Democratic culture and norms
The National Assembly (NA) on Thursday resembled nothing more than a boxing/wrestling ring. The protagonists of near-fisticuffs were the PML-N and the MQM, two parties between whom bad blood has been in evidence of late. The fracas started when Leader of the Opposition Chaudhry Nisar, while vociferously opposing a bill moved by the federal government to create a DHA on land allegedly belonging to Punjab province, suddenly and inexplicably rounded on the MQM and its leadership in language that soon generated a matching response from the other side and this inspired some young hotheads on both sides to make threatening physical moves towards each other. Fortunately, government coalition MNAs and saner parliamentarians managed to keep the two sides separate, otherwise a free for all was in the offing. Not since the 1950s, when the Speaker of the NA died in an assault in parliament, has Pakistan seen the like of the scenes witnessed in the NA on what can only be dubbed ‘black Thursday’. It may be salutary to point out that the death of the Speaker in that unspeakable episode was followed soon thereafter by the first military coup and imposition of martial law in the country.
Chaudhry Nisar is an effective critic when he marshals his facts and arguments, but he has shown a disconcerting tendency to get carried away by the exuberance of his own verbosity and descend rapidly into language skirting close on disrespect if not abuse. If the Treasury benches are expected to uphold democratic parliamentary norms in accommodating their colleagues on the opposition benches, how much more is the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition to set a good example? Being an effective parliamentarian also imposes the need for restraint, discipline and civility. The problem of course is not confined to the person of the worthy Leader of the Opposition. He is merely one of the more prominent representatives of an authoritarian mindset that afflicts our polity and society. Such a mindset is often so convinced of the rightness of its position as not to brook any dissent or obstacle to its realisation. Democracy, on the other hand, sets rules for behaviour inside and outside parliament and imposes on its adherents the requirement of patience, even when there may be ‘provocation’.
The reasons for the existence of this authoritarian mindset are not difficult to discover. A society with considerable tribal and feudal hangovers in terms of its economic and social structures must be open to the risk of these structural hangovers producing their concomitant ways of looking at the world. It is doubly unfortunate therefore that instead of transcending such aberrations from democratic culture and behaviour, Chaudhry Nisar threatens on the floor of the NA to emulate the ‘model’ of the South Korean and Japanese parliaments (both known for their members’ pugilistic talent). The other major reason for authoritarianism in our country are the all too frequent military coups and other forms of intervention/interference in politics. A polity buffeted repeatedly by military dictatorship and/or dictation must inevitably leave as debris notions of ‘strong man’ solutions to our complex and increasing problems. Hence the tendency to look to the military either when democratically elected civilian governments ‘disappoint’ or rivals of the incumbents seek extra-constitutional ouster of the sitting government (this tendency is the hallmark of the eleven-year democratic interregnum of the 1990s).
These approaches to politics have led to the pendulum swinging between military dictatorship and civilian elected governments for most of our existence as an independent state. The latter governments are still constantly fearful of the threat of a praetorian intervention (whether open or clandestine). What exacerbates these fears are when opposition (political and civil) starts to rise on the basis of the non-performance of the incumbents or their authoritarian behaviour. Perhaps for this very reason, the present ruling dispensation has practiced what it calls its ‘reconciliation’ policy, and its critics dub unprincipled opportunism leavened only by the overriding desire to cling to power.
Whatever democracy’s discontents (and they are mounting), the track record has hopefully established for all time the negative consequences of military interference in matters political, interference that arguably leaves more problems in its aftermath than it set out to resolve. Therefore all of us, as a polity and society, have to learn the lesson that a system of democratic governance can only be constructed if we learn to curb our ‘natural’ instincts and acquire the patience for the rules of the game, rules that require opponents to put up with incumbents who continue to enjoy a majority and wait their turn at the hustings for a fresh appeal to the true sovereign, the people.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
Daily Times editorial Oct 8, 2011
Movement in the offing?
Although the opposition rally from parliament after a walkout from the National Assembly (NA) to the Presidency proved a damp squib, there is little room for complacency on the part of the government. The sit-in in front of the Presidency only managed to mobilise over a 100 members of the NA and Senate, most of them belonging to the main opposition party, the PML-N. Smaller opposition parties attended thinly or were conspicuous by their absence. The conjuror’s trick of once again inducting the MQM and mollifying the PML-Q to stay in the coalition just a day before may have acted as a dampener. However, government complacency on this account can only be described as breathtaking, since there is an obvious inability to see the storm clouds gathering. The prime minister vociferously defends the president for his voluntary surrender of presidential powers accumulated under military dictators and praises him for the ‘restoration’ of the 1973 constitution, while baiting the opposition to bring a no-confidence motion if they dare. Naturally the prime minister feels on solid ground here, as the opposition does not have the numbers for such a move to succeed. And if the relatively modest opposition show at the Presidency is taken as proof positive that all is smooth sailing for the incumbents, this may be the familiar phenomenon of blinkered vision in self-interest.
The fact is that, modest or not, if the opposition’s sit-in is the sign of a shift from opposition inside parliament (with which the opposition seems clearly to have got frustrated since it does not seem to have had any effect) to the street, it may be time for the incumbents to sit up and take notice since there is a plethora of issues on which, arguably, the opposition could hang its campaign. The recent load shedding riots may be a sign of things to come as a miserable citizenry responds to calls for ‘direct’ action. For the opposition, opportunity begs in the list of obvious public grievances, as much as in the list it has so far ignored. Amongst the former are load shedding, the absence of governance (including the continuing plight of natural disaster victims, past and present), corruption, law and order, etc. Conspicuous because of their absence from the opposition’s demands are the major issues of terrorism (on which the PML-N stands compromised), unemployment, inflation, etc, i.e. the issues of immediate and long term concern in the daily grind for survival of the vast majority of citizens. Unless the opposition sheds its conservatism on these latter issues and addresses the vital problems afflicting the masses, it may not find more than a passing response from the people.
Does this mean the complacency of the government is justified? They may have the parliamentary front buttoned up, but the performance of parliament over the last three and a half years is hardly inspiring. There is a lava of discontent bubbling under the surface on the streets and in the villages. A defence that constantly invokes past mistakes and misdemeanours is inevitably wearing thin. The people want results, first and foremost a vision and policy framework that promises relief and a future. Both are conspicuous by their absence. The team leading the coalition government suffers on account of incompetence, at whose heart lies cronyism.
The vacuum of leadership at the heart of Pakistan’s politics therefore seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future. However, it would be a mistake to rest sanguine in the face of spontaneous outbursts of protest, which seem more and more likely. Whether these can lead to a ‘Pakistani Spring’ and throw up a fresh leadership able to inspire the people with a vision that departs from business as usual remains an open question, but not one that the incumbents can casually dismiss without running the risk of being overtaken by history. Of course, recourse to any extra-constitutional or praetorian intervention is a tired idea whose track record should serve as a cautionary tale. But the country’s state and trajectory has put the question of who will lead Pakistan out of its present morass once again centre-stage.
Although the opposition rally from parliament after a walkout from the National Assembly (NA) to the Presidency proved a damp squib, there is little room for complacency on the part of the government. The sit-in in front of the Presidency only managed to mobilise over a 100 members of the NA and Senate, most of them belonging to the main opposition party, the PML-N. Smaller opposition parties attended thinly or were conspicuous by their absence. The conjuror’s trick of once again inducting the MQM and mollifying the PML-Q to stay in the coalition just a day before may have acted as a dampener. However, government complacency on this account can only be described as breathtaking, since there is an obvious inability to see the storm clouds gathering. The prime minister vociferously defends the president for his voluntary surrender of presidential powers accumulated under military dictators and praises him for the ‘restoration’ of the 1973 constitution, while baiting the opposition to bring a no-confidence motion if they dare. Naturally the prime minister feels on solid ground here, as the opposition does not have the numbers for such a move to succeed. And if the relatively modest opposition show at the Presidency is taken as proof positive that all is smooth sailing for the incumbents, this may be the familiar phenomenon of blinkered vision in self-interest.
The fact is that, modest or not, if the opposition’s sit-in is the sign of a shift from opposition inside parliament (with which the opposition seems clearly to have got frustrated since it does not seem to have had any effect) to the street, it may be time for the incumbents to sit up and take notice since there is a plethora of issues on which, arguably, the opposition could hang its campaign. The recent load shedding riots may be a sign of things to come as a miserable citizenry responds to calls for ‘direct’ action. For the opposition, opportunity begs in the list of obvious public grievances, as much as in the list it has so far ignored. Amongst the former are load shedding, the absence of governance (including the continuing plight of natural disaster victims, past and present), corruption, law and order, etc. Conspicuous because of their absence from the opposition’s demands are the major issues of terrorism (on which the PML-N stands compromised), unemployment, inflation, etc, i.e. the issues of immediate and long term concern in the daily grind for survival of the vast majority of citizens. Unless the opposition sheds its conservatism on these latter issues and addresses the vital problems afflicting the masses, it may not find more than a passing response from the people.
Does this mean the complacency of the government is justified? They may have the parliamentary front buttoned up, but the performance of parliament over the last three and a half years is hardly inspiring. There is a lava of discontent bubbling under the surface on the streets and in the villages. A defence that constantly invokes past mistakes and misdemeanours is inevitably wearing thin. The people want results, first and foremost a vision and policy framework that promises relief and a future. Both are conspicuous by their absence. The team leading the coalition government suffers on account of incompetence, at whose heart lies cronyism.
The vacuum of leadership at the heart of Pakistan’s politics therefore seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future. However, it would be a mistake to rest sanguine in the face of spontaneous outbursts of protest, which seem more and more likely. Whether these can lead to a ‘Pakistani Spring’ and throw up a fresh leadership able to inspire the people with a vision that departs from business as usual remains an open question, but not one that the incumbents can casually dismiss without running the risk of being overtaken by history. Of course, recourse to any extra-constitutional or praetorian intervention is a tired idea whose track record should serve as a cautionary tale. But the country’s state and trajectory has put the question of who will lead Pakistan out of its present morass once again centre-stage.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Daily Times editorial Oct 6, 2011
Indo-Afghan strategic partnership
The very outcome the policy of strategic depth was intended to prevent has finally come to pass, precisely because of that policy. Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have just signed an Indo-Afghan strategic partnership agreement in New Delhi. The agreement deepens existing ties in the trade and culture fields, but most significantly, in security cooperation. It envisages Indian training, equipping and capacity building of the Afghan security forces in the run up to and after the US/Nato withdrawal by 2014. Pakistan’s so-called strategic depth policy could be seen as consisting of denying India influence in Afghanistan, which our military and intelligence establishment has tended to view as its ‘backyard’, a description fiercely contested by all Afghans, even the Taliban. The ingress with the Afghan security forces yields a level of influence at the heart of the Afghan state that can only be understood in the light of history. The Soviet-trained and equipped Afghan army in the past was imbued with revolutionary communist ideas transmitted by exposure to what the Soviet Union represented. The Republican coup of 1973, as the communist one of 1978, would probably never have come about without the tacit and explicit backing of the Afghan army. Indian-trained and equipped Afghan security forces will almost certainly repeat that historical parallel, this time to the advantage of India. The ‘nutcracker’ squeeze from east and west so feared by our military strategists may well now become a reality, especially given the recent frictions between Kabul and Islamabad over the safe havens of Pakistani soil used by the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network to attack US/Nato/Afghan forces across the border and the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani. On the latter issue, the Afghan National Directorate of Security has accused Pakistan of not cooperating in the investigation into the murder. Of course our foreign office, in usual mode, denies this. In short, our brilliant strategists have succeeded beyond measure in driving Afghanistan into the arms of India. How has all this come to pass?
After 9/11 and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, whereas India projected soft power into Afghanistan, having by now invested some $ 2 billion in reconstruction and infrastructure building in Afghanistan, Pakistan stuck to its old paradigm of offering safe havens to and supporting a proxy war by the Taliban and Haqqani network. A golden opportunity to turn the page and befriend Afghanistan in its hour of need was thus missed. Afghan resentment of long standing interference by Pakistan in its internal affairs has wiped out whatever goodwill Islamabad had earned during the days of the anti-Soviet resistance. Now, Pakistan is hated by most Afghans whereas India is seen as a benefactor and true friend. The shortsightedness of our strategic planners stands badly exposed thereby.
The Indo-Afghan partnership now threatens a renewed and prolonged proxy-cum-civil war in Afghanistan after the foreign forces depart. With Afghanistan not being at peace, Pakistan and the region cannot hope for things to settle down. This war will inevitably slip across borders and destabilise the region further. Pakistan’s military establishment has tried, and failed, to convince the world that it has genuine and legitimate interests in Afghanistan and therefore cannot leave things to take their own course. Had that ‘interest’ been confined to having a friendly government in Kabul while recognising the sovereign right of the Afghan people to manage their own affairs themselves, and backed up by help rather than sabotage of the Afghan polity and society, Islamabad may have obtained more purchase. As things stand now, Afghanistan will continue to lose a great deal in the prolongation of its internal conflict, in which the contending sides may be backed by rivals India and Pakistan. But the real loser in the end will be none other than Pakistan itself, internationally already isolated, regionally seen as a troublemaker extraordinaire.
The very outcome the policy of strategic depth was intended to prevent has finally come to pass, precisely because of that policy. Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have just signed an Indo-Afghan strategic partnership agreement in New Delhi. The agreement deepens existing ties in the trade and culture fields, but most significantly, in security cooperation. It envisages Indian training, equipping and capacity building of the Afghan security forces in the run up to and after the US/Nato withdrawal by 2014. Pakistan’s so-called strategic depth policy could be seen as consisting of denying India influence in Afghanistan, which our military and intelligence establishment has tended to view as its ‘backyard’, a description fiercely contested by all Afghans, even the Taliban. The ingress with the Afghan security forces yields a level of influence at the heart of the Afghan state that can only be understood in the light of history. The Soviet-trained and equipped Afghan army in the past was imbued with revolutionary communist ideas transmitted by exposure to what the Soviet Union represented. The Republican coup of 1973, as the communist one of 1978, would probably never have come about without the tacit and explicit backing of the Afghan army. Indian-trained and equipped Afghan security forces will almost certainly repeat that historical parallel, this time to the advantage of India. The ‘nutcracker’ squeeze from east and west so feared by our military strategists may well now become a reality, especially given the recent frictions between Kabul and Islamabad over the safe havens of Pakistani soil used by the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network to attack US/Nato/Afghan forces across the border and the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani. On the latter issue, the Afghan National Directorate of Security has accused Pakistan of not cooperating in the investigation into the murder. Of course our foreign office, in usual mode, denies this. In short, our brilliant strategists have succeeded beyond measure in driving Afghanistan into the arms of India. How has all this come to pass?
After 9/11 and the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, whereas India projected soft power into Afghanistan, having by now invested some $ 2 billion in reconstruction and infrastructure building in Afghanistan, Pakistan stuck to its old paradigm of offering safe havens to and supporting a proxy war by the Taliban and Haqqani network. A golden opportunity to turn the page and befriend Afghanistan in its hour of need was thus missed. Afghan resentment of long standing interference by Pakistan in its internal affairs has wiped out whatever goodwill Islamabad had earned during the days of the anti-Soviet resistance. Now, Pakistan is hated by most Afghans whereas India is seen as a benefactor and true friend. The shortsightedness of our strategic planners stands badly exposed thereby.
The Indo-Afghan partnership now threatens a renewed and prolonged proxy-cum-civil war in Afghanistan after the foreign forces depart. With Afghanistan not being at peace, Pakistan and the region cannot hope for things to settle down. This war will inevitably slip across borders and destabilise the region further. Pakistan’s military establishment has tried, and failed, to convince the world that it has genuine and legitimate interests in Afghanistan and therefore cannot leave things to take their own course. Had that ‘interest’ been confined to having a friendly government in Kabul while recognising the sovereign right of the Afghan people to manage their own affairs themselves, and backed up by help rather than sabotage of the Afghan polity and society, Islamabad may have obtained more purchase. As things stand now, Afghanistan will continue to lose a great deal in the prolongation of its internal conflict, in which the contending sides may be backed by rivals India and Pakistan. But the real loser in the end will be none other than Pakistan itself, internationally already isolated, regionally seen as a troublemaker extraordinaire.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Daily Times editorial Oct 5, 2011
The crisis deepens
The violent protests rocking the country, with Punjab as their epicentre, against prolonged scheduled and unscheduled load shedding has added the latest nail in the coffin of the present dispensation. The protestors vented their frustration and anger at electricity deprivation for long hours of the day and night by attacking electricity distribution companies’ offices, vehicles and other government property. Some collateral damage to private property also occurred, especially when charged up crowds were subjected to ruthless police action involving water cannon, tear gas, firing and the ubiquitous lathi (baton). The country was roiled by the violent protests and the police’s violent response almost throughout its length and breadth. It was inevitable then that these events should find an echo in the proceedings of the National Assembly. Turning roundly on the government, opposition parties led by the PML-N lambasted the treasury benches for caring not a fig for the misery of the people. Households’ inconvenience has been added to by the impact on industry and commerce, with closures and inability to do business fully producing lay offs and further unemployment. Without means to purchase high priced food, and suffering the unwanted attentions of the dengue mosquito in darkened communities, is it any surprise that the citizen has said ‘Enough!’ This is not to justify the violence on display, only to point to the reasons for such seething anger that can no longer be mollified by sugarcoated assurances. The police’s harsh methods may have succeeded partially in rolling back what threatened to become a countrywide tide of fury and destruction, but unless things improve, this could well be just a lull before fresh storms.
Unfortunately, our political class is unable to rise above itself even in moments of such momentous national crisis. The tired old mutual blame game is predictably on display again. While the government is on the defensive, some at least in the opposition may see this as a heaven sent opportunity to rock the ruling party back on its heels. Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N seems to have decided to jump into the load shedding fray and lead what it hopes will transform into a political movement to unseat the present incumbents. It must be admitted that the latter have not done their cause much good. It is being put about that the present unprecedented energy deficit is first and foremost due to the circular debt, secondarily (and temporarily) due to reduced irrigation discharges from the dams that lead to reduced hydel power, and last but not the least, breakdowns in the nuclear power plants at Chashma. The first at least has been in public knowledge ever since this government came to power. It took the unprecedented breakout of virtually countrywide riots to induce this government to announce that it was releasing Rs 11 billion to the energy sector to re-enervate the at a standstill KAPCO and HUBCO, which will add 2,000 MW to the system. It boggles the mind why the government could not have done this earlier and staved off the crisis. Compared to the reported figure of Rs 300 billion circular debt, this is a mere drop in the ocean. In addition, the government has decided to institute conservation measures such as two weekly off days and shutting down markets by 8:00 pm. Although this is estimated to save 1,000 MW, it is not certain if the provinces will go along, especially since the chief ministers absented themselves from the energy conference chaired by the prime minister. In addition, the government proposes a 12-16 percent electricity tariff increase, sale of government paper to the banks, and a loan from then ADB to address the circular debt. The first proposal promises more protests. The other two may be more feasible. Let us not overlook the fact that traders and businessmen in various parts of the country are threatening to withhold their electricity bills unless the present situation improves markedly.
As if the woes of KESC’s customers are not an object lesson, the government proposes the privatisation of nine more generation plants, a move critiqued by Transparency International on precisely these grounds. The government had better get its priorities right. First and foremost, it has to address the present miseries of the citizen and business by ensuring an improvement in power generation as quickly as possible. All other ideas will have to wait until this is achieved. Otherwise the hopes of the opposition to use this crisis for political gains in the shape of a generalised movement against the government may well turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The violent protests rocking the country, with Punjab as their epicentre, against prolonged scheduled and unscheduled load shedding has added the latest nail in the coffin of the present dispensation. The protestors vented their frustration and anger at electricity deprivation for long hours of the day and night by attacking electricity distribution companies’ offices, vehicles and other government property. Some collateral damage to private property also occurred, especially when charged up crowds were subjected to ruthless police action involving water cannon, tear gas, firing and the ubiquitous lathi (baton). The country was roiled by the violent protests and the police’s violent response almost throughout its length and breadth. It was inevitable then that these events should find an echo in the proceedings of the National Assembly. Turning roundly on the government, opposition parties led by the PML-N lambasted the treasury benches for caring not a fig for the misery of the people. Households’ inconvenience has been added to by the impact on industry and commerce, with closures and inability to do business fully producing lay offs and further unemployment. Without means to purchase high priced food, and suffering the unwanted attentions of the dengue mosquito in darkened communities, is it any surprise that the citizen has said ‘Enough!’ This is not to justify the violence on display, only to point to the reasons for such seething anger that can no longer be mollified by sugarcoated assurances. The police’s harsh methods may have succeeded partially in rolling back what threatened to become a countrywide tide of fury and destruction, but unless things improve, this could well be just a lull before fresh storms.
Unfortunately, our political class is unable to rise above itself even in moments of such momentous national crisis. The tired old mutual blame game is predictably on display again. While the government is on the defensive, some at least in the opposition may see this as a heaven sent opportunity to rock the ruling party back on its heels. Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N seems to have decided to jump into the load shedding fray and lead what it hopes will transform into a political movement to unseat the present incumbents. It must be admitted that the latter have not done their cause much good. It is being put about that the present unprecedented energy deficit is first and foremost due to the circular debt, secondarily (and temporarily) due to reduced irrigation discharges from the dams that lead to reduced hydel power, and last but not the least, breakdowns in the nuclear power plants at Chashma. The first at least has been in public knowledge ever since this government came to power. It took the unprecedented breakout of virtually countrywide riots to induce this government to announce that it was releasing Rs 11 billion to the energy sector to re-enervate the at a standstill KAPCO and HUBCO, which will add 2,000 MW to the system. It boggles the mind why the government could not have done this earlier and staved off the crisis. Compared to the reported figure of Rs 300 billion circular debt, this is a mere drop in the ocean. In addition, the government has decided to institute conservation measures such as two weekly off days and shutting down markets by 8:00 pm. Although this is estimated to save 1,000 MW, it is not certain if the provinces will go along, especially since the chief ministers absented themselves from the energy conference chaired by the prime minister. In addition, the government proposes a 12-16 percent electricity tariff increase, sale of government paper to the banks, and a loan from then ADB to address the circular debt. The first proposal promises more protests. The other two may be more feasible. Let us not overlook the fact that traders and businessmen in various parts of the country are threatening to withhold their electricity bills unless the present situation improves markedly.
As if the woes of KESC’s customers are not an object lesson, the government proposes the privatisation of nine more generation plants, a move critiqued by Transparency International on precisely these grounds. The government had better get its priorities right. First and foremost, it has to address the present miseries of the citizen and business by ensuring an improvement in power generation as quickly as possible. All other ideas will have to wait until this is achieved. Otherwise the hopes of the opposition to use this crisis for political gains in the shape of a generalised movement against the government may well turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Editorial Daily Times Oct 4, 2011
Intensifying accusations
At the same time that the shrill tone of charges and counter-charges between Pakistan and the US appears to be easing, new, intensifying accusations, this time from Afghanistan, promise to keep the pot boiling. A statement from Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s palace has quoted investigators as saying that former Afghan president Burhannuddin Rabbani’s assassin was a Pakistani national from Chaman, Balochistan. According to the statement, the evidence shows Rabbani’s death was planned in Quetta. The statement went on to quote the investigators as saying that documents, other evidence, a biography, address and phone numbers of the suspects involved in the plot have been submitted to Pakistan’s government for their arrest and handing over. Meanwhile President Karzai, clearly deeply shocked by the assassination of his chief peacemaker with the Taliban, is said to be reviewing the whole peace strategy. Statements to the effect that it was no use talking to the Taliban, and that it only made sense to talk to Pakistan had been issued by the Afghan president only the other day. Pakistan’s foreign office (FO) of course rejected these accusations out of hand, choosing at the same time to throw the ball back in Afghanistan’s court by stating that perhaps some of Afghanistan’s own ‘agencies’ may be behind the murder. The so-called evidence given to the Pakistan Embassy in Kabul, according to the FO, was actually the confessional statement of an Afghan national accused of masterminding the assassination. Needless to say, the FO exonerated the ISI of any involvement in Rabbani’s death. Hundreds of Afghans meanwhile, were in the streets of Kabul protesting against Pakistan because of cross-border shelling and Pakistan’s alleged involvement in Rabbani’s assassination. Relations are at a very low ebb once again, with the Afghan foreign ministry dragging its feet on convening the trilateral meeting of Afghanistan-Pakistan-the US scheduled to be held in Kabul. The National Assembly session that started in Islamabad yesterday was expected to yield more fiery rhetoric along the lines of the All Parties Conference (APC) the other day, espousing patriotism and in the process letting the military establishment off the hook as far as fingers of suspicion being pointed at it are concerned.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, in an interaction with print media in Lahore on Sunday delivered himself of the ‘newfound’ wisdom vis-à-vis the Taliban. Fresh from his APC ‘triumph’, which saw the prime minister skilfully deliver the entire political class, one or two honourable exceptions aside, into the hands of the military establishment and its narrative of strategic depth, the prime minister said the government was committed to peace through dialogue with the Taliban in the tribal areas. He did not specify whether he meant the ‘good’ or the ‘bad’ Taliban. Nor did he indicate whether the Taliban were in turn willing to enter any such dialogue. If history is any guide, the only terms on which the Taliban have been willing to enter any such process is on their exclusive terms, which involved ceding control of territory to them. Such concessions and compromises in the past proved short lived and led to bigger conflict the day after. Mr Gilani was careful in his choice of words when he said any such elements ‘reconciled’ would be asked to ‘decommission’ themselves, since the term ‘surrender’ was humiliating in the tribal code of honour. The prime minister went on to say that his government had not signed a single agreement with the US, and that the APC ‘unanimity’ had persuaded Washington that there would be no US footprint on Pakistani soil. Pakistan, he continued, wanted no fight with anyone and he advised a moderate approach in relations with Afghanistan and the US. Does the prime minister realise the contradiction between his sweet words and the ground reality of the proxy war against Afghanistan, a sovereign neighbour, being waged from safe havens on Pakistani soil?
At the same time that the shrill tone of charges and counter-charges between Pakistan and the US appears to be easing, new, intensifying accusations, this time from Afghanistan, promise to keep the pot boiling. A statement from Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s palace has quoted investigators as saying that former Afghan president Burhannuddin Rabbani’s assassin was a Pakistani national from Chaman, Balochistan. According to the statement, the evidence shows Rabbani’s death was planned in Quetta. The statement went on to quote the investigators as saying that documents, other evidence, a biography, address and phone numbers of the suspects involved in the plot have been submitted to Pakistan’s government for their arrest and handing over. Meanwhile President Karzai, clearly deeply shocked by the assassination of his chief peacemaker with the Taliban, is said to be reviewing the whole peace strategy. Statements to the effect that it was no use talking to the Taliban, and that it only made sense to talk to Pakistan had been issued by the Afghan president only the other day. Pakistan’s foreign office (FO) of course rejected these accusations out of hand, choosing at the same time to throw the ball back in Afghanistan’s court by stating that perhaps some of Afghanistan’s own ‘agencies’ may be behind the murder. The so-called evidence given to the Pakistan Embassy in Kabul, according to the FO, was actually the confessional statement of an Afghan national accused of masterminding the assassination. Needless to say, the FO exonerated the ISI of any involvement in Rabbani’s death. Hundreds of Afghans meanwhile, were in the streets of Kabul protesting against Pakistan because of cross-border shelling and Pakistan’s alleged involvement in Rabbani’s assassination. Relations are at a very low ebb once again, with the Afghan foreign ministry dragging its feet on convening the trilateral meeting of Afghanistan-Pakistan-the US scheduled to be held in Kabul. The National Assembly session that started in Islamabad yesterday was expected to yield more fiery rhetoric along the lines of the All Parties Conference (APC) the other day, espousing patriotism and in the process letting the military establishment off the hook as far as fingers of suspicion being pointed at it are concerned.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, in an interaction with print media in Lahore on Sunday delivered himself of the ‘newfound’ wisdom vis-à-vis the Taliban. Fresh from his APC ‘triumph’, which saw the prime minister skilfully deliver the entire political class, one or two honourable exceptions aside, into the hands of the military establishment and its narrative of strategic depth, the prime minister said the government was committed to peace through dialogue with the Taliban in the tribal areas. He did not specify whether he meant the ‘good’ or the ‘bad’ Taliban. Nor did he indicate whether the Taliban were in turn willing to enter any such dialogue. If history is any guide, the only terms on which the Taliban have been willing to enter any such process is on their exclusive terms, which involved ceding control of territory to them. Such concessions and compromises in the past proved short lived and led to bigger conflict the day after. Mr Gilani was careful in his choice of words when he said any such elements ‘reconciled’ would be asked to ‘decommission’ themselves, since the term ‘surrender’ was humiliating in the tribal code of honour. The prime minister went on to say that his government had not signed a single agreement with the US, and that the APC ‘unanimity’ had persuaded Washington that there would be no US footprint on Pakistani soil. Pakistan, he continued, wanted no fight with anyone and he advised a moderate approach in relations with Afghanistan and the US. Does the prime minister realise the contradiction between his sweet words and the ground reality of the proxy war against Afghanistan, a sovereign neighbour, being waged from safe havens on Pakistani soil?
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Editorial Daily Times Sept 28, 2011
Change of tone
After the flurry of bitter exchanges in recent days between the US and Pakistan, better sense seems to have prevailed, if the diplomatic efforts and change of tone emanating from Washington is anything to go by. US Ambassador Cameron Munter has interacted with Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir immediately after his return from Washington. They have agreed to remove the ‘misunderstanding’ and continue the negotiations process to avoid the relationship taking a turn for the worse. Reports say Bashir discussed Mullen’s statements, the blame game and ‘baseless allegations’ against Pakistan and suggested avoiding the media for sorting out issues, relying on diplomatic channels instead. He has also asked once again for intelligence about the Haqqani network, which is a rhetorical question better put to Aabpara. State Department spokesmen in Washington have avoided stoking the fire by fending off probing questions by the American media amidst calls by US politicians to reconsider, at the very least, aid to Pakistan and return the relationship with Pakistan to a ‘transactional’ one. This implies quid pro quo.
Pakistan meanwhile has launched a diplomatic offensive to take its closest allies into confidence. The visit of the Chinese Vice Prime Minister Meng Jianzhu yielded Beijing’s traditional support to Pakistan and agreements to help with infrastructure and other projects to the tune of $ 250 million. The Saudi intelligence officials who reportedly visited Islamabad, followed by ISI chief General Shuja Pasha’s dash to Riyadh, are being viewed by some as Saudi mediation between the two quarrelling ‘allies’. The military too, whether reflected in the Corps Commanders’ conference statement or ISPR head General Athar Abbas’s formulations, indicated a recognition of the need for ‘quiet diplomacy’ to bring down tensions.
On the other hand, the political leaders of Pakistan have already come out swinging against the US. No doubt this will be further accelerated during and after the All Parties Conference Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has summoned for September 29, where caution may be thrown to the winds and bellicosity be the order of the day. The prime minister’s own statements, and those of Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar in New York indicate that the politicians are on some other wavelength. Whether this is a strategy agreed with the military to play ‘good cop, bad cop’ is not certain. What is clear though is that international diplomacy and domestic politics seem to be pulling in different directions. That may be because diplomats and the military see the situation more soberly, devoid of the distortions of populist rhetoric, whereas politicians can seldom resist the temptation to play to their domestic audience, if not the gallery.
The cost of the downward spiral in US-Pakistan relations has already sent shock waves through the economy. The stock exchange plunged amidst fears of a breakdown in relations, the rupee floated to around 90 to the dollar, partly because of the ‘dollarisation’ currently underway amidst fears for the future. These negative signals should give pause to all stakeholders to reconsider their fiercest belligerence against the US. We may not like much of what Washington does or even how it does it. But it is not only the US that has constraints so long as it is engaged in Afghanistan. We too have considerations to weigh, first and foremost the struggling economy and the future of a rescue sans US aid and goodwill. Emotion may be cathartic, but it is rarely a good substitute for calm, considered policy, especially in the delicate position Pakistan is placed in, and the fact that the country the gung-ho amongst us want to take on is the sole superpower in today’s world. Not only should the current furore be cooled, diplomatic efforts must find ways to continue to enjoy, if not the goodwill and friendship, at least the tolerance of the US. Any other path will damage Pakistan immeasurably.
After the flurry of bitter exchanges in recent days between the US and Pakistan, better sense seems to have prevailed, if the diplomatic efforts and change of tone emanating from Washington is anything to go by. US Ambassador Cameron Munter has interacted with Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir immediately after his return from Washington. They have agreed to remove the ‘misunderstanding’ and continue the negotiations process to avoid the relationship taking a turn for the worse. Reports say Bashir discussed Mullen’s statements, the blame game and ‘baseless allegations’ against Pakistan and suggested avoiding the media for sorting out issues, relying on diplomatic channels instead. He has also asked once again for intelligence about the Haqqani network, which is a rhetorical question better put to Aabpara. State Department spokesmen in Washington have avoided stoking the fire by fending off probing questions by the American media amidst calls by US politicians to reconsider, at the very least, aid to Pakistan and return the relationship with Pakistan to a ‘transactional’ one. This implies quid pro quo.
Pakistan meanwhile has launched a diplomatic offensive to take its closest allies into confidence. The visit of the Chinese Vice Prime Minister Meng Jianzhu yielded Beijing’s traditional support to Pakistan and agreements to help with infrastructure and other projects to the tune of $ 250 million. The Saudi intelligence officials who reportedly visited Islamabad, followed by ISI chief General Shuja Pasha’s dash to Riyadh, are being viewed by some as Saudi mediation between the two quarrelling ‘allies’. The military too, whether reflected in the Corps Commanders’ conference statement or ISPR head General Athar Abbas’s formulations, indicated a recognition of the need for ‘quiet diplomacy’ to bring down tensions.
On the other hand, the political leaders of Pakistan have already come out swinging against the US. No doubt this will be further accelerated during and after the All Parties Conference Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has summoned for September 29, where caution may be thrown to the winds and bellicosity be the order of the day. The prime minister’s own statements, and those of Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar in New York indicate that the politicians are on some other wavelength. Whether this is a strategy agreed with the military to play ‘good cop, bad cop’ is not certain. What is clear though is that international diplomacy and domestic politics seem to be pulling in different directions. That may be because diplomats and the military see the situation more soberly, devoid of the distortions of populist rhetoric, whereas politicians can seldom resist the temptation to play to their domestic audience, if not the gallery.
The cost of the downward spiral in US-Pakistan relations has already sent shock waves through the economy. The stock exchange plunged amidst fears of a breakdown in relations, the rupee floated to around 90 to the dollar, partly because of the ‘dollarisation’ currently underway amidst fears for the future. These negative signals should give pause to all stakeholders to reconsider their fiercest belligerence against the US. We may not like much of what Washington does or even how it does it. But it is not only the US that has constraints so long as it is engaged in Afghanistan. We too have considerations to weigh, first and foremost the struggling economy and the future of a rescue sans US aid and goodwill. Emotion may be cathartic, but it is rarely a good substitute for calm, considered policy, especially in the delicate position Pakistan is placed in, and the fact that the country the gung-ho amongst us want to take on is the sole superpower in today’s world. Not only should the current furore be cooled, diplomatic efforts must find ways to continue to enjoy, if not the goodwill and friendship, at least the tolerance of the US. Any other path will damage Pakistan immeasurably.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Editorial Daily Times Sept 27, 2011
The chickens coming home to roost
The Special Corps Commanders Conference chaired by COAS General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani expressed its concern over the negative statements emanating from the US. At the same time it rejected all allegations against the ISI regarding support to the Haqqani network. The conference concluded its statement by reiterating the military’s commitment to enduring peace in the region. Centcom Commander General Mattis held meetings with the COAS and CJCSC General Wyne to address the irritants in the Pakistan-US relationship. On the face of it, although not much is known about these exchanges, the tone of the Corps Commanders and the CJCSC appeared to be one of seeking to defuse tensions. This relatively sober response from the top brass of the military should come as no surprise. They know perhaps better than anyone else the stakes involved. Nevertheless, given the unprecedented belligerent tone of the American statements, the defence forces seem to be preparing for the worst case scenario: attacks by the US forces against the Haqqani network’s safe havens in North Waziristan (and perhaps Kurram Agency).
Following in the military’s footsteps, the government seeks to mobilise all the political forces in defence of the country’s sovereignty, implying also defence of the military-dictated foreign and security policies vis-à-vis Afghanistan. After contacting most of the political leadership of the country, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has convened an All Parties Conference on September 29. The purpose obviously is to garner political support across the board for the military’s stance. What helps this process of course is the hackneyed appeal to patriotism, which, as everyone knows, is often the last refuge…
On the other side of the divide, Republican Senator and member of the powerful Armed Services Committee Lindsay Graham wants Pakistan “put on notice” regarding its ties with the Haqqanis. White House adviser David Plouffe says the Obama administration is considering various options to persuade Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network. That could include a suspension of aid, which in any case has been made conditional on cooperation against the network as far as the latest package of $ 1 billion passed by Congress is concerned.
While all this verbal sparring is in progress, Afghanistan has accused Pakistan of firing more than 300 rockets and artillery shells across the border over the last five days, causing civilian casualties and damage. Our military has denied any such barrage. The chorus advocating Afghan retaliation against Pakistan for an earlier alleged barrage was held back by President Karzai in July. However, the cause for concern is that if these bombardments are traced to our side of the border, Kabul would have a strong international diplomatic case for retaliation, particularly since it would be able to point to the cross-border insurgency emanating from safe havens in Pakistan. Needless to say, the issue needs to be understood objectively. Whereas Pakistan stands accused of harbouring and encouraging the Taliban insurgency, Afghanistan (and the US/Nato combine) can at best be blamed for their inability to deny our Taliban (the TTP) safe havens courtesy the Haqqani network in eastern Afghanistan. If Pakistan reserves to itself the right to retaliate across the border for attacks from that side, could not that very argument be turned against Pakistan? Obviously wisdom requires that all sides proceed with caution, exercise restraint in public statements, and ensure that the greater objective of the anti-terrorism campaign, peace in the whole region, is enabled through trilateral cooperation.
As to the reflexive argument in parts of our media that the Haqqanis were sourced by and still retain links with the US, it is a fact that both Washington and Islamabad created, funded, armed, trained and unleashed extremists in the name of jihad, an enterprise that has come back to haunt all sides in this potpourri. The blowback from the ill-thought-through reliance on fanatical forces to wage jihad is now here in full force. However, there is no satisfaction in this prediction coming true. Only a sad wisdom that the chickens are finally coming home to roost. What should not happen however is that fissures between the ‘allies’ cause the terrorists to break out in whoops of joy while they continue their deadly work.
The Special Corps Commanders Conference chaired by COAS General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani expressed its concern over the negative statements emanating from the US. At the same time it rejected all allegations against the ISI regarding support to the Haqqani network. The conference concluded its statement by reiterating the military’s commitment to enduring peace in the region. Centcom Commander General Mattis held meetings with the COAS and CJCSC General Wyne to address the irritants in the Pakistan-US relationship. On the face of it, although not much is known about these exchanges, the tone of the Corps Commanders and the CJCSC appeared to be one of seeking to defuse tensions. This relatively sober response from the top brass of the military should come as no surprise. They know perhaps better than anyone else the stakes involved. Nevertheless, given the unprecedented belligerent tone of the American statements, the defence forces seem to be preparing for the worst case scenario: attacks by the US forces against the Haqqani network’s safe havens in North Waziristan (and perhaps Kurram Agency).
Following in the military’s footsteps, the government seeks to mobilise all the political forces in defence of the country’s sovereignty, implying also defence of the military-dictated foreign and security policies vis-à-vis Afghanistan. After contacting most of the political leadership of the country, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has convened an All Parties Conference on September 29. The purpose obviously is to garner political support across the board for the military’s stance. What helps this process of course is the hackneyed appeal to patriotism, which, as everyone knows, is often the last refuge…
On the other side of the divide, Republican Senator and member of the powerful Armed Services Committee Lindsay Graham wants Pakistan “put on notice” regarding its ties with the Haqqanis. White House adviser David Plouffe says the Obama administration is considering various options to persuade Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network. That could include a suspension of aid, which in any case has been made conditional on cooperation against the network as far as the latest package of $ 1 billion passed by Congress is concerned.
While all this verbal sparring is in progress, Afghanistan has accused Pakistan of firing more than 300 rockets and artillery shells across the border over the last five days, causing civilian casualties and damage. Our military has denied any such barrage. The chorus advocating Afghan retaliation against Pakistan for an earlier alleged barrage was held back by President Karzai in July. However, the cause for concern is that if these bombardments are traced to our side of the border, Kabul would have a strong international diplomatic case for retaliation, particularly since it would be able to point to the cross-border insurgency emanating from safe havens in Pakistan. Needless to say, the issue needs to be understood objectively. Whereas Pakistan stands accused of harbouring and encouraging the Taliban insurgency, Afghanistan (and the US/Nato combine) can at best be blamed for their inability to deny our Taliban (the TTP) safe havens courtesy the Haqqani network in eastern Afghanistan. If Pakistan reserves to itself the right to retaliate across the border for attacks from that side, could not that very argument be turned against Pakistan? Obviously wisdom requires that all sides proceed with caution, exercise restraint in public statements, and ensure that the greater objective of the anti-terrorism campaign, peace in the whole region, is enabled through trilateral cooperation.
As to the reflexive argument in parts of our media that the Haqqanis were sourced by and still retain links with the US, it is a fact that both Washington and Islamabad created, funded, armed, trained and unleashed extremists in the name of jihad, an enterprise that has come back to haunt all sides in this potpourri. The blowback from the ill-thought-through reliance on fanatical forces to wage jihad is now here in full force. However, there is no satisfaction in this prediction coming true. Only a sad wisdom that the chickens are finally coming home to roost. What should not happen however is that fissures between the ‘allies’ cause the terrorists to break out in whoops of joy while they continue their deadly work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)