Memogate in the SC
The Supreme Court’s (SC’s) order setting up a commission headed by Tariq Khosa to probe and report back within three weeks on the ‘Memogate’ controversy has sparked off another executive-judiciary confrontation-in-the-making. The nine member SC bench hearing Nawaz Sharif and others’ petitions on the issue also sent notices to the president, COAS and DG ISI to respond within 10 days, and ordered ex-ambassador Husain Haqqani not to leave the country until the commission had completed its work. Nawaz Sharif himself appeared before the bench and read out his petition, whose underlying justification was that parliament had disappointed in performance, hence the petitioner had approached the SC.
In response to the order of the SC, Babar Awan and other PPP leaders launched a virulent attack on the proceedings, arguing that only the executive can set up a commission under the relevant law. Babar Awan argued that the petitioners should have waited for the parliamentary committee on national security headed by Senator Raza Rabbani to conduct its inquiry into the affair. Approaching the SC even before that committee had started its investigations was tantamount to depreciating the role of parliament. He asserted that the executive and parliament’s turf would not be allowed to be encroached upon by any other institution of state. Also, he contended that the SC passed the order without giving the federation a chance to be heard. On this point, the PML-N has responded by saying the Attorney General was present and did not object to the order. However, the Attorney General has since clarified that he was there in response to the court’s notice and was not representing the federation per se. Without saying so in so many words, Babar Awan implied that the PPP rejects the Khosa commission and left open the question whether the government would cooperate with it or not. He did say however, that the commission would be subjected to a legal challenge. Awan defended Haqqani against the, according to him, ‘unnecessary’ order not to leave the country when the ex-ambassador had himself returned, stated he had no intention of leaving, and resigned to ensure a transparent probe. Awan also lambasted Khosa and his ‘connections’ in the judiciary and bureaucracy, implying a lack of confidence in the impartiality of the officer. He then went on to contrast the treatment the PPP and the PML-N had received from the courts, implying the latter got relief and the former never did.
Statements from various sources that the PML-N chief and his entourage were given special protocol by the SC were firmly rejected the next day by the court with a warning that such utterances about the court could attract contempt.
There is no denying that Memogate has rocked the country and the democratic dispensation to its foundations. While most objective observers decry the implied veracity of Mansoor Ijaz’s claims, there is no denying the need to get to the bottom of the affair, and that too transparently. The memo delivered through General (retired) James Jones to Admiral (Retired) Mike Mullen, which Ijaz alleges was sent with the blessings of Haqqani and the president, has been compared during the proceedings by the Chief Justice with the Nixon-Watergate scandal. While many things still remain to be settled, the most important being the truth or otherwise of Mansoor Ijaz’s alarming claims, the SC’s order and the ruling party’s response promise a new round of confrontation between the executive an d the judiciary, a prospect that will cause a sinking feeling in most citizens tired by now of the seeming inability of the institutions of state to work together in harmony, while recognising and respecting each other’s purview. The division of powers at the heart of our constitutional construct still remains to be firmly delineated. All sides should exercise restraint and let the facts come out, whether through the commission or the parliamentary committee, and not prejudge the issue from anything resembling a partisan position.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Rashed Rahman interview with Danish tv
Country cannot be invaded and rebuilt from scratch: Rashed Rahman
Daily Times Monitor
COPENHAGEN: The idea that a country could be invaded and rebuilt from scratch was inherently flawed, Daily Times Editor Rashed Rahman said in an interview with a Danish news channel DR on its premier current affairs programme Deadline.
Describing the setup within Pakistan, Rashed Rahman said that the country consisted of different actors. He said that the military and the ISI were powerful and they were the ones that basically controlled Pakistan’s security and foreign policy in specific areas, such as Afghanistan and India. According to him, the rest of Pakistan was mixed. He said he did not agree with the idea of the export of extremism and the notion that Afghanistan could be controlled through proxies.
“Pakistan is a very divided, complex, multi-layered country, so when you say Pakistan be careful; let’s distinguish between the policy of the army and the policy of the rest of Pakistani society,” he said.
He argued that the current scenario was a result of history, saying that once the West walked away from Pakistan after the Soviets walked away from Afghanistan, the country was left to pick up the pieces.
“So Pakistan has gone with things that are not palatable. For example, raising and supporting the Taliban, bringing them to power in Afghanistan and then after they were overthrown in 2001, hosting them, giving them safe havens. This is a policy that inevitably brings the military and the ISI into conflict with the people who are fighting in Afghanistan, which is the US and NATO and, of course, the Afghan forces,” he explained.
Continuing in this vein, Rashed Rahman said that in these areas, the government was weak and unable to assert itself against the military.
“The US-Pakistan alliance is fraught, enmeshed in friction and mistrust and suspicion,” he said.
Talking about the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in 2014, Rashed Rahman said that the military felt that it had better position itself to get a piece of the action there. He said that post-2014, the military wanted to see a, if not pliant, then friendly government in power in Kabul. According to him, the military felt that this could be best achieved through the Taliban. This had created the current friction between Pakistan and the US, since the US, NATO and the Afghans did not want the Taliban back in power. This time round, apart from the non-Pashtun ethnic groups, the Pashtuns in Afghanistan were divided and there was a considerable body of Pashtuns allied with the Karzai regime. According to him, his greatest fear was that there would be a civil war in Afghanistan after 2014, which would affect Pakistan and the entire region and may spiral into separate proxies being supported by regional powers apart from Pakistan.
“If that happens, and I hope it doesn’t, but if it happens, it will be a disaster,” he said.
To a question about who, between extremists and the rest, was gaining the upper hand within Pakistan, Rashed Rahman replied that religious parties had always been marginal in the political process, if it was a free political process. Citing the example of elections, he said that such parties did not obtain more three percent of the seats, if the elections were not manipulated in any way.
“So clearly, Pakistan is a moderate Muslim country. The bulk, the majority of the people are entrenched in the Sufi tradition, they are not extremists. So the extremists are not gaining the upper hand, unless someone gives them a boost,” he said.
According to him, there was a perception in the western media that Pakistan was running amok with fanatics and terrorists, while the reality was that 99 percent of the people just got on with their daily lives, which was never reported.
To a question about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, Rashed Rahman said that there was little chance that it would fall into the hands of radical extremists. He said that the military had ensured, along with help from the Americans to some extent, that the arsenal be kept safe. He stated that unless there was a movement inside the military, the arsenal would be secure. He claimed that there had been efforts within the military to bring about a coup or to orient it towards Islamism, but that they had been nipped in the bud, adding that the Pakistan military’s discipline had not broken down and was intact.
About the situation of democracy within the country, Rashed Rahman said that a struggle for democracy was still continuing in the country. He claimed that unless the country persisted with democracy, unless the parliament continued to function and freedoms existed, the extremist tide could not be rolled back.
Daily Times Monitor
COPENHAGEN: The idea that a country could be invaded and rebuilt from scratch was inherently flawed, Daily Times Editor Rashed Rahman said in an interview with a Danish news channel DR on its premier current affairs programme Deadline.
Describing the setup within Pakistan, Rashed Rahman said that the country consisted of different actors. He said that the military and the ISI were powerful and they were the ones that basically controlled Pakistan’s security and foreign policy in specific areas, such as Afghanistan and India. According to him, the rest of Pakistan was mixed. He said he did not agree with the idea of the export of extremism and the notion that Afghanistan could be controlled through proxies.
“Pakistan is a very divided, complex, multi-layered country, so when you say Pakistan be careful; let’s distinguish between the policy of the army and the policy of the rest of Pakistani society,” he said.
He argued that the current scenario was a result of history, saying that once the West walked away from Pakistan after the Soviets walked away from Afghanistan, the country was left to pick up the pieces.
“So Pakistan has gone with things that are not palatable. For example, raising and supporting the Taliban, bringing them to power in Afghanistan and then after they were overthrown in 2001, hosting them, giving them safe havens. This is a policy that inevitably brings the military and the ISI into conflict with the people who are fighting in Afghanistan, which is the US and NATO and, of course, the Afghan forces,” he explained.
Continuing in this vein, Rashed Rahman said that in these areas, the government was weak and unable to assert itself against the military.
“The US-Pakistan alliance is fraught, enmeshed in friction and mistrust and suspicion,” he said.
Talking about the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in 2014, Rashed Rahman said that the military felt that it had better position itself to get a piece of the action there. He said that post-2014, the military wanted to see a, if not pliant, then friendly government in power in Kabul. According to him, the military felt that this could be best achieved through the Taliban. This had created the current friction between Pakistan and the US, since the US, NATO and the Afghans did not want the Taliban back in power. This time round, apart from the non-Pashtun ethnic groups, the Pashtuns in Afghanistan were divided and there was a considerable body of Pashtuns allied with the Karzai regime. According to him, his greatest fear was that there would be a civil war in Afghanistan after 2014, which would affect Pakistan and the entire region and may spiral into separate proxies being supported by regional powers apart from Pakistan.
“If that happens, and I hope it doesn’t, but if it happens, it will be a disaster,” he said.
To a question about who, between extremists and the rest, was gaining the upper hand within Pakistan, Rashed Rahman replied that religious parties had always been marginal in the political process, if it was a free political process. Citing the example of elections, he said that such parties did not obtain more three percent of the seats, if the elections were not manipulated in any way.
“So clearly, Pakistan is a moderate Muslim country. The bulk, the majority of the people are entrenched in the Sufi tradition, they are not extremists. So the extremists are not gaining the upper hand, unless someone gives them a boost,” he said.
According to him, there was a perception in the western media that Pakistan was running amok with fanatics and terrorists, while the reality was that 99 percent of the people just got on with their daily lives, which was never reported.
To a question about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, Rashed Rahman said that there was little chance that it would fall into the hands of radical extremists. He said that the military had ensured, along with help from the Americans to some extent, that the arsenal be kept safe. He stated that unless there was a movement inside the military, the arsenal would be secure. He claimed that there had been efforts within the military to bring about a coup or to orient it towards Islamism, but that they had been nipped in the bud, adding that the Pakistan military’s discipline had not broken down and was intact.
About the situation of democracy within the country, Rashed Rahman said that a struggle for democracy was still continuing in the country. He claimed that unless the country persisted with democracy, unless the parliament continued to function and freedoms existed, the extremist tide could not be rolled back.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Daily Times editorial Nov 2, 2011
Istanbul conference
On the eve of the Istanbul conference on Afghanistan beginning tomorrow, the presidents of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey are meeting today for a trilateral summit in which Turkey is expected to play the role of a mediator to bridge the gaps and frictions between Islamabad and Kabul. How far such mediation, and the multilateral conference to follow, will succeed in overcoming not just the trust deficit between the major players but also reconcile what have increasingly emerged as fundamental strategic and policy divergences amongst the ostensible allies remains to be seen.
Having said that, it is necessary to recognise the shifts in position detectable even as the war on the ground (in Afghanistan and Pakistan) grinds on. To illustrate, a targeted US drone strike on Monday killed three people in North Waziristan, reflecting once again the intensified reliance by the Obama administration on a ‘decapitation’ through such remote means strategy. Inside Afghanistan, a suicide attack in Kandahar killed three Afghan UNHCR staff, raising new speculations whether the relative calm on the southern front in recent months may now give way to Mulla Omar’s forces joining hands with the Haqqani network’s intensifying attacks on American, Nato and Afghan forces in Kabul.
While the US seems to be relying, in Hillary Clinton’s words, on “Fight, Talk, Build” to ensure a face-saving exit from Afghanistan, it appears the Taliban, and their Pakistani military backers, are countering with a “Ceasefire, Talk, Wait for the Americans to Leave” posture. This makes eminent sense from their point of view. Why expend lives and resources on major military activity against an enemy that has declared its intention to retreat? This of course does not preclude pinprick attacks and bombings, which of late seem to be concentrated for maximum effect on the cities, rather than a classic guerrilla campaign in the traditional Taliban strongholds of southern and eastern Afghanistan. The US’s ‘bomb-them-to-the-bargaining-table’ strategy, therefore, is unlikely to yield the results hoped for. There is little incentive at present for the Taliban to come to the negotiating table when the battlefield is yielding tactical, strategic, and political success. To add to this tendency, suspicions and the trust deficit between ostensible allies Pakistan and the US, especially because of the recent strategic partnership agreement signed between Kabul and New Delhi, are hardening in the Pakistani military establishment’s minds. The spectre of being squeezed in a ‘nutcracker’ by India on the east and Indian influence in Kabul on the west has always been GHQ’s worst nightmare. Suspicion that Washington is not averse, and may even be relying on, an expanded Indian role in post-withdrawal Afghanistan, has brought the traditional rivalry between Pakistan and India to the proxy war battlefields of Afghanistan. In such an emerging scenario, the Pakistani military feels it holds a few cards of its own. And certainly Washington’s about-face in asking the ISI to help bring the Haqqani network to the negotiating table would bring great satisfaction to the Pakistani strategic planners. They have effectively played the ‘spoiler’s role’ to sabotage any attempts by the US at bypassing the ISI and independently negotiating with the Taliban (occasional reports of such US-Taliban contacts having faded away of late) and won a psychological and political victory by forcing Washington to abandon any such notions and return to asking for the services and good offices of the ISI for any hoped for settlement.
With such divergent considerations informing the Pakistani and US sides, these main players in the Afghan theatre are unlikely to resolve their differing strategic and political goals, and even make the idea of a regional solution through some architecture of a new regional Afghanistan resolution group a non-starter. What then are the prospects in Istanbul or for that matter in the Bonn conference to follow on December 5? It looks increasingly like ‘fight-fight’ while keeping up the pretence of ‘talk-talk’ on the Pakistani side, and just ‘fight-fight’ on the Afghan Taliban side. The ground therefore is being prepared for a new civil war in Afghanistan once the foreign forces leave. The Pakistani military may be convinced it has no choice but to see this endgame through, and plenty of ‘strategic’ advantage in persisting with this course, but there is grave concern about the cost to be paid, now and in future, by Pakistan and its people.
On the eve of the Istanbul conference on Afghanistan beginning tomorrow, the presidents of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkey are meeting today for a trilateral summit in which Turkey is expected to play the role of a mediator to bridge the gaps and frictions between Islamabad and Kabul. How far such mediation, and the multilateral conference to follow, will succeed in overcoming not just the trust deficit between the major players but also reconcile what have increasingly emerged as fundamental strategic and policy divergences amongst the ostensible allies remains to be seen.
Having said that, it is necessary to recognise the shifts in position detectable even as the war on the ground (in Afghanistan and Pakistan) grinds on. To illustrate, a targeted US drone strike on Monday killed three people in North Waziristan, reflecting once again the intensified reliance by the Obama administration on a ‘decapitation’ through such remote means strategy. Inside Afghanistan, a suicide attack in Kandahar killed three Afghan UNHCR staff, raising new speculations whether the relative calm on the southern front in recent months may now give way to Mulla Omar’s forces joining hands with the Haqqani network’s intensifying attacks on American, Nato and Afghan forces in Kabul.
While the US seems to be relying, in Hillary Clinton’s words, on “Fight, Talk, Build” to ensure a face-saving exit from Afghanistan, it appears the Taliban, and their Pakistani military backers, are countering with a “Ceasefire, Talk, Wait for the Americans to Leave” posture. This makes eminent sense from their point of view. Why expend lives and resources on major military activity against an enemy that has declared its intention to retreat? This of course does not preclude pinprick attacks and bombings, which of late seem to be concentrated for maximum effect on the cities, rather than a classic guerrilla campaign in the traditional Taliban strongholds of southern and eastern Afghanistan. The US’s ‘bomb-them-to-the-bargaining-table’ strategy, therefore, is unlikely to yield the results hoped for. There is little incentive at present for the Taliban to come to the negotiating table when the battlefield is yielding tactical, strategic, and political success. To add to this tendency, suspicions and the trust deficit between ostensible allies Pakistan and the US, especially because of the recent strategic partnership agreement signed between Kabul and New Delhi, are hardening in the Pakistani military establishment’s minds. The spectre of being squeezed in a ‘nutcracker’ by India on the east and Indian influence in Kabul on the west has always been GHQ’s worst nightmare. Suspicion that Washington is not averse, and may even be relying on, an expanded Indian role in post-withdrawal Afghanistan, has brought the traditional rivalry between Pakistan and India to the proxy war battlefields of Afghanistan. In such an emerging scenario, the Pakistani military feels it holds a few cards of its own. And certainly Washington’s about-face in asking the ISI to help bring the Haqqani network to the negotiating table would bring great satisfaction to the Pakistani strategic planners. They have effectively played the ‘spoiler’s role’ to sabotage any attempts by the US at bypassing the ISI and independently negotiating with the Taliban (occasional reports of such US-Taliban contacts having faded away of late) and won a psychological and political victory by forcing Washington to abandon any such notions and return to asking for the services and good offices of the ISI for any hoped for settlement.
With such divergent considerations informing the Pakistani and US sides, these main players in the Afghan theatre are unlikely to resolve their differing strategic and political goals, and even make the idea of a regional solution through some architecture of a new regional Afghanistan resolution group a non-starter. What then are the prospects in Istanbul or for that matter in the Bonn conference to follow on December 5? It looks increasingly like ‘fight-fight’ while keeping up the pretence of ‘talk-talk’ on the Pakistani side, and just ‘fight-fight’ on the Afghan Taliban side. The ground therefore is being prepared for a new civil war in Afghanistan once the foreign forces leave. The Pakistani military may be convinced it has no choice but to see this endgame through, and plenty of ‘strategic’ advantage in persisting with this course, but there is grave concern about the cost to be paid, now and in future, by Pakistan and its people.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Daily Times editorial Oct 25, 2011
A life of struggle and tragedy
In the death of Begum Nusrat Bhutto, the country has witnessed nothing less than the passing of an era. Begum Bhutto was perhaps the last representative within the past or present leadership of the PPP of the original élan of the party – left wing and anti-imperialist. All that has by now given way to the PPP being swayed by the currents of our times. The change in the party’s ideology could perhaps be traced to the moment when, partly because of ill health, Begum Bhutto was removed as the chairperson for life of the PPP and replaced by her daughter, Benazir Bhutto.
In a life that saw both highs and lows, and was never far from struggle and tragedy, Begum Bhutto was the bulwark of support for her husband Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) and after him, to her daughter Benazir. When ZAB was executed in 1979, many erstwhile leaders of the PPP abandoned him in the face of actual or threatened repression by the military dictatorship of General Ziaul Haq. Cometh the time, cometh the man, or in this case, woman. Begum Bhutto rose to the challenge, filling the void left by ZAB’s departure from this world, assumed charge of and the chairpersonship of the PPP in 1979, a post she held with great distinction until 1983. It is in this fraught period in the country’s history, when the horizon had darkened with the draconian repression by the Zia dictatorship, that she launched a determined and heroic struggle against the military regime. During this struggle, she suffered incarceration repeatedly and even physical abuse at the hands of the dictator’s minions. Undeterred, she pulled off the remarkable feat of uniting a broad spectrum of political parties to launch the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD). The movement was put down ruthlessly with an iron hand by General Zia. Around this time, Begun Bhutto was diagnosed with suspected cancer and allowed to leave the country for treatment abroad. She was a rock of support for her daughter Benazir in her captainship of the PPP from then on.
As though the fate of ZAB was not enough, she faced a continuing series of tragedies of Shakespearean dimensions. First her younger son, Shahnawaz Bhutto was murdered by poisoning by Zia agents. In 1996, her elder son and the apple of her eye, Murtaza Bhutto, was gunned down in Karachi by the police. That was not the end of the Bhutto family’s unprecedented record of tragedies. Benazir herself was gunned down in Rawalpindi after her return from exile abroad. It is not clear whether Begum Bhutto was either told or was aware of the death of her daughter, since by 2007 her Alzheimer’s is said to have rendered her unable to comprehend. A further tragedy was that Begum Bhutto, torn between loyalty to her daughter and the political ambition of Murtaza, cast her lot in with the latter. His killing is said to have so affected her that she not only retired from public life, but reconciled with Benazir and lived out the rest of her days in exile in Dubai.
While the respect Begum Bhutto was held in is reflected in the non-partisan tributes flowing in from all political parties and leaders, naturally it is the PPP, and especially its workers, with whom Begum Bhutto always retained a special rapport, who feel bereft. The prime minister announced a national holiday on Monday, the day of her funeral, and 10 days of mourning. The president, her son-in-law, awarded her the title of Madir-e-Jamhuriat (Mother of Democracy) and a Nishan-e-Imtiaz for her services to democracy and the country. The Sindh PPP announced 40 days of mourning. The party has suspended all political activities throughout the country.
While the outpouring of grief for a great lady and great leader fill the air, her death could not, unfortunately, heal the divide in the Bhutto family. Murtaza’s widow Ghinwa and his daughter Fatima objected to her body not being allowed to come to her home in 70 Clifton, Karachi, or Al-Murtaza, Larkana, although they did travel to Garhi Khuda Bux for Begum Bhutto’s last rites. We do not know what Begum Bhutto would have made of the continuing feud in the family or the very different direction the PPP has taken from the party her husband founded and she steered through very difficult times. Perhaps it would not be far off the mark to surmise that she would have been somewhat disappointed by both. Be that as it may, while death comes to us all, the passing of some is a greater moment than others. Without fear of contradiction, one such was Begum Nusrat Bhutto, the epitome of grace under pressure and immense courage.
In the death of Begum Nusrat Bhutto, the country has witnessed nothing less than the passing of an era. Begum Bhutto was perhaps the last representative within the past or present leadership of the PPP of the original élan of the party – left wing and anti-imperialist. All that has by now given way to the PPP being swayed by the currents of our times. The change in the party’s ideology could perhaps be traced to the moment when, partly because of ill health, Begum Bhutto was removed as the chairperson for life of the PPP and replaced by her daughter, Benazir Bhutto.
In a life that saw both highs and lows, and was never far from struggle and tragedy, Begum Bhutto was the bulwark of support for her husband Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) and after him, to her daughter Benazir. When ZAB was executed in 1979, many erstwhile leaders of the PPP abandoned him in the face of actual or threatened repression by the military dictatorship of General Ziaul Haq. Cometh the time, cometh the man, or in this case, woman. Begum Bhutto rose to the challenge, filling the void left by ZAB’s departure from this world, assumed charge of and the chairpersonship of the PPP in 1979, a post she held with great distinction until 1983. It is in this fraught period in the country’s history, when the horizon had darkened with the draconian repression by the Zia dictatorship, that she launched a determined and heroic struggle against the military regime. During this struggle, she suffered incarceration repeatedly and even physical abuse at the hands of the dictator’s minions. Undeterred, she pulled off the remarkable feat of uniting a broad spectrum of political parties to launch the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD). The movement was put down ruthlessly with an iron hand by General Zia. Around this time, Begun Bhutto was diagnosed with suspected cancer and allowed to leave the country for treatment abroad. She was a rock of support for her daughter Benazir in her captainship of the PPP from then on.
As though the fate of ZAB was not enough, she faced a continuing series of tragedies of Shakespearean dimensions. First her younger son, Shahnawaz Bhutto was murdered by poisoning by Zia agents. In 1996, her elder son and the apple of her eye, Murtaza Bhutto, was gunned down in Karachi by the police. That was not the end of the Bhutto family’s unprecedented record of tragedies. Benazir herself was gunned down in Rawalpindi after her return from exile abroad. It is not clear whether Begum Bhutto was either told or was aware of the death of her daughter, since by 2007 her Alzheimer’s is said to have rendered her unable to comprehend. A further tragedy was that Begum Bhutto, torn between loyalty to her daughter and the political ambition of Murtaza, cast her lot in with the latter. His killing is said to have so affected her that she not only retired from public life, but reconciled with Benazir and lived out the rest of her days in exile in Dubai.
While the respect Begum Bhutto was held in is reflected in the non-partisan tributes flowing in from all political parties and leaders, naturally it is the PPP, and especially its workers, with whom Begum Bhutto always retained a special rapport, who feel bereft. The prime minister announced a national holiday on Monday, the day of her funeral, and 10 days of mourning. The president, her son-in-law, awarded her the title of Madir-e-Jamhuriat (Mother of Democracy) and a Nishan-e-Imtiaz for her services to democracy and the country. The Sindh PPP announced 40 days of mourning. The party has suspended all political activities throughout the country.
While the outpouring of grief for a great lady and great leader fill the air, her death could not, unfortunately, heal the divide in the Bhutto family. Murtaza’s widow Ghinwa and his daughter Fatima objected to her body not being allowed to come to her home in 70 Clifton, Karachi, or Al-Murtaza, Larkana, although they did travel to Garhi Khuda Bux for Begum Bhutto’s last rites. We do not know what Begum Bhutto would have made of the continuing feud in the family or the very different direction the PPP has taken from the party her husband founded and she steered through very difficult times. Perhaps it would not be far off the mark to surmise that she would have been somewhat disappointed by both. Be that as it may, while death comes to us all, the passing of some is a greater moment than others. Without fear of contradiction, one such was Begum Nusrat Bhutto, the epitome of grace under pressure and immense courage.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Daily Times editorial Oct 23, 2011
“Days and weeks”
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Islamabad from her interaction with the Afghan leadership in Kabul and in the backdrop of the tensions between Pakistan and the US, stemming from a series of events beginning with the Abbottabad raid, Admiral Mullen’s castigation of the ISI’s links with the Haqqani network, and the Pakistani civilian-military response orchestrated through the All Parties Conference (APC). The expectation in some circles may have been that Ms Clinton came bearing gifts and palliative noises. To some extent they may have been satisfied. But the essential thrust of Ms Clinton’s message was clear and unequivocal. The US expects Pakistan to act against the terrorist safe havens on its soil within “days and weeks”, she said, while nudging, cajoling, persuading the Taliban to enter peace negotiations. If they do not cooperate, Ms Clinton asserted, stern action should be taken against them. The palliatives, largely overshadowed by the import of the ‘stern’ message, were that the Pakistan-US relationship is too critical for both sides and cannot be given up, and that the US would not carry out any (further) unilateral actions against Pakistan. She ended by emphasising Pakistan’s critical role in the Afghan endgame, and that the APC call to “give peace a chance” could only be achieved if both sides realise that “we have some work to do”.
Reports state that Clinton seemed to have extracted the recognition from Pakistan that it could do more against terrorist safe havens on its soil. This led some commentators, especially on television, to criticise foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar for having seemingly conceded this point. However, a careful reading of Ms Khar’s statement may show that the American ‘joy’ at the seeming concession may have been overstated, and that the criticism had more to do with sensitivity amongst some of our commentators to the ‘do more’ mantra rather than what she actually said. Khar linked safe havens on this side with their counterparts across the border (a reference to the Pakistani Taliban having found sanctuary in eastern Afghanistan, reportedly with the Haqqani network’s help). Khar went on to say that better cooperation by the two sides could yield better results but categorically refuted ISI’s support to safe havens. So while the foreign minister stuck to her brief, the real question is the credibility of her defence of the Pakistani military and ISI’s role in supporting and providing sanctuaries to the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network on Pakistani soil, for which there is by now overwhelming evidence.
A parallel and important development is the concentration of US and Afghan forces in the eastern Afghan provinces considered the stronghold of the Haqqani network, presumably in preparation for military action against the group. Clinton would like Pakistan to put pressure on the group from the Pakistani side (the old hammer and anvil tactic). This would include not only military action on both sides of the border (Ms Clinton pointed out that action on only one side would not achieve the desired results) but that military operations offer limited gains (based on the experience of the military also intelligence cooperation. Pakistani policy makers are by now wedded to the view offensives in Swat and FATA), and it is time now for a comprehensive reconciliation ahead of the withdrawal of the foreign forces from Afghanistan. The question however remains, if the military is not prepared to reject its strategic depth obsession and continues to support the continued fight of the Afghan Taliban against the foreign and Afghan forces, what incentive is there for the Taliban to come to the negotiating table? From their perspective, it makes perfect sense to wait out the withdrawing foreign forces. What may follow causes greater concern. Unlike the relatively easy victory of the Taliban in 1994-96, this time they will face a broader and more determined anti-Taliban front, comprising not just the non-Pashtun ethnic groups, but also those Pashtuns who reject the medievalism of the Taliban. Therein lie the seeds of another civil war in Afghanistan, from whose effects Pakistan cannot isolate itself. Talking of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan while stoking the Taliban insurgency seems, to put it mildly, contradictory.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Islamabad from her interaction with the Afghan leadership in Kabul and in the backdrop of the tensions between Pakistan and the US, stemming from a series of events beginning with the Abbottabad raid, Admiral Mullen’s castigation of the ISI’s links with the Haqqani network, and the Pakistani civilian-military response orchestrated through the All Parties Conference (APC). The expectation in some circles may have been that Ms Clinton came bearing gifts and palliative noises. To some extent they may have been satisfied. But the essential thrust of Ms Clinton’s message was clear and unequivocal. The US expects Pakistan to act against the terrorist safe havens on its soil within “days and weeks”, she said, while nudging, cajoling, persuading the Taliban to enter peace negotiations. If they do not cooperate, Ms Clinton asserted, stern action should be taken against them. The palliatives, largely overshadowed by the import of the ‘stern’ message, were that the Pakistan-US relationship is too critical for both sides and cannot be given up, and that the US would not carry out any (further) unilateral actions against Pakistan. She ended by emphasising Pakistan’s critical role in the Afghan endgame, and that the APC call to “give peace a chance” could only be achieved if both sides realise that “we have some work to do”.
Reports state that Clinton seemed to have extracted the recognition from Pakistan that it could do more against terrorist safe havens on its soil. This led some commentators, especially on television, to criticise foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar for having seemingly conceded this point. However, a careful reading of Ms Khar’s statement may show that the American ‘joy’ at the seeming concession may have been overstated, and that the criticism had more to do with sensitivity amongst some of our commentators to the ‘do more’ mantra rather than what she actually said. Khar linked safe havens on this side with their counterparts across the border (a reference to the Pakistani Taliban having found sanctuary in eastern Afghanistan, reportedly with the Haqqani network’s help). Khar went on to say that better cooperation by the two sides could yield better results but categorically refuted ISI’s support to safe havens. So while the foreign minister stuck to her brief, the real question is the credibility of her defence of the Pakistani military and ISI’s role in supporting and providing sanctuaries to the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network on Pakistani soil, for which there is by now overwhelming evidence.
A parallel and important development is the concentration of US and Afghan forces in the eastern Afghan provinces considered the stronghold of the Haqqani network, presumably in preparation for military action against the group. Clinton would like Pakistan to put pressure on the group from the Pakistani side (the old hammer and anvil tactic). This would include not only military action on both sides of the border (Ms Clinton pointed out that action on only one side would not achieve the desired results) but that military operations offer limited gains (based on the experience of the military also intelligence cooperation. Pakistani policy makers are by now wedded to the view offensives in Swat and FATA), and it is time now for a comprehensive reconciliation ahead of the withdrawal of the foreign forces from Afghanistan. The question however remains, if the military is not prepared to reject its strategic depth obsession and continues to support the continued fight of the Afghan Taliban against the foreign and Afghan forces, what incentive is there for the Taliban to come to the negotiating table? From their perspective, it makes perfect sense to wait out the withdrawing foreign forces. What may follow causes greater concern. Unlike the relatively easy victory of the Taliban in 1994-96, this time they will face a broader and more determined anti-Taliban front, comprising not just the non-Pashtun ethnic groups, but also those Pashtuns who reject the medievalism of the Taliban. Therein lie the seeds of another civil war in Afghanistan, from whose effects Pakistan cannot isolate itself. Talking of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan while stoking the Taliban insurgency seems, to put it mildly, contradictory.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Daily Times editorial Oct 22, 2011
Shocking brutality
Nothing defines the post-Gaddafi National Transitional Council (NTC) regime better than the shockingly brutal manner in which Colonel Moammar Gaddafi was literally beaten to death after his capture on Thursday in Sirte. To reiterate the cliché that all is fair in love and war in this context is no comfort. The reports and footage of Gaddafi’s last moments are nothing short of hair-raising. This was a barbaric act in the extreme. With its usual expedient blinkers where its interests are concerned, the west, whether governments or the media, have tucked away their moral compass somewhere out of sight and convenient. The NTC pro-west regime they are triumphantly supporting is less likely to be, as the Libyan Ambassador in London claimed, a state ruled by law so much as a western imperialist satrap. Given that this treatment of a captured leader was not the first manifestation of the brutality of the NTC fighters (note the violence perpetrated against unarmed migrant African workers captured by the NTC and accused of being Gaddafi mercenaries without any proof), what is the explanation for this barbarism?
The NTC forces include al Qaeda affiliated groups who have been trying to overthrow Gaddafi through armed uprisings (especially in eastern Libya) over the years. Ironically, the very west that claims to be fighting al Qaeda worldwide turned a convenient blind eye to the troubling inclusion of these extremist jihadi groups in the NTC ranks. One faction of these al Qaeda affiliates was held responsible for the murder of a Gaddafi regime senior general who defected to the rebels and was leading their military campaign. Yet to date, no one has been held accountable for this murder. Libya presents the picture of the pattern likely to be used by the west from now on to take out regimes that oppose its imperialist ambitions. The model is to use local dissident or rebellious forces on the ground, supported by the US and Nato’s overwhelming technological superiority in air power, missiles and other ‘remote’ weapons to help crush regimes that do not play ball with the west. US President Obama boasted after Gaddafi’s brutal end was confirmed that not one American life had been lost in the Libyan campaign. What he conveniently forgot to mention was the role of covert special forces attached to the NTC rebels that arguably helped and directed their relatively amateur military efforts. Obama’s triumphalism pulled whatever thin fig leaf was put up by Washington under the rubric ‘leading from behind’.
Like in any detective novel, the two critical questions to be asked are: motive, and beneficiary, to determine the villain of the piece. Libya’s oil and gas riches are what the US-led west has been slavering over for a very long time. Gaddafi’s support to anti-imperialist movements worldwide earned him more than a fair share of the ire of the powers that be in our (still) post-Cold War unipolar world. France and Britain, that led the anti-Gaddafi pack, are licking their lips over the lucrative ingress they have gained through bringing the NTC to power into Libya’s oil and gas. As in Iraq, energy sources and imperialist intervention have a symbiotic relationship.
It may be too close to these horrific events to judge Gaddafi’s place in history. However, a few tentative conclusions can be tendered even now. Colonel Gaddafi’s coup in 1969 that overthrew the decrepit monarchy and established a popular Arab nationalist regime openly declared its support of all anti-imperialist movements in the world. Sometimes, his uncompromising stances and criticism of other third world countries that betrayed their ostensible support to such movements because of ties to, and pressure from, the west, invited retaliation and even relative isolation for Gaddafi. He was however, undeterred for a very long time. It is only when the west was able to orchestrate a virtually total isolation of Libya because of the Lockerbie bombing and other incidents, that Gaddafi attempted to compromise with the west. He gave up his nuclear ambitions, support for already dwindling anti-imperialist movements, and tried to craft an acceptable modus vivendi with the western powers. However, if there is one lesson to be drawn from his fate, it is that empires have long memories and are totally ruthless in achieving their goals. Gaddafi joins a long list of the victims of the rapacious greed and domineering imperialist ambitions of the west that litters the history of the modern world. Rest in peace Colonel.
Nothing defines the post-Gaddafi National Transitional Council (NTC) regime better than the shockingly brutal manner in which Colonel Moammar Gaddafi was literally beaten to death after his capture on Thursday in Sirte. To reiterate the cliché that all is fair in love and war in this context is no comfort. The reports and footage of Gaddafi’s last moments are nothing short of hair-raising. This was a barbaric act in the extreme. With its usual expedient blinkers where its interests are concerned, the west, whether governments or the media, have tucked away their moral compass somewhere out of sight and convenient. The NTC pro-west regime they are triumphantly supporting is less likely to be, as the Libyan Ambassador in London claimed, a state ruled by law so much as a western imperialist satrap. Given that this treatment of a captured leader was not the first manifestation of the brutality of the NTC fighters (note the violence perpetrated against unarmed migrant African workers captured by the NTC and accused of being Gaddafi mercenaries without any proof), what is the explanation for this barbarism?
The NTC forces include al Qaeda affiliated groups who have been trying to overthrow Gaddafi through armed uprisings (especially in eastern Libya) over the years. Ironically, the very west that claims to be fighting al Qaeda worldwide turned a convenient blind eye to the troubling inclusion of these extremist jihadi groups in the NTC ranks. One faction of these al Qaeda affiliates was held responsible for the murder of a Gaddafi regime senior general who defected to the rebels and was leading their military campaign. Yet to date, no one has been held accountable for this murder. Libya presents the picture of the pattern likely to be used by the west from now on to take out regimes that oppose its imperialist ambitions. The model is to use local dissident or rebellious forces on the ground, supported by the US and Nato’s overwhelming technological superiority in air power, missiles and other ‘remote’ weapons to help crush regimes that do not play ball with the west. US President Obama boasted after Gaddafi’s brutal end was confirmed that not one American life had been lost in the Libyan campaign. What he conveniently forgot to mention was the role of covert special forces attached to the NTC rebels that arguably helped and directed their relatively amateur military efforts. Obama’s triumphalism pulled whatever thin fig leaf was put up by Washington under the rubric ‘leading from behind’.
Like in any detective novel, the two critical questions to be asked are: motive, and beneficiary, to determine the villain of the piece. Libya’s oil and gas riches are what the US-led west has been slavering over for a very long time. Gaddafi’s support to anti-imperialist movements worldwide earned him more than a fair share of the ire of the powers that be in our (still) post-Cold War unipolar world. France and Britain, that led the anti-Gaddafi pack, are licking their lips over the lucrative ingress they have gained through bringing the NTC to power into Libya’s oil and gas. As in Iraq, energy sources and imperialist intervention have a symbiotic relationship.
It may be too close to these horrific events to judge Gaddafi’s place in history. However, a few tentative conclusions can be tendered even now. Colonel Gaddafi’s coup in 1969 that overthrew the decrepit monarchy and established a popular Arab nationalist regime openly declared its support of all anti-imperialist movements in the world. Sometimes, his uncompromising stances and criticism of other third world countries that betrayed their ostensible support to such movements because of ties to, and pressure from, the west, invited retaliation and even relative isolation for Gaddafi. He was however, undeterred for a very long time. It is only when the west was able to orchestrate a virtually total isolation of Libya because of the Lockerbie bombing and other incidents, that Gaddafi attempted to compromise with the west. He gave up his nuclear ambitions, support for already dwindling anti-imperialist movements, and tried to craft an acceptable modus vivendi with the western powers. However, if there is one lesson to be drawn from his fate, it is that empires have long memories and are totally ruthless in achieving their goals. Gaddafi joins a long list of the victims of the rapacious greed and domineering imperialist ambitions of the west that litters the history of the modern world. Rest in peace Colonel.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Daily Times editorial Oct 17, 2011
The Occupy movement
In 951 cities in 82 countries around the world on Saturday, protestors turned out against the inequities and excesses of free-market capitalism. The movement that started from Spain earlier this year under the title the Indignants, has now spread to the US and other countries. In New York, it is exemplified by the Occupy Wall Street campaign. Whereas the protests elsewhere were peaceful, in Rome violence broke out, with attacks by enraged protestors on cars and property and police action with tear gas and water cannon. While critics and defenders of capitalism have castigated the protestors for lacking any coherent programme, the protestors seem very clear about what they do not want. And these basics are universally the inspiration for these protestors from New Zealand, through Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America in solidarity with their American counterparts in New York. What are the basics this global movement against capitalism shares? They include: rejection of traditional political elites (seen as being complicit in the skewed nature of the benefits and burdens of a corporate-dominated world); a belief that globalisation benefits the rich more than the masses; anger about intertwined business and political corruption. What has lubricated the protests beyond borders is the connectedness and empowerment fostered by the internet and social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter. This phenomenon first surfaced in the Arab Spring movements in Tunisia and Egypt. By now, these means of communication globally are the currency of protest movements anywhere.
To understand this emerging phenomenon of transnational protest, we need to retrace our steps to the end of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and with it the socialist project in most parts of the world produced a triumphalist declaration of victory for capitalism (Francis Fukuyama declared it the ‘end of history’, i.e. the final and irreversible victory of free market capitalism and liberal bourgeois democracy). Blind faith in the private sector as the engine of unlimited progress and the panacea for all of humanity’s problems led to de-regulation of the dominant financial sector. A seemingly innocuous sub-prime mortgage sector collapse in the US soon set off ripples that exposed the underbelly of a mountain of debt and paper based on it, the mounting default of which produced a spectacular collapse of the heights of the banking and financial sector worldwide. Banks and financial institutions declared ‘too big to fail’ were temporarily bailed out through public funds (i.e. the taxpayers’ money). Soon, it seemed like business as usual, with the banking and finance elite once again enjoying its perks, privileges and huge remuneration, while the spreading effects of the finance sector’s collapse caused the real economy (manufacturing, industry, etc) to also tank. High unemployment followed, and seems insoluble, leading to young people in the developed and developing world being confronted by the prospect of no prospects for their future. The Arab Spring protests, as the current Occupy movement, enjoy a large representation of this youth in their ranks. In the developed world, their uncertainty is compounded by the debt they incurred while seeking educational qualifications and which, in the absence of jobs, they are hard put to it to retire in the foreseeable future.
While Europe wrestles (with hoped for IMF help) to recapitalise its failing banks to prevent countries such as Greece, Ireland and others from seeing their economies go down the tube, the people on the streets have acquired, as part of their alienation from the system, a sense of helplessness in the face of control of their lives by global forces beyond their reach or ability to change. The political elites stand accused of trying to salvage the system from the debris on the backs of the ordinary people. The post-Second World War Bretton Woods architecture of the global economic and financial system seems incapable of finding viable solutions to arguably capitalism’s greatest recessionary crisis since the Great Depression.
Pakistan’s young constitute 65 percent of our population. They too are going through similar thoughts and perceptions. The system offers them little or no hope, the political elites are visionless, corrupt, self-absorbed and indifferent. All the makings are there for an explosion of indignant protest. Why has it not happened already? Perhaps because the complexity of Pakistan’s crisis and the dominant narratives that seek to explain it are creating more confusion than light and clarity. Lest the political elites be lulled into complacency on this account, it would be in their interest to read the writing on the (global) wall and seriously fear the emergence of a protest movement that would be aimed at all of them, without exception, and that would threaten to sweep all their shenanigans away and dump them in the dustbin of history.
In 951 cities in 82 countries around the world on Saturday, protestors turned out against the inequities and excesses of free-market capitalism. The movement that started from Spain earlier this year under the title the Indignants, has now spread to the US and other countries. In New York, it is exemplified by the Occupy Wall Street campaign. Whereas the protests elsewhere were peaceful, in Rome violence broke out, with attacks by enraged protestors on cars and property and police action with tear gas and water cannon. While critics and defenders of capitalism have castigated the protestors for lacking any coherent programme, the protestors seem very clear about what they do not want. And these basics are universally the inspiration for these protestors from New Zealand, through Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America in solidarity with their American counterparts in New York. What are the basics this global movement against capitalism shares? They include: rejection of traditional political elites (seen as being complicit in the skewed nature of the benefits and burdens of a corporate-dominated world); a belief that globalisation benefits the rich more than the masses; anger about intertwined business and political corruption. What has lubricated the protests beyond borders is the connectedness and empowerment fostered by the internet and social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter. This phenomenon first surfaced in the Arab Spring movements in Tunisia and Egypt. By now, these means of communication globally are the currency of protest movements anywhere.
To understand this emerging phenomenon of transnational protest, we need to retrace our steps to the end of the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and with it the socialist project in most parts of the world produced a triumphalist declaration of victory for capitalism (Francis Fukuyama declared it the ‘end of history’, i.e. the final and irreversible victory of free market capitalism and liberal bourgeois democracy). Blind faith in the private sector as the engine of unlimited progress and the panacea for all of humanity’s problems led to de-regulation of the dominant financial sector. A seemingly innocuous sub-prime mortgage sector collapse in the US soon set off ripples that exposed the underbelly of a mountain of debt and paper based on it, the mounting default of which produced a spectacular collapse of the heights of the banking and financial sector worldwide. Banks and financial institutions declared ‘too big to fail’ were temporarily bailed out through public funds (i.e. the taxpayers’ money). Soon, it seemed like business as usual, with the banking and finance elite once again enjoying its perks, privileges and huge remuneration, while the spreading effects of the finance sector’s collapse caused the real economy (manufacturing, industry, etc) to also tank. High unemployment followed, and seems insoluble, leading to young people in the developed and developing world being confronted by the prospect of no prospects for their future. The Arab Spring protests, as the current Occupy movement, enjoy a large representation of this youth in their ranks. In the developed world, their uncertainty is compounded by the debt they incurred while seeking educational qualifications and which, in the absence of jobs, they are hard put to it to retire in the foreseeable future.
While Europe wrestles (with hoped for IMF help) to recapitalise its failing banks to prevent countries such as Greece, Ireland and others from seeing their economies go down the tube, the people on the streets have acquired, as part of their alienation from the system, a sense of helplessness in the face of control of their lives by global forces beyond their reach or ability to change. The political elites stand accused of trying to salvage the system from the debris on the backs of the ordinary people. The post-Second World War Bretton Woods architecture of the global economic and financial system seems incapable of finding viable solutions to arguably capitalism’s greatest recessionary crisis since the Great Depression.
Pakistan’s young constitute 65 percent of our population. They too are going through similar thoughts and perceptions. The system offers them little or no hope, the political elites are visionless, corrupt, self-absorbed and indifferent. All the makings are there for an explosion of indignant protest. Why has it not happened already? Perhaps because the complexity of Pakistan’s crisis and the dominant narratives that seek to explain it are creating more confusion than light and clarity. Lest the political elites be lulled into complacency on this account, it would be in their interest to read the writing on the (global) wall and seriously fear the emergence of a protest movement that would be aimed at all of them, without exception, and that would threaten to sweep all their shenanigans away and dump them in the dustbin of history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)