Business Recirder editorial May 31, 2916

Security for Chinese in Pakistan A Chinese engineer, his driver and private guard were injured in a bomb blast on the National Highway in Karachi on May 30. According to reports, the engineer, Mr Finche, works at a power plant at Bin Qasim Port and lives in Guldhan-i-Hadeed. On the day of the incident, he was travelling to work when the bomb, planted in a flowerpot on the green verge, went off as his vehicle passed. Fortunately, none of the passengers in the vehicle was seriously hurt and all of them were discharged after first aid. Strangely, an officer of the Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) revealed that a pamphlet was discovered near the site of the blast, claiming responsibility by a little known Sindhi nationalist group, the Sindhudesh Revolutionary Army. In previous such attacks on Chinese nationals working on various projects in Sindh, the CTD official said responsibility was claimed by the Shafi Burfat-led Sindh Liberation Army. It seems strange that such sensitive information should immediately be released to the media. Surely the wiser course would have been not to thereby alert the elements involved. Nevertheless, the attack is the latest in a long series of such incidents in Sindh and Balochistan involving Chinese nationals working in Pakistan. These are, as the pamphlet mentioned above states, the consequence of opposition from Sindhi and Baloch nationalist groups to the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which they view as detrimental to the interests of their respective provinces and an attempt to control their resources. The recurrence of such attacks and the proliferation of groups of a nationalist hue claiming responsibility is a worrying development, especially considering the stakes for both China and Pakistan in the CPEC, viewed as a strategic, political and economic game-changer for the region and the wider world. When the CPEC was initially announced, and in the backdrop of the dissidence on display from nationalist groups, militant and mainstream, to the project and especially Gwadar port, the government and military announced a special security force to be raised to safeguard the CPEC project/s and especially the Chinese nationals expected to work on them. While the proposed new security force was focused on the CPEC, what appears to have been overlooked or not paid sufficient attention to are similar risks faced by Chinese nationals working elsewhere in the country. This is doubly surprising when it is recalled that attacks on Chinese nationals working in Pakistan predate in some instances, the announcement of the CPEC. Given the size and importance of the CPEC, this is perhaps an all too human error to fall into. But having said that, and in the light of the latest incident in Karachi, some fresh thinking may be required. The Chinese engineer attacked in the latest incident is reported to be amongst three or four of his fellow nationals and colleagues who have chosen to live in rented accommodation in Gulshan-i-Hadeed next to Steel Town, where most of their colleagues are housed in securer colonies. Police claim the engineer in question and his colleagues in Gulzhan-i-Hadeed were warned and requested to move to Steel Town, but they refused. Mr Finche also reportedly refused police security. After the incident, it has been announced that police security will be provided to all Chinese nationals, especially when moving around. This may seem like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, but it is better that such steps are being taken late rather than never. The strategic and economic gains of the CPEC and other projects on which Chinese nationals are working in Pakistan can only be realised if the Chinese engineers and workers are assured of security of life and limb. In the light of the reports of Chinese nationals' reluctance to accept the security agencies' advice regarding their residence and movements, it is imperative that the authorities talk to the managements of the Chinese companies as well as the Chinese government to persuade their nationals working in Pakistan to cooperate with our security agencies in their own interest. That may save us some blushes if, God forbid, some of our Chinese friends in Pakistan were not to get off as lightly as Mr Finche.

A belated reckoning Rashed Rahman An Argentinian federal court has sentenced the country's last military dictator, 88-year-old General Reynaldo Bignone, to 20 years imprisonment for kidnapping and 'disappearing' more than 100 people during the 1976-1983 dictatorship. Of this period, Bignone was himself holding absolute power in 1982-1983. The General is already serving life sentences for multiple human rights violations during that dark period. In the landmark trial, 14 other former military officers were sentenced to between eight and 25 years imprisonment for criminal association, kidnapping and torture. Many of them are also serving prison sentences already. They include one Uruguayan former Colonel, Manuel Cordero Piacentini, who tortured prisoners inside Automotores Orletti, the Buenos Aires repair shop where many captured leftists were 'interrogated' under orders from their home countries. One other defendant was convicted on charges separate from the larger case, involving a different set of victims. Two other accused were absolved of similar charges against them. The unprecedented court verdict after a trial lasting three years in which the four-member judges' bench received testimony from about 370 witnesses, ruled that Operation Condor was a criminal conspiracy to kidnap and forcibly disappear people across international borders. The covert operation was launched in the 1970s by six South American military dictatorships that used their secret police and intelligence networks in a coordinated effort to track down and eliminate their opponents abroad. Most of those disappeared, tortured and killed were leftists who had sought refuge from brutal repression at home in neighbouring countries and further abroad. The sentences are seen as a milestone because they mark the first time a court has proved that Operation Condor was an international criminal conspiracy by the US-backed regimes in Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The investigation into the affair was launched in the 1990s when an amnesty law still protected many of the accused. Argentina's Supreme Court overturned the amnesty in 2005 at the urging of then President Nestor Kirchner. It has taken 40 years after Operation Condor was formally founded and 16 years since the judicial investigation began to deliver justice to some of the victims of Latin America's past military dictatorships. During this protracted process, several defendants either died or were removed from the judicial process. Their victims reflected conflicted and bitter feelings about the verdict. Since the bodies of many victims have never been found, Argentine prosecutors argued that the crime of covering up their deaths continues to date and therefore statutory time limits do not apply. A key piece of evidence in the case was a declassified FBI agent's cable sent in 1976 that described in detail the conspiracy to share intelligence and eliminate leftists across South America. Operation Condor was launched in 1975 by notoriously brutal military dictator General Auguste Pinochet of Chile, who had come to power through a bloody US-backed coup in 1973, during which elected Marxist President Salvador Allende went down fighting. Pinochet enlisted the other military dictators in the six countries named above for the conspiracy. Peru and Ecuador joined later. The outreach of Operation Condor did not even spare Chilean former ambassador Orlando Letelier and his US aide Ronnie Moffitt who were assassinated in Washington D.C. in September 1976 by Chilean agents involved in Operation Condor. Condor agents tracked other political exiles across Europe to eliminate them. South American military governments in the 1970s and 1980s kidnapped, tortured and murdered thousands of rebel guerrillas and dissidents. The victims spanned the spectrum from the revolutionary left to democratic dissidents. Of these thousands, at least 377 of those who fell victim to Operation Condor's tender mercies have been accounted for. This is obviously the small tip of a very large iceberg. But at least an important legal precedent has now been set by the verdict that lays down that there is no bar on bringing to justice those responsible for such heinous crimes, no matter how long it takes. Argentina has taken the lead in carrying out scores of trials over the the last decade in which at least 666 accused have been convicted of such crimes during Argentina's "dirty war" of the 1970s and 1980s. In other South American countries, however, efforts to bring such violators of human rights to justice have sputtered. Francesca Lessa, a researcher at Oxford University's Latin American Centre who has closely watched the trial, argues that prosecutors in the Operation Condor case "broke new ground in accountability" by successfully pursuing crimes beyond Argentina's borders. The case serves as a warning to all the perpetrators of these crimes that they cannot rest sanguine. It now appears that with this legal precedent, sooner or later the justice system will catch up with them. While Latin Americans generally, and the victims and their families have reason for satisfaction and even rejoicing, spare a thought for the thousands of political dissidents who have disappeared in Pakistan over the last one and a half decades. The greater number of these belong to Balochistan, where a nationalist insurgency is ongoing. But such disappearances have also been reported in Sindh, including Karachi. Enforced disappearances and tortured and bullet-riddled bodies dumped all over these areas first emerged during General Pervez Musharraf's nine-year military dictatorship. To date, the efforts of human rights defendants and the courts, including the august Supreme Court, have failed to account for those still missing or bring the perpetrators of the crime of torturing, killing and dumping bodies to justice. Compared to the South American example therefore, we are still stuck in the 1970s as far as accountability for such serious crimes is concerned. Apart from being horrendous violations of human, legal and political rights in a democratic system, such practices serve only to deepen hatred against the state's authority, legitimacy and writ. They therefore end up exacerbating the very problem they set out to resolve. As for our military dictators of the past, none has been held accountable or brought to justice for the overthrow of the constitutional order (constituting treason under Article 6 of the constitution) or for their actions while in power. Our first military dictator, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, was removed by another military coup in the face of a countrywide agitation against his 10-year rule and allowed to retire and pass away peacefully in his time. His successor, General Yahya Khan, having launched the ill-fated genocidal crackdown in East Pakistan to deny Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and his Awami League the electoral mandate they had received in the 1970 elections, ended up so isolating Pakistan internationally that when India intervened and our defeat followed, not a sound of sympathetic protest was heard from any corner of the world. He too was removed by an 'internal' military coup and put out to pasture. General Ziaul Haq met his maker in the 1988 aircraft crash, and therefore escaped too the process of accountability. Last but not least, General Musharraf, having been ousted from power in the obtaining balance of political and other forces after Benazir Bhutto's assassination in 2007 and the 2008 elections that followed, was allowed to depart for more salubrious foreign climes. However, hubris persuaded the General to abandon his comfortable and lucrative lecture tour life and return to Pakistan under the illusion that he had enormous support. What followed was even more farcical. The PML-N government's quixotic attempt to bring him to justice ended up finally with the dictator departing again on medical grounds, with the fate of his treason trial as that of the assassinations of Nawab Akbar Bugti and Benazir Bhutto being consigned to oblivion. Pakistan clearly has a long way to go before it can even begin to emulate the South American example. rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

Business Recorder editorial May 31, 2016

Obama's Hiroshima tryst Seventy one years ago, the world was rudely awakened to a holocaust ushered in by a horrific mushroom cloud over Hiroshima. A few days later, the mass carnage was repeated in Nagasaki. The death toll in Hiroshima alone was 130,000 people, thousands incinerated instantly, the rest dying painful deaths from burns and radiation over weeks, months and years. Along with Nagasaki, the total death toll was 200,000 people. Never before in history had this number of civilian non-combatants been obliterated in the blink of an eye, nor so many left to die slowly and painfully later. Since then, the US had never seen fit to apologise for this massacre, seeking to justify it by arguments about Japan's unwillingness to surrender. Others argue all the signs of an imminent surrender were visible, therefore the atomic bombs were dropped as an assertion of power in the post-Second World War world with an eye to the resurgent Soviet Union. Whatever the truth, successive US presidents have shied away from an admission of guilt reflected in an apology. President Barack Obama's visit, the first by a US president, diplomatically avoided any apology while explicating the human tragedy represented by the bombings and arguing for recognition of the potential demonstrated at Hiroshima of mankind having acquired the terrible means for its destruction. While the sentiment is laudable and in line with Obama's initial election pledge to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons, things have unfortunately turned out exactly the opposite since. In 2009 in a speech in Prague, Obama had reiterated his call for the elimination of nuclear weapons, a speech for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but his administration has since all but abandoned the idea. The US currently spends $ four million an hour on maintaining its nuclear arsenal (which, along with Russia's, constitutes 95 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world) and the Obama administration proposes to spend $ one trillion over the next 30 years to expand and modernise it. This will no doubt give rise to a fresh nuclear race and encourage smaller powers to attain or embellish their nuclear capability. While Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe may have been justified in calling the carefully calibrated visit "courageous", China and North Korea differed. The former acknowledged the remembrance of Hiroshima as justified, but said the Nanjing massacre of 300,000 people over a six-week killing spree by invading Japanese troops in 1937 was far worse. North Korea condemned the visit as the "height of hypocrisy and impudence" and a naked attempt to castigate it for its nuclear weapons development, while both countries saw the visit's agenda as casting Japan as a victim rather than an aggressor. Time and distance may resolve these conflicting views but for us the terrible implications of nuclear weapons have yet to sink in. Pakistan casts its nuclear weapons development as a defensive measure against India's initiation of a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent, and while there is truth in that argument, it does not help matters. Both countries are contemplating the development of a second strike capability and tactical nuclear weapons, developments that can only lower the threshold of the unthinkable use of these weapons of mass murder. Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) should remind us even this far from those terrible events in 1945 that nuclear weapons are unusable, and as deterrents, run the concomitant risk of states testing the below nuclear conflict threshold. If proof is needed, one only has to cast an eye on post-1998 (the year of India and then Pakistan carrying out nuclear tests) conflicts such as Kargil (1999), the attack on the Indian parliament and subsequent sabre rattling (2001-02) and the Mumbai (2008) and Pathankot (2016) attacks. Mercifully, both countries were spared escalation of these events to the nuclear threshold, but playing this Russian roulette cannot continue indefinitely at the risk of mutual destruction. Along with the world, Pakistan and India too have to work for peaceful resolution of differences and an end to the terror of the mushroom cloud.

Business Recorder editorial May 28, 2016

Obama's Hiroshima tryst Seventy one years ago, the world was rudely awakened to a holocaust ushered in by a horrific mushroom cloud over Hiroshima. A few days later, the mass carnage was repeated in Nagasaki. The death toll in Hiroshima alone was 130,000 people, thousands incinerated instantly, the rest dying painful deaths from burns and radiation over weeks, months and years. Along with Nagasaki, the total death toll was 200,000 people. Never before in history had this number of civilian non-combatants been obliterated in the blink of an eye, nor so many left to die slowly and painfully later. Since then, the US had never seen fit to apologise for this massacre, seeking to justify it by arguments about Japan's unwillingness to surrender. Others argue all the signs of an imminent surrender were visible, therefore the atomic bombs were dropped as an assertion of power in the post-Second World War world with an eye to the resurgent Soviet Union. Whatever the truth, successive US presidents have shied away from an admission of guilt reflected in an apology. President Barack Obama's visit, the first by a US president, diplomatically avoided any apology while explicating the human tragedy represented by the bombings and arguing for recognition of the potential demonstrated at Hiroshima of mankind having acquired the terrible means for its destruction. While the sentiment is laudable and in line with Obama's initial election pledge to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons, things have unfortunately turned out exactly the opposite since. In 2009 in a speech in Prague, Obama had reiterated his call for the elimination of nuclear weapons, a speech for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but his administration has since all but abandoned the idea. The US currently spends $ four million an hour on maintaining its nuclear arsenal (which, along with Russia's, constitutes 95 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world) and the Obama administration proposes to spend $ one trillion over the next 30 years to expand and modernise it. This will no doubt give rise to a fresh nuclear race and encourage smaller powers to attain or embellish their nuclear capability. While Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe may have been justified in calling the carefully calibrated visit "courageous", China and North Korea differed. The former acknowledged the remembrance of Hiroshima as justified, but said the Nanjing massacre of 300,000 people over a six-week killing spree by invading Japanese troops in 1937 was far worse. North Korea condemned the visit as the "height of hypocrisy and impudence" and a naked attempt to castigate it for its nuclear weapons development, while both countries saw the visit's agenda as casting Japan as a victim rather than an aggressor. Time and distance may resolve these conflicting views but for us the terrible implications of nuclear weapons have yet to sink in. Pakistan casts its nuclear weapons development as a defensive measure against India's initiation of a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent, and while there is truth in that argument, it does not help matters. Both countries are contemplating the development of a second strike capability and tactical nuclear weapons, developments that can only lower the threshold of the unthinkable use of these weapons of mass murder. Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) should remind us even this far from those terrible events in 1945 that nuclear weapons are unusable, and as deterrents, run the concomitant risk of states testing the below nuclear conflict threshold. If proof is needed, one only has to cast an eye on post-1998 (the year of India and then Pakistan carrying out nuclear tests) conflicts such as Kargil (1999), the attack on the Indian parliament and subsequent sabre rattling (2001-02) and the Mumbai (2008) and Pathankot (2016) attacks. Mercifully, both countries were spared escalation of these events to the nuclear threshold, but playing this Russian roulette cannot continue indefinitely at the risk of mutual destruction. Along with the world, Pakistan and India too have to work for peaceful resolution of differences and an end to the terror of the mushroom cloud.

Business Recorder editorial May 25, 2016

Chaudhry Nisar's presser Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar held another of his by now 'famous' press conferences on May 24 in the aftermath of the drone strike that killed Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour. While the attending journalists and viewing public watching on television could be forgiven for thinking that Chaudhry Nisar would throw some light on the issue, the redoubtable minister left everyone scratching his head in perplexity, given the contradictions, obfuscations and confusions on show. Chaudhry Nisar's lengthy statement could be boiled down to three or four propositions. One, he refrained from confirming that the person killed in the drone strike was indeed Mullah Mansour, pending DNA tests. This in spite of the fact that the Afghan Taliban had not only accepted the death of their leader, but have now moved ahead on May 25 to elect, not unexpectedly, Mulla Haibatullah Akhundzada as his replacement. Two, Chaudhry Nisar tried to argue that Mullah Mansour was not opposed to peace talks, citing the first round of the Quadrilateral Group's meeting with the Afghan Taliban in June last year. The second round was stymied by the announcement of the death of Mulla Omar two years previous. Since then, Mullah Mansour seemed more interested in battlefield advances than the talks. Three, the minister condemned the drone strike as a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. It would do to remind ourselves that Musharraf had quietly allowed drone strikes in the tribal areas, even providing a base for the purpose in Balochistan. Subsequently, the succeeding PPP government seemed to have arrived at an 'arrangement' whereby Pakistan would condemn drone strikes publicly, even if collusion existed. In the case of Mullah Mansour too, according to a New York Times report, the US Joint Command that had been given the go ahead by President Obama weeks ago, received, apart from other sources, intelligence regarding the movements of Mullah Mansour from Pakistani sources. This revelation, if true, would render the mildly apoplectic protests by Pakistan a joke. Fourth, and not insignificantly (this may even have been the main purpose of the press conference), Chaudhry Nisar shifted the blame for the issuance of Mullah Mansour's Pakistani CNIC and passport in the name of Wali Mohammad on the Musharraf and PPP governments, claiming the CNIC was cancelled last year by his government but NADRA, for reasons unknown, failed to have the passport cancelled too. Chaudhry Nisar announced action to be taken against all officers who had verified/attested Mullah Mansour's false documents. He boasted that a purge of false CNICs etc issued over the years to Afghan refugees and the corrupt officers who facilitated them was being carried out. Chaudhry Nisar's press conference left more questions unanswered. There is of course no further need for the DNA tests, except as final proof. If, as the minister asserted, Mullah Mansour was seeking peace, why has the ground situation in the war in Afghanistan worsened since he took over? Clearly, the failure of Pakistan to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table with Mansour in charge finally convinced the US that he was not a partner for peace. This has been confirmed by a US State Department spokesman. Whether, however, the same spokesman's logic that killing Mansour sends a message that safe havens (including in Pakistan) no longer exist, and the drone strike points the way to the peace road will play out in that manner in practice is a moot point. Last but not least, to equate the issuance of false documents to a high profile Afghan Taliban leader like Mullah Mansour with the rampant mismanagement and corruption in government departments issuing such documents is to insult the intelligence of the public. The killing of Mullah Mansour in Pakistan has caught the government with its pants down. Fulminating and railing at the US about the implications for our mutual relations is just so much sound and fury, signifying an impotent nothing.

Business Recorder Editorial May 24, 2016

Chabahar port The first visit by an Indian prime minister to Iran for 15 years has yielded rich dividends in terms of a trilateral series of agreements amongst India, Iran and Afghanistan regarding the development of Chabahar port and a railway line to connect it to Zahedan. India will provide $ 500 million for the purpose and hundreds of millions of dollars more for cooperation in trade, energy, and industries such as aluminium, steel, petrochemicals, etc. Iran's oil and gas industries will be at the heart of this bilateral cooperation. This, in Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's view, will see Iranian oil and gas exchanged for India's mineral wealth and industrial expertise. But the benefits will not be confined to bilateral advantage. Chabahar port and the rail and road link planned to Afghanistan will offer the latter an alternative route to its present exclusive dependence on Pakistan. The opening to Afghanistan will further allow interconnectivity with Central Asia and beyond, all the way to Europe eventually. The project not only frees Afghanistan and Central Asia from exclusive reliance on the Pakistan route, it represents a strategic victory for India as a riposte to the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the development of Gwadar port. China is offering $ 46 billion for the CPEC in a potentially game-changing revival of the historical Silk Route, which will provide China's relatively less developed western regions a shorter and more convenient route to the sea, while laying the foundations for regional and international interconnectivity thereby on a hitherto undreamt of scale. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, stung by Pakistan's perceived cold shoulder to his domestically risky outreach to Islamabad soon after taking office, was visibly delighted at the three-way transit agreement. India too has cause for satisfaction. Both countries have problems with Pakistan re trade transit rights, India probably by now despairing of getting trade access to Afghanistan (and beyond) through Pakistan. Apart from the obvious advantages to landlocked Afghanistan and Central Asia, the Chabahar project will, like the CPEC, trigger substantial investment and business activity along its route. In that sense, the former may be considered the answer by India, Iran and Afghanistan to the latter. To seal the deal and make it even sweeter, India last week cleared $ 750 million of the $ six billion debt to Iran that was held up for years because of the nuclear-related sanctions against Iran. In January 2016, Tehran came to an agreement on the nuclear issue with its international interlocutors, leading to the lifting of sanctions. India and the rest of the world have since been making a beeline to Tehran to get in on the economic windfall represented by an Iranian market emerging from isolation. Pakistan on the other hand has remained bogged down in its inane and inept foreign policy generally, and in particular vis-a-vis the new opportunities presented by Iran. Instead, we are still lumbered by arguments such as Petroleum Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi's, who says we are unable to complete the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline on our side (it is already complete on the Iranian side) because financing for the $ two billion project is hard to come by for fear of the 'snap back' clause in the nuclear agreement that could see sanctions being reimposed if Iran reneges on its commitments. So we are condemned to sit on our hands while India and the rest of the world enjoy mileage with Tehran. Cutting off our nose to spite our face is what we are past masters at. When Iranian President Rouhani visited Pakistan not so long ago, the anticipation was the gas pipeline and many other projects of importance would be signed. Instead, the story of an Indian spy based in Iran being captured in Pakistan put paid to any such hopes. Now the Mullah Akhtar Mansour episode promises to involve us in a diplomatic row with Tehran. Strange are the ways in which things are run in Pakistan.

Mullah Mansour exits Rashed Rahman Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour's killing in a drone strike in Dalbandin district near the Iran border has once again altered all the permutations and combinations attending the Afghan war. The likely effects of this development cut across all the assumptions and prognoses regarding this long running conflict. For one, as happened when Mulla Omar's death was belatedly announced a year ago, there is likely to be a fresh struggle between rival Taliban factions to have their own candidate succeed Mullah Mansour. It may be recalled that in the wake of the announcement of Mulla Omar's death, despite Mullah Mansour being named his successor, rival factions, including the son and family of Mulla Omar, refused to accept Mullah Mansour as the new leader. It took Mullah Mansour time and effort to reconcile these rival factions through appointment of their candidates to senior leadership positions, including Sirajuddin Haqqani of the dreaded Haqqani network. Another round of similar factional struggle now cannot be ruled out. Whoever succeeds Mullah Mansour, his death will have further hardened the Taliban's stance. As it is, the peace process was floundering. Ironically, although Mullah Mansour was considered by both the US and Kabul as opposing participation in the peace talks, his death has all but put paid to any chance of a peaceful political resolution of the Afghanistan conundrum. Another fallout of Mullah Mansour's being taken out by a drone is increasing strains in the Pakistan-US relationship. Contradictory media reports speculated whether Pakistan was informed of the drone strike in advance. Going by past standard operating procedures in drone strikes, that seems unlikely, particularly in the case of such a high profile target. Pakistan has vociferously denounced the drone strike as a violation of its sovereignty. But such protestations mean little as even in the past they have had little effect on Washington. The only difference is that after the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the US, and despite the reports of the drone programme being allowed to operate from a base in Balochistan, such strikes remained confined to the tribal areas where there was a concentration of the Taliban. This strike in Balochistan means that Washington means business when it says it will continue to target Taliban leaders wherever they are found. It also means that it now concurs with Kabul's view that Pakistan is not doing enough to nudge the Taliban towards the negotiating table, despite protestations to the contrary. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has already given up on his initial outreach to Pakistan to partner Kabul and Washington in bringing the Taliban into the peace process. Now Washington seems convinced that Mullah Mansour's intractability vis-a-vis the peace talks and his reliance on aggressively pursuing tactical advantage on the battlefield has Pakistan's implicit support. The 'difficult' ally (Pakistan) is therefore going to have life made even more difficult for it in the days ahead. As it is, the chickens of Pakistan's duality of policy vis-a-vis the US/NATO campaign to defeat the Taliban are coming home to roost. The Obama administration has been trying to persuade a hostile Republican-dominated US Congress not to adopt strictures and conditionalities on support to Pakistan. Difficult as the relationship between Washington and Islamabad has proved, the administration still calculates the cost-benefit of maintaining the relationship militates against non-cooperation. This view is not shared by the Republicans, wide sections of the American media, and public. In a presidential election year, the Republicans may have latched onto the administration's Pakistan policy as one more stick to beat it with. Of course the real sufferer is Pakistan. Historically dependent on the US and the west for aid, including military help, Islamabad now faces a US Senate unwilling to subsidise the sale of F-16s to Pakistan and a US House of Representatives insisting on conditionalities before aid, even Coalition Support Fund reimbursements, are released. These conditionalities centre on Pakistan taking action against the Haqqani network, the US Secretary of Defence certifying that Pakistan is not using US aid or equipment to suppress religious and ethnic minorities, and the release of Dr Shakil Afridi, who is viewed as a hero for his role in helping the US track down and eliminate Osama bin Laden. All three conditionalities are difficult to fulfil for Pakistan. Taking on the Haqqani network means taking on the Afghan Taliban in the midst of the struggle against the homegrown Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). While the Pakistani military and security forces already have their hands full with that task despite the successes chalked up by Operation Zarb-e-Azb in FATA and the Rangers' operation in Karachi, any action taken against any Afghan Taliban faction would further consolidate the nexus between the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. With the TTP having found safe havens in Afghanistan with the Haqqani network and millions of Afghan refugees (and Taliban amongst them) still on Pakistani soil, the Pakistani military and security forces cannot open up an internal front against the Afghan Taliban without enormous trouble and conflict following in its wake. Of course were such a foolhardy step to be taken, the Afghan Taliban would feel freed of any constraint in helping the TTP fight against Pakistan. Such an internal-external two-front situation would be a security disaster. Pakistan is increasingly seen in Washington and Kabul as waging or supporting a proxy war through the Afghan Taliban while paying lip service to reconciliation and peace. Pakistan's oft repeated denials cut no ice. Islamabad's failure to persuade, and subsequently turn the screws (short of military action) on the Afghan Taliban has now landed it in the doghouse. Now it is caught in the classical dilemma of damned if you do and damned if you don't. These are the fruits of an inept foreign policy being run by two 'Advisors' at loggerheads with each other, no permanent foreign minister (the prime minister holds this portfolio close to his chest without being able to do justice to this crucial area in terms of following trends and developments and undertaking proactive planning), and a consequent sense of drift just when the regional and international dynamic is undergoing dramatic changes. Pakistan's adventures with proxy wars (east and west) have now begun to extract a heavy price. The US, the administration's 'balancing' act notwithstanding, seems bent upon punishing Pakistan for its duality in the Afghanistan theatre over the last 15 years. It is also largely ignoring Pakistan's pleas to take into consideration its defence and security needs vis-a-vis India's overwhelming conventional military strength, pursuit of more powerful nuclear weapons and their delivery platforms, and perceived hegemonic regional designs. In other words, the US strategic calculation to have India on board as a counterweight to the growing might of China has left Pakistan out in the cold. As to the Afghanistan conundrum, peace seems dead in the water. Pakistan must now brace for the fallout. This may well include a resurgence of terrorism by the TTP, perhaps aided and abetted by the angry Afghan Taliban. The lesson, once again, is that a people that oppresses other people can never truly be free itself. Our sorry tale of long standing interventions in Afghanistan and their probable cost now only underlines that lesson emphatically.

Revised/updated Business Recorder Editorial May 21, 2016

Pak-US conundrum Pakistan-US relations appear to be passing once more through a lean patch as the US House of Representatives has imposed strict restrictions on aid to Pakistan while the US Senate has blocked using American taxpayers' money to subsidise the sale of F-16s to Pakistan. This was confirmed by Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz the other day when he revealed that the last three months have been ones of strain in the relationship. Sartaj Aziz defiantly responded to the rejection of the agreed terms of the F-16s deal by asserting that Pakistan would seek the F-16s from elsewhere if the measure was not reversed. The US administration of President Obama is trying to persuade the US Congress by arguing that the measures would create further problems in Washington's difficult but important relationship with Islamabad. The US State Department has been at pains to reassure Islamabad that Washington stands committed to helping Pakistan. However, these sweet nothings from the administration notwithstanding, these developments, though not unexpected for informed observers, spell trouble ahead for the Pakistan-US relationship. Apart from the F-16s issue, which may not offer easily available alternative options despite Sartaj Aziz's brave words (the only alternative on offer so far being an upgrade of the existing F-16 fleet by Turkey), the issue of civilian aid and the outstanding dues on account of the Coalition Support Funds are all in limbo. Pakistan needs the US despite the twists and turns historically in this oft troubled relationship. Putting all our eggs in the China basket as an alternative may not serve the country's interests. The US Congress has imposed three conditions on the release of 450 million dollars in aid. First, the US Congress wants Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network; second, the US Secretary of Defence will have to certify that Pakistan is not using its military or any funds or equipment provided by the US to persecute minority groups seeking political or religious freedom; third, and perhaps most importantly, the sense of the House resolution adopted declares Dr Shakil Afridi a hero for helping track down Osama bin Laden and wants his unconditional release. Why are there emerging signs of a return to the downgrade of Pakistan reminiscent of developments after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989? It may be recalled that Pakistan was repaid for its alliance with Washington and the west to bleed and eventually oust the Soviets from Afghanistan by having nuclear-related sanctions imposed in the 1990s, apart from other signs of a cooling in relations. After 9/11, the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan gave birth to Musharraf's duality of policy, in which ostensibly we were US allies yet allowed or turned a blind eye to the retreating Afghan Taliban finding safe havens on Pakistani soil, from which, after regrouping, they launched their resistance against the US/NATO and Kabul government installed by the latter. During this period, the US/NATO logistics needs for the war in Afghanistan forced Washington to grit its teeth and accept the duality of Pakistan's policy while continuing to harp on the 'do more' mantra. But since the withdrawal largely of NATO and the US forces, such restraint seems no longer necessary. The mood in Congress is a reflection of this reality. This development could have been foreseen, and indeed has been predicted for years by informed observers, but Pakistan's foreign policy seems adrift and bereft of forward planning in the absence of a full time foreign minister. Another factor is the changing geopolitical realities in the region. Washington is wooing India as an ally against increasingly powerful China, a zero sum game to Pakistan's disadvantage. Forays by militant groups into India from Pakistan (the latest example being the Pathankot attack), denials of official involvement notwithstanding, do not help matters. Pakistan claims limited influence on the Afghan Taliban. The Haqqani network, now firmly entrenched within the ranks of the Afghan Taliban, is the biggest irritant because of its spectacular actions in Kabul and recently Kunduz. Pakistan finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. It cannot accept the reversal of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's outreach to Islamabad after the last deadly bombing in Kabul with the attached demand that Islamabad declare the Afghan Taliban "irreconcilables" and take action against them inside Pakistan. On the one hand, Pakistan has its hands full combating homegrown terrorists. On the other, Islamabad cannot deliver the Taliban, however difficult that is proving in practice, to the peace table and at the same time attack them. Wisdom seems to have dawned in the Quadrilateral Group meeting in Islamabad on May 18, when all four participants, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the US and China reiterated that there is no military solution in Afghanistan and the only viable option is to continue pursuing the peace process, no matter how tortuous. Reality bites, albeit belatedly, and the Group has realistically assessed the ground realities. What is needed now is a redoubling of efforts to persuade the Taliban to stop seeking a strengthened position on the battlefield through their ongoing spring/summer offensive and invest in a peace to bring relief to the war-weary and suffering people of Afghanistan. Also, our 'orphaned' foreign policy cries out for a full time foreign minister to reverse the adverse mood in the US Congress, with help from the Obama administration.

Business Recorder editorial May 18, 2016

Pak-US conundrum Pakistan-US relations appear to be passing once more through a lean patch. This was confirmed by Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz the other day when he revealed that the last three months have been ones of strain in the relationship. He was commenting on reports that the Republican-controlled US Congress has rejected the use of US taxpayers' money to subsidise the sale of F-16s to Pakistan for its anti-terrorist operations. Sartaj Aziz defiantly responded to this rejection by asserting that Pakistan would seek the F-16s from elsewhere if the measure was not reversed. The US administration of President Obama is trying to persuade the US Congress by arguing that the measure would create further problems in Washington's difficult but important relationship with Islamabad. The US State Department has been at pains to reassure Islamabad that Washington stands committed to helping Pakistan. However, these sweet nothings from the administration notwithstanding, these developments, though not unexpected for informed observers, spell trouble ahead for the Pakistan-US relationship. Apart from the F-16s issue, which may not offer easily available alternative options despite Sartaj Aziz's brave words (the only alternative on offer so far being an upgrade of the existing F-16 fleet by Turkey), the issue of civilian aid and the outstanding dues on account of the Coalition Support Funds are all in limbo. Pakistan needs the US despite the twists and turns historically in this oft troubled relationship. Putting all our eggs in the China basket as an alternative may not serve the country's interests. Why are there emerging signs of a return to the downgrade of Pakistan reminiscent of developments after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989? It may be recalled that Pakistan was repaid for its alliance with Washington and the west to bleed and eventually oust the Soviets from Afghanistan by having nuclear-related sanctions imposed in the 1990s, apart from other signs of a cooling in relations. After 9/11, the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan gave birth to Musharraf's duality of policy, in which ostensibly we were US allies yet allowed or turned a blind eye to the retreating Afghan Taliban finding safe havens on Pakistani soil, from which, after regrouping, they launched their resistance against the US/NATO and Kabul government installed by the latter. During this period, the US/NATO logistics needs for the war in Afghanistan forced Washington to grit its teeth and accept the duality of Pakistan's policy while continuing to harp on the 'do more' mantra. But since the withdrawal largely of NATO and the US forces, such restraint seems no longer necessary. The mood in Congress is a reflection of this reality. This development could have been foreseen, and indeed has been predicted for years by informed observers, but Pakistan's foreign policy seems adrift and bereft of forward planning in the absence of a full time foreign minister. Another factor is the changing geopolitical realities in the region. Washington is wooing India as an ally against increasingly powerful China, a zero sum game to Pakistan's disadvantage. Forays by militant groups into India from Pakistan (the latest example being the Pathankot attack), denials of official involvement notwithstanding, do not help matters. Pakistan claims limited influence on the Afghan Taliban. The Haqqani network, now firmly entrenched within the ranks of the Afghan Taliban, is the biggest irritant because of its spectacular actions in Kabul and recently Kunduz. Pakistan finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. It cannot accept the reversal of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's outreach to Islamabad after the last deadly bombing in Kabul with the attached demand that Islamabad declare the Afghan Taliban "irreconcilables" and take action against them inside Pakistan. On the one hand, Pakistan has its hands full combating homegrown terrorists. On the other, Islamabad cannot deliver the Taliban, however difficult that is proving in practice, to the peace table and at the same time attack them. Wisdom seems to have dawned in the Quadrilateral Group meeting in Islamabad on May 18, when all four participants, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the US and China reiterated that there is no military solution in Afghanistan and the only viable option is to continue pursuing the peace process, no matter how tortuous. Reality bites, albeit belatedly, and the Group has realistically assessed the ground realities. What is needed now is a redoubling of efforts to persuade the Taliban to stop seeking a strengthened position on the battlefield through their ongoing spring/summer offensive and invest in a peace to bring relief to the war-weary and suffering people of Afghanistan.

Business Recorder Editorial May 17, 2016

A damp squib Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif took some coaxing and nudging by the opposition to put in one of his rare appearances in parliament on Monday, May 16. The occasion and circumstances too were exceptional, arousing a great deal of anticipation since he was expected to present a policy statement on the floor of the house on the ongoing Panama Papers controversy. As it turned out, however, the 'grand' occasion petered out like a damp squib. First and foremost, Nawaz Sharif's address to the National Assembly (he did not pay any heed to Senate Opposition Leader Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan's pleas to grace the upper house too with his presence) seemed part reiteration, part an extension of his two addresses to the country on television since the Panama leaks put the spotlight on his and his family's offshore companies and wealth. Nawaz Sharif droned on once again about his family's business history, their rise and fall, travails and triumphs, a tale neither full of sound and fury nor meaning to the assembled audience inside the house and the millions glued to their television sets throughout the country. The opposition having agreed beforehand with the treasury and Speaker not to disrupt the house proceedings, sat in stony silence through this familiar retelling of the rise and rise of the Sharif business empire. When he had finished, the PM presented a set of documents related to his and his family's business and tax affairs to the Speaker and then sat back, seemingly pleased with his performance. However, as luck would have it, both the PM and the treasury benches were in for a rude shock. Leader of the Opposition Syed Khursheed Shah seemed to capture the mood of his colleagues on his side of the aisles by making a brief but pithy statement. He said that they had come expecting to hear the PM's answers to the seven questions they had posed regarding the PM and his family's business affairs in the light of the Panama leaks revelations, but were disappointed to note that they had not heard any mention of, let alone answers to, their simple and straightforward seven questions. By taking the house and the country on a long detour of the Sharif family's business history, their simple seven questions had now been transformed into 70. Khursheed Shah said he would not like to waste the time of the house any further after the PM's (off the track) tour de force and would stage a walkout with all his opposition colleagues. This posture overtook even Imran Khan's desire to deliver a broadside against the PM, for which he seemed to have come armed with a sheaf of documents. However, this was not to be, partly perhaps because in time-honoured style, the state television (the only channel allowed to cover parliament's proceedings) blacked out Imran's initial remarks, partly perhaps because he was advised to adhere to the opposition's collective decision to register their protest at the PM's ignoring their seven queries by walking out. All was not lost in this regard though. Outside parliament, the opposition, including Imran Khan, whaled into the PM for 'evading' their pertinent questions. Imran Khan brandished his own and Nawaz Sharif's purported London properties documents to try and establish that Nawaz Sharif had lied about the dates and other details of the Sharifs' London flats. The opposition announced they would meet Tuesday (yesterday) at 10:00 am to chalk out their next steps. At the time of writing these lines, the opposition's three hour meeting ended with the revelation that the MQM, which had surprisingly joined the opposition walkout, opted out of the opposition meeting, if not the opposition ranks per se. The meeting decided to end the boycott of parliament at the request of the Speaker, but how they intend this return to play out vis-a-vis their Panama campaign remains to be seen. The opposition's tactics in and outside parliament caused surprise and even consternation, and not just amongst the government's ranks. There was also some criticism of the 'wasted' opportunity to confront the PM inside parliament on his revelations, amongst which the most intriguing perhaps was the saga of how the Sharifs had set up two steel mills in Dubai and Jeddah, eventually sold them and used the proceeds to buy the London flats. The assertion being that no money had been transferred from Pakistan for this purpose. What is still not clear however, is the source of the investments in Dubai and Jeddah. This could be counted amongst the 70 new questions Khursheed Shah says have arisen after the PM's address. As far as can be discerned, the impasse between the government and opposition continues. The gulf between them may well have widened in the wake of the PM's perceived 'evasion'. How this will play out from here is still up in the air, the return of the opposition to parliament notwithstanding. Unless sanity and maturity prevails between the two sides, the impasse could end up upsetting the applecart not only of the incumbent government, but also that of the democratic edifice as a whole. Before any such point is reached, both sides need to put their collective thinking caps on to find a credible investigative process and platform to sort out the Panama Papers mess and avoid the pitfalls of a systemic breakdown.

Business Recorder column Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Latin American Left's nadir? Rashed Rahman Brazil's embattled President Delma Roussef's suspension from office pending her impeachment trial comes as a big blow amidst the Left in Latin America being pushed back by its centre/centre-right rivals across the continent. While Roussef's impeachment process unfolds over the next few months, her ideological ally in Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro was treading furiously in the water to stave off threatened chaos. On May 14 he announced a state of emergency, ordered the seizure of 'paralysed' factories, the arrest of their owners, and military exercises to counter the threat of an "armed intervention". The US predicts (and no doubt hopes, if not actively promotes) that Venezuela is sliding towards popular revolt amid food and power shortages, runaway inflation, protests and political uncertainty. The state of emergency allows the government to limit the right to protest and authorise preventive arrests and police raids without a warrant. Maduro says the measures, which initially apply for three months, would likely be extended through 2017. The seized factories would be brought back to life to overcome the economic sabotage of the owners, using the excuse of a shortage of raw materials to pursue a crippling halt to production and thereby bring the Maduro government to its knees. Maduro, the successor to popular and charismatic leader the late Hugo Chavez, has been battling an economic crisis since coming to office in 2013. The global crash of oil prices has not only caused the oil-rich country's economy to shrink nearly six percent last year, it has all but put paid to Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution model that used high oil revenues to provide relief, subsidies and safety nets to the poor. Inflation is predicted to touch 700 percent this year, food shortages and a drought that has forced extreme energy rationing have all combined to weaken Maduro's support and embolden the right wing political parties, backed by the captains of industry and wealth concentrated in a few hands, to deliver the coup d'grace to Venezuela's left-wing government. A similar outcome is already in action in Brazil. Roussef has likened the impeachment vote against her in the Brazilian Senate to nothing less than a coup. She is charged with fudging budget figures. As one wag put it on social media, when our redoubtable Finance Minister Ishaq Dar does that every other day, not a fly stirs! Roussef is also charged with being implicated in a corruption scandal in the country's oil giant, Petrobas. Her mentor and former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, hailed until recently as a saviour of his country, has also been dragged into the scandal. They both deny any wrongdoing. Brazil's experiment in democratic socialism too, like that of Venezuela, seems to be staring down the barrel of a gun. To understand the context of how these two countries in particular, and Latin America in general, have arrived at the present conjuncture, it is necessary to delve into a brief historical background. South America, like North America, suffered colonial conquest by European powers from the 17th century onwards. The two continents were vast, thinly populated by indigenous inhabitants, and brimming with natural and other resources. The wars of conquest decimated the indigenous peoples and after a relatively brief contention between rival settler colonialist powers, the Americas were divided up in their present shape. While most of North America fell into the lap of English colonisers and their descendants (reinforced later by immigration from other European countries), the southern continent was carved up between the Iberian colonists. Thus most of South America became the blood-stained (by massacre and genocide of the indigenous peoples) property of Spain, with the large and noteworthy exception of Brazil, which came to the Portuguese colonialists. This carving up of South America (and areas north upto Mexico) and the subsequent settlement of hordes of settler colonialists from Spain and Portugal gave the continent the appellation Latin America. For all intents and purposes, this popular name reflected the complete marginalisation, if not annihilation, of the indigenous peoples. The edifice of 'white' Latin America therefore was erected on the blood and bones of the inheritors of the ancient and magnificent Mayan, Aztec and Inca civilisations of South and Central America. Like in the case of the US to the north, once the settler colonialists had acquired sufficient strength, they revolted against their 'mother' countries. This led to numerous wars of national liberation and independence. Notable heroes of these 'fratricidal' conflicts include Simon Bolivar, Jose Marti and many others. The independent Latin American countries that emerged as a result of these struggles presided over societies of mixed ethnic origins, to which melting pot was introduced the layer of black African slaves transported across the Atlantic to work their colonial masters' plantations in the New World. Hence what we see in Latin America today is the admixture of indigenous, settler colonialist (white) and black populations, offering a dizzying mosaic of colours. Latin America in modern times, and certainly since the Second World War, saw a continuation of rebellions and uprisings by the oppressed, including slave revolts, indigenous peoples' uprisings, and even visionary transformational revolutionary movements that aspired to a just and equitable society without the prejudices of race and wealth. After WWII, these revolutionary aspirations found sharper manifestations. The breakthrough Cuban Revolution of 1959 led by Fidel Castro inspired similar guerrilla movements throughout Latin America, particularly during the 1960s and 70s, when most of the continent was plunged into a dark pit of military coups and the extremely brutal and repressive dictatorships that followed. These regimes laid the foundations of the phenomenon of forcibly 'disappeared' people, which by now is all too sickeningly familiar to us. The most horrific and last of such military coups occurred in Chile in 1973, when the army commander, General Augusto Pinochet, overthrew the elected Marxist President Salavador Allende. Allende died fighting against the coup makers. Chile was subsequently turned into a killing field and torture chamber for all dissidents, irrespective of their political or ideological leanings. Ironically, at the precise conjuncture when the Left globally was rocked back on its heels in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Latin America seemed to show the way forward. In country after country, as the tide of military dictatorships gave way to elected democratic governments, grassroots Left movements came to power through the ballot box in Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and even Chile. The test for this experiment in democratic socialism in countries with a violent and repressive past was always going to rest on the economy. Not only did these left-wing governments inherit intact power and wealth structures that favoured the white descendants of the settler colonialists, these very structures militated against and excluded the indigenous, black and mixed race peoples. To economic deprivation, inequality and past political repression, therefore, was added the inflammable material of deeply entrenched racism. Nor had the hegemonic influence of their powerful northern neighbour, the US, abated (notoriously reflected in the Monroe Doctrine that sought to exclude rival European colonial powers and preserve the whole of Latin America as Washington's happy hunting ground). Washington had actively promoted in the 1960s and 70s the military dictatorships that strangled the Latin American people's aspirations for independence, social equality and justice. Now the contest was between left-wing elected governments seeking to overturn the historical deprivation, injustices and repression visited upon indigenous, black and mixed race populations, and the tribe of the privileged rich and powerful, backed by Washington and the notorious CIA. What is playing out currently in Brazil and Venezuela is the revenge of the privileged against 'upstart' left-wing government's and movements that have challenged their long standing hegemony through democratic means. These examples reflect the limits of this endeavour in a world still dominated by the coalition of the rich and powerful one percent. If the democratic road to socialism fails in Latin America, will the oppressed once again look to militant means to a brighter future?

Business Recorder Editorial May 15, 2016

Back to the drawing board The Supreme Court (SC) has rejected the government's request to set up a commission of inquiry into the Panama leaks scandal. In its reply to the letter sent by the government to the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali shortly after Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif's address to the nation on April 22, the SC registrar has cited at least four reasons for the rejection. First, it has been argued that the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 1956, under which the proposed commission would be created, is too limited in scope and any commission set up under its provisions would be toothless and an exercise in futility, attracting in the process nothing but a bad name to the commission. Second, the SC finds the government's terms of reference (ToRs) appended to the letter it received too "wide and open-ended", which may take years to complete. Third, a list of the 'accused' sought to be investigated, along with relevant particulars, is necessary before any opinion can be formed regarding the proposed commission's formation. Fourth, given the limitations of the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 1956, there is a need to enact legislation that allows the creation of an effective commission for the Panama leaks scandal. The SC letter sums up the court's response thus: "Unless such information and particulars are provided and the issue of formation of (the) commission under some proper legislation is reconsidered and resolved, no final response to your letter can be furnished." The responses to the SC's rejection are also of interest. The government seems adamant, unmoved and determined to form the commission at any cost, at least if Information Minister Pervez Rashid's remarks are taken to reflect his government's thinking. As has been the case since the Panama issue broke, he shifted the blame for the SC's rejection entirely onto the opposition for politicising the issue to the point where, presumably, even the SC fears to tread to avoid the risk of being besmirched in the process. In the same breath, he revealed that the government's legal experts were examining the SC's reply and would come up with an appropriate response. He emphasised that the PM would take parliament into confidence on Monday (incidentally shifted from Friday since the PM and his family had to attend Turkish President Erdogan's daughter's wedding over the weekend) and suggest a way forward out of the impasse. The minister did leave the door ajar a crack though by asserting the government was ready to sit with the opposition to hammer out a consensus set of ToRs. The opposition seemed to be crowing over a perceived 'victory', asserting that the SC's rejection had vindicated its stance. Located somewhere between these two extremes was Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Ali Zafar's take. Zafar said the SC's response had not surprised him. He had been stressing that the government should prepare agreed ToRs in consultation with the opposition instead of sticking to its proposed terms. For this purpose, he offered the good services of the SCBA platform to act as a mediator between the two sides and utilise its legal expertise to resolve the conundrum. Any further delay, the SCBA President felt, would only be to the detriment of the government since it may give rise to the suspicion that the government indeed had something to hide, a perception that could only add to its present sense of discomfort. Now that the government's gambit to involve the superior judiciary in finding some way out of the impasse appears to have fallen flat on its face, what are the prospects ahead? The opposition's (divided) stance has extended from using the Panama leaks issue to send the government as a whole packing (PTI) to allowing the government (and therefore parliament) to serve out its term sans the PM (PPP). Neither demand seems realisable for the foreseeable future. This has forced the opposition, despite its continuing boycott of parliament until rand unless the PM deigns to put in an appearance, to go back to the drawing board to revisit its strategy. A similar 'movement' attends the government's endeavours after the SC's rejection of being dragged into the middle of a fraught and seemingly unending political row. While both protagonists spar and circle each other inside the ring, the alarm is being raised by certain quarters regarding the possibility of an extended impasse creating the conditions once again for a praetorian intervention of some sort. While just about all shades of opinion are agreed that a military coup is out of the question because of its heavy political, economic and strategic costs in today's international climate, all bets are off regarding pressure being brought to bear and incrementally being increased to find a solution in the overall interests of the country, if not the interests of the continuation of the (increasingly questioned) democratic system. As in the past, if some such development occurs, the politicians will have no one to blame but themselves, given the growing perception that they are more interested in winning partisan political advantage rather than addressing seriously the complex task of objectively investigating and rooting out corruption and misdemeanours of hiding wealth abroad through the tool of offshore tax havens and opaque ownership.

Business Recorder Editorial May 12, 2016

Panama row resolution COAS General Raheel Sharif has had a one-to-one meeting with Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif before a national security meeting held after six weeks to review the country's law and order situation and the ongoing operations against terrorism. In this exclusive interface, General Raheel advised the PM to resolve the Panama leaks controversy as soon as possible as it was having a negative effect on governance and security. The meeting and its content is being seen by most observers in the context of reported strains between the civilian government and military over the latter's decision to launch an operation in the PML-N's home base of Punjab against criminals and terrorists. Reports now speak of a better atmosphere between the two sides as cooperation and collaboration in the conduct of such operations has been agreed to. The truth of the COAS's argument is beyond question as the deleterious effects of a government and PM on the defensive against accusations and allegations of wrongdoing vis-a-vis offshore companies and wealth are taking their toll of the country's affairs. The PM's two addresses on television, seeking to recount the history of the Sharif family's businesses and how they were damaged over time, not to mention the PM's reiteration of the position that he was neither the owner nor beneficiary of the offshore companies owned by his children, have failed to put the controversy generated by the Panama leaks to rest. On the contrary, if anything, the row between the government and opposition has grown worse. The government responded to the Panama revelations and the demands of the opposition for the PM to resign and present himself for accountability before a judicial commission of inquiry by writing a letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) requesting he set up such a commission, whose broad terms of reference (ToRs) were included in the letter. The opposition in turn, having consulted the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and held deliberations amongst all the opposition parties, came out with its own ToRs. In the view of the government, these ToRs are unacceptable on two counts. One, they focus narrowly if not exclusively on the PM and his family, and two, they presume the guilt of the Sharifs and shift the onus of proving their innocence onto their shoulders. These objections have received some support from the SCBA's President Syed Ali Zafar, who was part of the original consultations with the opposition and who helped frame the SCBA's own ToRs that were forwarded to the opposition. Mr Zafar argues that the opposition's ToRs are flawed and need correction. He rightly underlines the need for a consensus between the government and opposition if the desired response in terms of setting up the commission is to be hoped for from the CJP. However, in the same breath Mr Zafar thinks given the fraught state of affairs in the political sphere currently, even a consensus may not be sufficient to persuade the CJP to respond positively. This should be understood as pointing towards the manner in which the government and opposition have been going at each other hammer and tongs since the controversy broke. While better sense and signs of a mature approach are emerging in the sense of both sides expressing their openness to talks, there are no marks for guessing what is likely to emerge all too soon. The opposition has been staging walkouts from both houses of parliament in recent days to pressurise the PM to appear before both houses and clarify his position. This is the added demand of the opposition now. At one level one can have sympathy with this demand since the political style of the Sharifs has tended not to give parliament its due, arguably thereby weakening the aspiration to establish and consolidate parliament's sovereignty in our still fledgling democratic system. When Information Minister Pervez Rashid committed the other day that the PM would indeed appear before the house on Friday (tomorrow), the response of the opposition said it all. The Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, Syed Khursheed Shah, gave the announcement a guarded welcome while keeping his powder dry by saying they would come running into the Assembly as soon as the PM arrived. The Senate Opposition Leader, Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, greeted the announcement with the plea that the PM should also put in an appearance in the upper house. Some commentators are convinced that despite his appearance and clarifications in parliament, the PM will not be let off the hook by an opposition that smells blood and seeks to take maximum political advantage of the PM's present difficulties. However, unlike the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) of Imran Khan, the PPP does not want to twist the knife so far as to destabilise the whole edifice of democracy. This delicate balancing act will be on show over the next few days, with the PTI's expected fire and brimstone against the government also on display. This scenario does not provide hope for a reasonable resolution of the row, and therefore the uncertainties and imponderables appear to grow with each passing day.

Business Recorder editorial written May 10, 2016

Civil society under threat The assassination of civil society activist Khurram Zaki in Karachi the other day underlines the growing threat to dissident opinion, particularly civil society. Pakistan has been drifting incrementally over the last four decades into intolerance, extremism and terrorism, a direct fallout of our intervention in Afghanistan. Whereas no part of the country can be considered safe from this deadly affliction, Karachi in particular has seen a spate of the murders of civil society activists, including women. Readers may recall in this long and tragic list the names of Perween Rahman and Sabin Mahmud, both cut down in their prime for no other reason than that they were in their own way attempting to address the problems of our society with the means within their grasp. Perween Rahman's killer has recently been caught and has reportedly said he killed the Orangi Town social worker because she did not give him permission to set up a martial arts centre in the area. And no one can claim, especially the authorities, that the apprehension of the killer has not taken years, during which Ms Rahman's family, friends and colleagues have been put through an emotional wringer while waiting for justice. In the case of Sabin Mahmud, the story is somewhat different. She was the moving spirit behind T2, a cultural centre that offered Karachiites cultural and literary fare to brighten their lives blighted by the gloom and doom that had overtaken the metropolis for many years. It is in those darkest times that Sabin Mahmud and her collaborators at T2 shone out like a bright beacon inviting weary Karachiites tossed hither and thither on the storms the metropolis was subjected to, storms that left little security of life or limb and even less in the way of food to nourish the spirit and soul. For these 'crimes', and in particular her 'temerity' in seeking a discussion on the vexed question of Balochistan, her existence was snuffed out. Khurram Zaki, widely known for his activism against intolerance, extremism and terrorism, is only the latest addition to this heroes' pantheon. Given the trend of this growing threat to those who speak truth to power, Khurram Zaki is unlikely to be the last of such martyrs in the cause of peace, liberty and progress. And it is unlikely to comfort those who mourn him throughout our society that the authorities are once again seen going through the motions of investigation and making ritual assuring noises that the perpetrators will be brought to justice. A claim of responsibility for Khurram Zaki's murder has come from the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. However, the FIR registered names Maulana Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid fame, and the Karachi chief of the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, Aurangzeb Farooqui. Whether any nexus exists between the claimants of responsibility and those named in the FIR cannot be stated with certainty, but given the track record of collaboration between extremist and terrorist groups, cannot be altogether ruled out either. Even less comforting if not worrying is the thought that civil society activists like the three named above are now considered fair game by the tribe of fanatics and extremists who have nestled within the very bosom of our society. Unfortunately, there appears no sign that the powers that be recognise the threat to civil society or are taking any steps to protect this valuable human resource of clear thinking enlightened souls. Civil society is defined as all that political society is not. The latter evokes dismay if not mirth if it is suggested that our political class will one day wake up to the sword of extremism dangling over the head of our society, a sword whose cutting edge appears to cleave sharper with each blow it strikes at those who should be considered the conscience of our society. Before more of this precious human resource is lost or intimidated into silence, a silence that can only presage the silence of the graveyard of truth, the authorities must wake up to their responsibility to protect these bold, outspoken and courageous members of civil society, ensure deterrent punishment to their tormentors and murderers, and nudge Pakistan back from the brink of falling over the precipice into a dark pit of fanaticism and its concomitant bloodshed, a fate not to be wished for even an enemy.

Business Recorder editorial (as published) May 10, 2016

A Muslim London mayor Sadiq Khan, the 45-year-old son of a Pakistani immigrant bus driver, defeated his rival Zac Goldsmith, the billionaire younger brother of Jemima Khan, for the post of London's mayor in an election marred by the latter's campaign tactics of smearing his opponent for his religious and ethnic background and allegations of Khan being close to, if not himself, an extremist. These tactics backfired however, and London's diverse electorate handed Sadiq Khan a clear victory with 44 percent of the vote against Goldsmith's 37 percent. This victory cleared the path for Sadiq Khan to become the first Muslim mayor of London. Perhaps we should not be surprised by this outcome if we glance at the trajectory of Sadiq Khan's life and political career. The fifth child of seven brothers and a sister of Pakistani immigrant working class parents, Sadiq Khan studied law, rose in his profession with his human rights work, and earned the start of his political spurs as a local councillor from Tooting, London, where he still lives. From those early beginnings, Sadiq Khan never looked back, becoming an MP from the area in 2005 and being elevated to communities' minister in 2008 by the then Labour prime minister, Gordon Brown. He later served as transport minister. Sadiq Khan has the distinction of being the first Muslim to attend British cabinet meetings. Known as a moderate, Khan nevertheless regretted during the campaign defending 'unsavoury' characters and sharing public platforms with Muslim extremists. That legacy emanated from his work as a human rights lawyer and did not seem to have materially affected his electoral prospects despite a smear campaign launched by his rival with, surprisingly, support from Prime Minister David Cameron. The 'dirty tricks' campaign attempted to divide London's electorate on religious and ethnic lines, but only succeeded in dividing the Conservative ranks, with many prominent leaders of the party expressing disquiet at the nature of the negative campaigning. But the last word on this Conservative debacle in the capital's mayoral contest belongs to Sadiq Khan, who said it was the victory of "hope against fear and unison against division". Khan now has his work cut out in fulfilling his campaign pledges of affordable housing and transport, reduction of pollution and encouraging better paid jobs for all Londoners, in whose name he has promised to govern. Sadiq Khan's story of from rags to riches points to a significant fact of British society, and in fact of most developed countries. The education system, while retaining elite schools affordable only by the rich, boasts an excellent state education system that opens the door to those from humble origins, thereby fulfilling the potential of education as a great social leveller. It also indicates that Britain is a merit-based society, hangovers from its aristocratic and imperial past notwithstanding. Pakistan could learn a lesson or two from this saga of triumph over origins of disadvantage. Unfortunately, we in Pakistan have by now earned the dubious distinction of not only being unable to sustain institutions inherited from the past, but also incompetent in creating new or better ones. Take the case of the education system here. The state education system has been systematically over the years reduced to a joke, if not a monumental tragedy. Ghost schools, ghost teachers, unimaginative curricula and uninspiring if not incompetent teachers litter the state educational landscape. The advent in recent years of the elite private schools may have resolved to some extent the angst of a privileged minority, but has also served to put the spotlight on the glaring gulf between elite private and state education for the masses. In fact it could be argued that the mushroom growth of elite public schools has brought in its wake complacency amongst the ruling elite vis-a-vis fixing the woes of the state education sector. Reproducing if not expanding illiteracy and at best turning out certified illiterates is hardly going to serve Pakistan's interests in catching up and competing with today's world. The present course militates not only against this desirable goal but it also serves to shut firmly the door on the possibility of evolving into a merit-based society through access to quality education for all. Copyright Business Recorder, 2016

Business Recorder editorial May 7, 2016

A Muslim London mayor Sadiq Khan, the 45 year old son of a Pakistani immigrant bus driver, defeated his rival Zac Goldsmith, the younger brother of Jemima Khan, for the post of London's mayor in an election marred by the latter's campaign tactics of smearing his opponent for his religious and ethnic background and allegations of Khan being close to, if not himself, an extremist. These tactics backfired however, and London's diverse electorate handed Sadiq Khan a clear victory with 44 percent of the vote against Goldsmith's 37 percent. This victory has cleared the path for Sadiq Khan to become the first Muslim mayor of London. Perhaps we should not be surprised by this outcome if we glance at the trajectory of Sadiq Khan's life and political career. The fifth child of seven brothers and a sister of Pakistani immigrant working class parents, Sadiq Khan studied law, rose in his profession with his human rights work, and earned the start of his political spurs as a local councillor from Tooting, London, where he still lives. From those early beginnings, Sadiq Khan never looked back, becoming an MP from the area in 2005 and being elevated to communities' minister in 2008 by then Labour prime minister Gordon Brown. He later served as transport minister. Sadiq Khan has the distinction of being the first Muslim to attend British cabinet meetings. Known as a moderate, Khan nevertheless regretted during the campaign defending 'unsavoury' characters and sharing public platforms with Muslim extremists. That legacy emanated from his work as a human rights lawyer and did not seem to have materially affected his electoral prospects despite the smear campaign launched by his rival with, surprisingly, support from Prime Minister David Cameron. The 'dirty tricks' campaign attempted to divide London's electorate on religious and ethnic lines, but only succeeded in dividing the Conservative ranks, with many prominent leaders of the party expressing disquiet at the nature of the negative campaigning. But the last word on this Conservative debacle in the capital's mayoral contest belongs to Sadiq Khan, who said it was the victory of "hope against fear and division". Khan now has his work cut out in fulfilling his campaign pledges of affordable housing and transport, reduction of pollution and encouraging better paid jobs for all Londoners, in whose name he has promised to rule. Sadiq Khan's story of from rags to riches points to a significant fact of British society, and in fact of most developed countries. The education system, while retaining elite schools affordable only by the rich, boasts an excellent state education system that opens the door to those from humble origins, thereby fulfilling the potential of education as a great social leveller. It also indicates that Britain is a merit-based society, hangovers from its aristocratic and imperial past notwithstanding. Pakistan could learn a lesson or two from this saga of triumph over origins of disadvantage. Unfortunately, we in Pakistan have by now earned the dubious distinction of not only not being unable to sustain institutions inherited from the past, but also incompetent in creating new or better ones. Take the case of the education system here. The state education system has been systematically over the years reduced to a joke, if not a monumental tragedy. Ghost schools, ghost teachers, unimaginative curricula and uninspiring if not incompetent teachers litter the state educational landscape. The advent in recent years of the elite private schools may have resolved to some extent the angst of a privileged minority, but has also served to put the spotlight on the glaring gulf between elite private and state education for the masses. In fact it could be argued that the mushroom growth of elite public schools has brought in its wake complacency amongst the ruling elite vis-a-vis fixing the woes of the state education sector. Reproducing if not expanding illiteracy and at best turning out educated illiterates is hardly going to serve Pakistan's interests in catching up and competing with today's world. The present course militates not only against this desirable goal, it also serves to shut firmly the door on the possibility of evolving into a merit-based society through access to quality education for all.

Business Recorder editorial (as published) May 7, 2016

PTI's 'prudence' Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan has announced the postponement of his party's planned rally in Faisalabad on May 8th till May 20th after viewing video footage of the harassment of women participants of his party's Lahore rally on May 1st. Imran was reportedly incensed by the treatment meted out to his women supporters towards the end of the rally. He has expressed his 'mistrust' of the Punjab police, whom the PTI accuses of conveniently 'disappearing' just before a group of troublemakers pounced on women, a case of unwanted attention from which the victims only managed to escape with extreme difficulty. He has set up an investigation committee of the party to ascertain the facts and try to identify the perpetrators. Two FIRs have also been reportedly lodged against unnamed persons. While the deplorable incident occurred in the wake of similar harassment of the PTI's women supporters in rallies in Multan and Islamabad, and notwithstanding the PTI's allegation that all three were instances of the ruling PML-N unleashing its 'goons' on the women, there are reports that the real reason for the postponement may be infighting in the party in Faisalabad. That roadblock appears to have been surmounted by jealous local rivals inside the party being accommodated in the May 20 organisational cooking pot. Intriguingly, while there are no words strong enough to condemn the mistreatment and harassment of women who are already discouraged by conservative elements in our society from participating in politics, there seems no other logical explanation for Imran's postponement of the Faisalabad rally by a mere 12 days except internal party exigencies. It cannot be, surely, that Imran's expressed 'mistrust' of the Punjab police will see a miraculous turnaround by May 20. And in any case, the PTI would be well advised in future not to rely too much on the police for protection of their women supporters but to make stewardship and security arrangements themselves to ensure there is no repetition of such unfortunate happenings. Political parties in Pakistan tend to be dynastic and therefore fail to practice inner party democracy. The Jamaat-i-Islami is perhaps one of those rare exceptions that has seen consistent insofar as factors such as intra-party elections and democratic changes of leadership are concerned. If proof of the general run of things, in most, if not all other parties were needed, one need only glance at the PTI's intra-party elections debacle. Ideally, party leaders and office holders should not seek, and should be excluded from, elective office, whether at the local or national level. However, this may prove to be whistling in the wind since the PTI's and all other parties' leaders' insecurity, ambition and desire for control militates against any such principled distancing of party and elective office.

Business Recorder Editorial May 5, 2016

PTI's rally postponement Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) Imran Khan has announced the postponement of his party's planned rally in Faisalabad on May 8th till May 20th after viewing video footage of the incident of the harassment of women participants in the PTI's Lahore rally on May 1st. Imran Khan was reportedly incensed by the treatment meted out to the PTI's women supporters towards the end of the rally. He has expressed his 'mistrust' of the Punjab police, whom the PTI accuses of conveniently 'disappearing' just before a group of troublemakers pounced on the women, a case of unwanted attention from which the victims only managed to escape with extreme difficulty. The PTI Chairman has set up an investigation committee of the party to ascertain the facts and try to identify the perpetrators. Two FIRs have also been reportedly lodged against unnamed persons. PTI women supporters have protested against the incident in Lahore. While the deplorable incident occurred in the wake of similar harassment of the PTI's women supporters in rallies in Multan and Islamabad, and notwithstanding the PTI's allegation that all three were instances of the ruling PML-N unleashing its 'goons' on the women, there are reports that the real reason for the postponement may be infighting in the party in Faisalabad. That roadblock appears to have been surmounted by jealous local rivals inside the party being accommodated in the May 20 organisational cooking pot. Intriguingly, while there are no words strong enough to condemn the mistreatment and harassment of women who are already discouraged by conservative elements in our society from participating in politics, there seems no other logical explanation for Imran Khan's postponement of the Faisalabad rally by a mere 12 days except internal party exigencies. It cannot be, surely, that Imran's expressed 'mistrust' of the Punjab police will see a miraculous turnaround by May 20. And in any case, the PTI would be well advised in future not to rely too much on the police for protection of their women supporters but to make stewardship and security arrangements themselves to ensure there is no repetition of such grisly happenings. Meanwhile Imran Khan has announced rallies in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where he says the police is trustworthy, not the least because the PTI is in power in the province. That nevertheless enjoins the continuing duty on the PTI leadership to protect their women supporters in the public space. Political parties in Pakistan tend to be dynastic and fail therefore to practice inner party democracy. The Jamaat-i-Islami is perhaps one of those rare exceptions that has seen consistent intra-party elections and democratic changes of leadership since its founder Maulana Maudoodi's passing away. If proof of the general run of things in most if not all other parties were needed, one need only glance at the PTI's intra-party elections debacle. Ideally, party leaders and office holders should not seek, and should be excluded from, elective office, whether at the local or national level. However, this may prove to be whistling in the wind since the PTI's and all other parties' leaders' insecurity, ambition and desire for control militates against any such principled distancing of party and elective office. To put the PTI's current agitational drive in perspective, it is necessary to remind ourselves of the storm unleashed on the national political firmament by the Panama leaks. First and foremost, one must resist, and wherever possible oppose, the knee-jerk conspiracy theory that the Panama leaks are directed at Pakistan and its political class' good name and image. That would be absurd and unsustainable flattery of ourselves. Where 11.5 million documents released show the widespread nature of offshore tax havens and obfuscation of the ownership of offshore companies, the names of prominent Pakistani political leaders or their families are a relatively thin slice of this cake. However, notwithstanding subsequent clarifications, statements, interviews and name calling between protagonists on either side of the political divide between the ruling party and the opposition, focus in Pakistan has zeroed in on the incumbent prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. The attempted 'technical' defence that the children of the prime minister and not he himself own offshore companies and wealth has failed to cut much ice in a society where family bonds remain strong and children as beneficiaries of wealth that excludes living parents is rare. The moral argument therefore has been hitched to the legal propriety of the head of an elected government being seemingly wedded to apparently legal but morally questionable practices. That having been said, the PTI and the rest of the opposition's purpose has been highlighted in the terms of reference (ToRs) for the commission to be set up to look into the affair. These ToRs are overwhelmingly tilted against the prime minister, thus revealing the opposition's thrust and its antipodal distance from the ToRs framed by the government. While both sides have initially rejected each other's ToRs, there is a glimmer of hope that they are willing to sit down and attempt a consensus. That is the best way to ensure the proposed commission enjoys the confidence of all sides and avoids suspicions of serving either as a shield for the rulers or a weapon in the hands of the opposition. Arriving at the truth in a transparent manner is all the people want and deserve.