance from great powers politics without which no political process will have a sustainable outcome.—AN
|
| |
|
Kazakhstan & non-proliferation |
|
Kairat Umarov
This year, the Republic of Kazakhstan passes a 20-year milestone of its independent development.
For history, this is rather a short period but a significant occasion to look back to understand what happened in the world during these years, what is the role of our country in these processes and what else could we do to ensure global security, primarily non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. In the course of the Global Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in April 2010, US President Barack Obama called the head of our state as the “leader of the international non-proliferation process”. This is an absolutely objective evaluation of an enormous contribution of Kazakhstan and its leader to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Today, an international authority of Kazakhstan in these processes is widely recognized. Kazakhstan over a short period of time has not only become a non-nuclear state, but also established itself as a firm and consistent supporter of a world free of nuclear weapons.
At the same time, rapidly evolving political realities of the new century force us to evaluate old security mechanisms from a new critical point of view. Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation for decades have been and remain central on the global security agenda, as there is still a large reserve of nuclear weapons in the world sufficient to destroy the life on the planet. The year 2010 has breathed some hope for new progress in the disarmament sphere. Conclusion and subsequent ratification of the new Russian-US Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, replacing the START-1, progress toward the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, finally the completion of the Review Conference of the states - parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, that safely avoided failure in 2005, shall inspire optimism.
However, the stagnation in the global disarmament process has not been reversed. Despite some achievements, the international community failed to substantially advance issues of disarmament and non-proliferation due to lack of consensus and political will, which certainly adversely affects their efficiency. There are still urgent issues posed by the head of state Nursultan Nazarbayev such as would a small group of politicians, heads of nuclear nations be able to seriously move toward a more predictable situation with weapons of mass destruction? How to establish an efficient and effective control over nuclear technology and, at the same time, guarantee the right of sovereign states to develop peaceful nuclear energy? How to ensure genuine equality in the nuclear sphere? The threat of uncontrolled expansion of the club of nuclear powers remains one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century. If the international community will not achieve a breakthrough in addressing these issues in the near future, the process of expansion of a circle of states possessing nuclear weapons could become irreversible with all its consequences.
The threat of availability of nuclear materials and other weapons of mass destruction to terrorists has increased. There was no real commitment of nuclear powers to radically reduce their nuclear reserves. The Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has been and remains the cornerstone of international security, and its abandonment would mean a collapse of the entire system. However, the treaty does not justify its expectations, while remaining asymmetric and providing for sanctions against non-nuclear states only. It does not contain clear and precise diagrams of the IAEA and the UN to respond to violations of states’ obligations before the IAEA. Finally, the NPT allows its parties to terminate their participation without any international relations of RK with the world community implications. All these factors reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of the NPT. This is why President Nursultan Nazarbayev of the Republic of Kazakhstan has put forward the idea to develop a new universal treaty on general horizontal and vertical non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which would promote and ensure the universality of the NPT regime. The new document, which could supplement existing agreements in the area of non-proliferation and disarmament and replace them in the long term, is intended to guarantee the nonuse of “double standards” and, at the same time, provide clear commitment of the parties and mechanisms to apply sanctions to violators. An important element of the international security architecture in non-proliferation is the establishment of zones free from nuclear weapons.
The treaty establishing a zone free from nuclear weapons in Central Asia was signed in September 2006 in Semipalatinsk. Now, we are working with the partners of the Central Asian nuclear-free zone for a “big nuclear five” to sign a protocol on negative assurances for zone members against the use of nuclear weapons, which will finalize the institutional registration of a nuclear-free zone. We are actively promoting policy to create a nuclear-free future in frames of the UN. So, in December 2009, the UN General Assembly unanimously approved the resolution proposed by the president of Kazakhstan to proclaim Aug. 29 as the International Day against Nuclear Tests, which proved a recognition by the international community of the importance of Aug. 29, the day of the official closure of the Semipalatinsk test site, and a significant contribution of Kazakhstan to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. In addition, the Kazakhstan’s resolution meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). As you know, the infrastructure of the former Semipalatinsk nuclear test site was transformed into an international peace site for solving “sensitive” issues of non-proliferation, suggesting involvement or presence of observers from different countries in experiments and programs conducted on its territory, thereby contributing to nuclear non-proliferation. In particular, we are an important part of international seismic monitoring of nuclear tests.
We are convinced an important step in strengthening the non-proliferation regime is the early adoption of the treaty banning production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (FMCT). Today, the world has accumulated nearly two thousand tons of surplus fissile materials. These stocks are not used in the military sector, but may reach the terrorists that could lead to horrific consequences. This is why we urge for an early start of negotiations on the development and conclusion of the FMCT in frames of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Kazakhstan supports the right of all members of the international community to develop peaceful nuclear technology in strict compliance with the NPT and under IAEA supervision. Within the international community’s efforts to develop a multilateral mechanism for ensuring access of consumer countries to nuclear fuel on a non-discriminatory and stable basis Kazakhstan supported the idea, proposed by the US Foundation “Nuclear Threat Initiative”, to establish an international nuclear fuel bank under IAEA auspices and submitted an official application to place the bank on its territory to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Attaching great importance to non-proliferation issues, at the beginning of last year, the head of state by his decree formed the Commission on Non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which covers all issues related to non-proliferation and nuclear security. One of the significant results of the commission’s work, headed by Secretary of State - Minister of Foreign Affairs Kanat Saudabayev of the Republic of Kazakhstan with participation of the first heads of the corresponding ministries and departments, was successful transportation of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) of BN-350 reactor (Aktau) onto a long-term storage site located at the former Semipalatinsk polygon. Implementation of the world’s largest transportation projects and long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel again demonstrated the commitment of Kazakhstan to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and recognition by the international community. In particular, as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted in December 2010 “Kazakh-US cooperation on non-proliferation is a model for the entire world”, meanwhile the US State Department published a statement stressing that Kazakhstan under the leadership of President Nursultan Nazarbayev provided security of nuclear material sufficient to make 800 nuclear bombs, thus making a significant contribution to international security and nuclear non-proliferation.
The construction of a unique research facility - central reference laboratory in Almaty was initiated in March last year under US assistance. The central reference laboratory, unique in Central Asia, will be the main laboratory for biosafety, diagnosis of infectious diseases in humans and animals, the centre for international research and scientific and practical training. Today, Kazakhstan joined all major international instruments to prevent nuclear, biological, radiological and chemical weapons. We strictly fulfil obligations arising from the provisions of the UN Security Council Resolution 1540 on non-proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction. Kazakhstan is a party to all 13 international conventions to combat terrorist activities developed within the UN system, including the Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. The reality of a terrorist attack using nuclear arm is taken seriously by the international community, and we believe we need to strengthen state control over nuclear activities on its territory and develop a good infrastructure to prevent terrorist acts. Kazakhstan is one of the most active participants in the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) proposed by the US and Russian presidents in 2006. At the initiative of our head of state, the GICNT conference to counter terrorism funding and the first meeting of the group for its implementation and evaluation were held in Astana in September 2010.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that a nuclear-free world can be a reality only in case of joint efforts by all countries and peoples regardless of whether they possess nuclear technology or not. Speaking at the Washington Nuclear Security Summit in April 2010, our president proposed to initiate discussions of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of nuclear-free world, which would state commitment of all states to move step by step to the ideal of the world free from nuclear weapons. We intend to work actively to promote this initiative, which has a positive response in the global community. Kazakhstan that voluntarily renounced the world’s fourth largest nuclear arsenal has been and will remain to be a reliable partner of the international community in matters of non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of atomic energy. Our policy on these issues remains unchanged.—AN
|
| |
|
Are ruling elites willing to eat grass? |
|
Brig (R) Samson S Sharaf
IT appears that after over a decade of writing on the Afghan Conflict, I have run out of ideas. During the course of my active involvement and as an analyst, much that was predicted has come to pass; and much that could have been accomplished in high politics has been denied or deliberately squandered. Lamentably, a nation with abundance in talent, resources and mismanagement still waits for a good to steer the vessel home. During the past ten years the clock has turned full circle and the country is back to square one. Eight years to say the least are a decade of failing statecraft. Pakistan is still being asked the same questions that it was, as a prelude to the unstinted support. The fissures between Pakistan and its overbearing ally USA are widening as the situation gets from bad to worse.
While the political establishment continues to make discredited statements over issues it has no control on, the military at least in public, for the first time appears to have locked horns through the ISI-CIA tangle. The military oft acclaimed the custodian of all frontiers is left badly exposed by the Panetta, State Department and Mullen tirades over its overall management of the. The statement of GOC 7 Division in favour of the accuracy of drone attacks is fodder for critics who maintain that these attacks manifest a behind the door agreement that has the military as one of the major actors.
The country lacks political credibility towards governance and has willingly plummeted into an economic quagmire. Despite major national crises, the squabbling politicians have displayed no purpose, sensitivity and ability to address issues over which they enjoy full control. Playing second fiddle to the inflexible foreign policy, they are content to keep the masses misinformed through unimaginative and purposeless soap operas. Lacking self belief and solid commitments, they are unwilling to cut themselves off from that umbilical chord that sustains them through the NRO while plummeting the country into darkness each day.
Away from the high dramas of Islamabad, the resilience of Pakistanis is visible. Field commanders, young officers and soldiers continue to wade through the explosive minefields of FATA at an unprecedented heavy cost, a sacrifice gone unnoticed by the international community and Pakistani leaders. Despite indiscriminate drone attacks, the suffering people of FATA continue to swear allegiance to Pakistan. Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf’s Dharna in Peshawar was an indicator of this resolve attended by people of all shades that included tribesmen, Baloch, retired government servants, common men of all descriptions, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians.
Amidst the trauma of an earthquake and unprecedented floods, the proud Pakistanis continue to pick up shreds and piece life together. This year Pakistan expects a bumper crop; thanks to the seed distribution programs and on farm advisories initiated by Imran Khan, his workers and some NGOs in the flood affected areas. The barter system is once again replacing the cash economy as a hedge against the rising double digit inflation. The unregistered and unregulated sector of Pakistan’s economy is coming to life to ensure that Pakistan survives the artificial poverty crises.
The message is loud and clear. Common men will tailor life to survive. Undeterred by the stigmas of bad governance and corruption, life will go on. The societal diversity considered as fault lines by sceptics are proving a strength .Pakistan will refuse to fail. All that the government and the establishment need to do is to back its people through friendly policies.
Eight year into its failures, the US policy in the region has begun to talk peace and withdrawal. Unfortunately, in Naseer Ullah Babar and Imam, Pakistan has lost two very credible individuals who exercised clout with the Afghans. While Babar died a natural death, Imam’s murder was treacherous and leaves many questions unanswered. A few days before his capture, he had confided in me his ability to broker a sustainable peace with Mullah Omar. However, he was weary that like the 1996 Accord of Benazir Bhutto in which he and his mentor Babar were major negotiators, USA may not support it. If at all, he was killed in cold blood immediately after the Raymond Davis fiasco?
In memory and as a tribute to these two visionaries, Pakistan must relentlessly pursue the same blue print in the best interest of the people of both Pakistan and Afghanistan; a broad based, diverse government in Afghanistan within a federation guaranteed by all affected international actors. As per my study and analysis of the conflict, the peace would start becoming a reality within 100 days.
Pakistan’s political and establishment negotiators also need to understand that Afghan Taliban need to be used as an asset for a universal durable stability in the region. They are also required to dispel the misperception that Pakistan considers them a strategic asset against India and a tool to blackmail the world. The strategic advantages of such a policy far outweigh the misnomer of Strategic Depth in that the objective of all conflicts in DIGNIFIED PEACE.
So is this two prolonged policy of building with people and pursuing credible peace possible?
At the home front, the government has to initiate a Fast Track Socio-Economic Program aimed at stabilisation, jump start to economy and productive GDP (not consumer based but based on ability to produce and consume and a precursor and agitator to exports i.e. GNP). To make the policy sustainable all issues of the Baloch people will have to be addressed with an out of the box strategy for herein rests the promise of a developed Pakistan. In my studies, Pakistan will experience a socio economic turn round within a year and keep growing.
On the Afghan front, the government, its establishment and USA have to revisit the drawing boards and initiate sustainable and mutually beneficial trust and confidence building measures to bring a viable solution to Afghanistan. Pakistan must demonstrate its ability at tough and persuasive negotiations against drone attacks and ability to rehabilitate all factions that agree to end militancy. Pakistan also needs to develop a rehabilitation program geared towards harnessing this tremendous notion of romanticism towards positive nation building.
Once the two prolonged policy is realised and implementable the government must move to the next step of devolution. Too early a step, will spell disaster for the federation tantamount to moving into the enemies’ trap.
This two prolonged strategy looks too simple. As history proves, all practical and implementable plans are invariably simple. However, this simplicity is belied by the necessity of good governance, tough and objective negotiations and peace as primacy. Within the grey of intentions, perceptions and image theories are valleys full of vested narrow interests and peaks cordoned by sharp cliffs. The difficulty factor is the major challenge to this simplicity. Though the nation is, are our ruling elites willing to eat grass?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| More inside The Daily Mail |
| Top Headlines |
Business |
Sports |
Showbiz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
