Daily Times Editorial Oct 31, 2013

Hamlet sans the Prince of Denmark In London for the World Islamic Forum, Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif said in an interview with a TV channel that he wants the Taliban to join the peace talks his government has offered as a solution to the terrorism afflicting Pakistan. The PM claimed that whenever there is progress in this endeavour, an unfortunate incident takes place, setting back the process. He went on to reiterate that his government is serious about a negotiated settlement with the militants, and desires peace not only in Pakistan but also in the region. The PM said Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar has been tasked with pursuit of the talks. Nawaz Sharif would like to include all stakeholders in the talks process, amongst whom he also counts the Taliban. The latter, he argued, should become part of the political process. Back home Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar said during an address to the 99th National Management Course for senior officers in Islamabad that talks with the Taliban would begin soon as all the homework has been completed in consultation with all the stakeholders. It may be recalled that before his departure for London, Nawaz Sharif had asked Chaudhry Nisar to take all the political parties into the loop regarding progress in the effort to start the talks process with the Taliban. Since there is no word on whether the speculations in the media regarding some tentative contacts with the Taliban are true and bearing fruit, one can only assume for the moment that the interior minister was talking about only the political parties. Scepticism is rife in Pakistan about the lack of visible progress in the talks initiative. Until and unless the government feels confident of revealing some details that may be sensitive and run the risk of aborting whatever ‘contacts’ may or may not be in the works, there is no telling how much worth there is in the claim of ‘homework’. Chaudhry Nisar also took advantage of the occasion to reiterate his pet project of a joint intelligence directorate that would bring under one roof all the intelligence agencies. Here too, not much visible ‘homework is to be had. Chaudhry Nisar dropped the bombshell that the stillborn National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA) would be revived (from its present moribund state) as a major counterterrorism authority in the country. One can only wait and hope. Last but not least, the interior minister trotted out the rapid response force his government plans, complete with an air wing to meet any terrorist emergency. There are a number of problems with the formulations of the PM. First and foremost, his inclusion of the Taliban amongst the ‘stakeholders’ beggars the imagination. How terrorists who threaten the very existence of the state or at the least the democratic political system Pakistan has achieved after much struggle and sacrifice can be described thus is beyond understanding. Second, the government has so far failed to clarify who it will be talking to amongst the plethora of groups describing themselves as ‘Taliban’. It is not clear that there is any one major group amongst them, e.g. the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), with whom negotiations could be held with the hope that whatever agreements are arrived at would be accepted by the other groups under the umbrella of the TTP or whether the TTP could persuade them to go along with those agreements. Not only is there confusion on the government’s side about who would be at the other end of the negotiations table, the government appears divided between its desire to achieve a peaceful solution through talks and its guarded posture that if the talks fail, force may become inescapable. The other ‘stakeholders’, i.e. the political parties, are divided too about the best way forward and what should be the outcome. Last but not least, the Taliban have so far given no indication that they would abandon what they see as a win-win situation for them on the ground and don their negotiation hats. Given all these questions and uncertainties, and the absence of a negotiating partner so far at the other end of the table, the government’s talks initiative seems more and more like playing Hamlet sans the Prince of Denmark.

Daily Times Editorial Oct 29, 2013

Missing persons long march It is difficult not to feel stirrings of sympathy for Dr Abdul Malik Baloch, the Chief Minister (CM) of Balochistan. In his foray the other day to the Karachi Press Club, he was nothing if not candid. First and foremost, he admitted up front that he and his government had failed to resolve the issue of missing persons that has bedevilled the province for years. Although he asserted in one breath that the law and order and security situation in Balochistan had improved since he took over, the next moment he confessed the difficulties in the way of bringing peace and reconciliation to the troubled province. When questioned about contacts or talks with the Baloch nationalist insurgents, Dr Malik tried to put the best possible face on it by stating that his government was trying to find a ‘constitutional’ solution to the conundrum. Presumably what he meant was a negotiated settlement of the conflict without conceding the demand for separation. To create what he called the mechanism for contacts with the Baloch nationalist insurgents in the mountains and those in exile, his government has proposed a provincial All Parties Conference in December to deliberate upon the ways and means to achieve at least an opening to the aggrieved and angry dissidents in the separatist camp. Dr Malik’s small space for manoeuvre however, was exposed in his statement that until such time that the police and Levies in Balochistan were strengthened to take over security and law and order duties, reliance on the Frontier Corps (FC) would have to continue. Given how controversial the FC has become over the years in Balochistan, particularly with reference to the notorious alleged ‘kill and dump’ policy, there is a logical flaw in the CM’s argument. So long as the FC is deployed, and given that the government elected this year seems so far helpless to control the incidence of such incidents, one fails to see how the FC could be taken out of the equation. Rather, its posture and actions suggest the FC will be difficult to remove or replace for the foreseeable future. That cuts the ground from under the ground of the well-meaning CM. High hopes were attached after the May 2013 elections that the coming to power of a middle class Baloch moderate nationalist like Dr Malik offered the best hope in years of promoting a negotiated settlement and peace in Balochistan. Four months down the road, that appears a virtually lost cause, not the least because in practice the CM seems unable to rein in even the more objectionable parts of the FC’s campaign against nationalist dissidents. The CM has proved equally helpless when it comes to meeting the challenges of the earthquake-hit victims in Awaran. Whatever the provincial government, the military/FC and the National and Provincial Disaster Management Authorities have managed, and it could be conceded that their efforts are not inconsiderable, nevertheless they fall far short of the requirement, as Dr Malik himself has repeatedly said. Nevertheless, his appeals to the federal government to either do what is required itself or allow international aid agencies to come in and help have fallen on deaf ears. Meanwhile persistent reports from the remote earthquake zones speak of immense deprivation and a humanitarian crisis, the claims of the authorities to have adequately met the emergency notwithstanding. To add poignancy to Dr Malik’s confession that he has been unable to do much about the missing persons conundrum, a brave group of men, women and children of the Voice of Baloch Missing Persons has undertaken an arduous long march from Quetta to Karachi to highlight the lack of progress on recovery of missing persons in Balochistan, despite the efforts, amongst others, of no less than the Supreme Court. Of course, the difference between the journey of the CM to Karachi and that of the relatives of the missing persons agitating for the return of their loved ones since 2009 is that the latter are making the trek on foot, for 12 hours a day, resting wherever they find themselves at nightfall. Even the most hardened heart must feel for these unfortunate people, whose misery and grief knows no bounds and has seen no relief despite their best efforts. Neither Pakistani nor international human rights organizations have taken up this cause with the persistence it demands, occasional nods in its direction notwithstanding. Without a cessation of tortured dead bodies of nationalists turning up all over Balochistan and increasingly in Karachi, whatever hopes resided in a political reconciliation in Balochistan through Dr Malik and company seem ordained to end in failure. That implies a continuation, and perhaps worsening, of what Dr Malik described as troubles confined to a few districts. How long such complacency can hold the field is a moot point.

Daily Times editorial Oct 28, 2013

Saving Pakistan Soon after returning from Washington, Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif has written a letter to all the political parties setting out the rationale for the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance 2013 and asking for their support in getting it passed by parliament. Making reference to the “spirit and determination” displayed by all the political parties during the All Parties Conference (APC), the PM appealed to them to read the Ordinance carefully and support its passage. The PM’s letter argues that decades of dictatorship and misgovernance by successive governments are the factors responsible for the complete erosion of the writ and authority of the state. Apart from remote areas, the PM points to the safe havens for terrorists in urban areas that have emerged over the years and are a matter of serious concern. At the same time, he has taken the Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) to task for their failure to maintain internal security and effectively prosecute criminals. Ineffective legislation has fed into this conundrum, while constant tampering with different laws over an extended period of time has led to a legal vacuum. This has produced a situation where the lives and properties of the people are in grave danger. On the other hand organized mafias are running free. As a result of all these negative developments, the socioeconomic fabric and age-old value system that bind society are in danger of disintegration. The Ordinance, the PM asserts, sends a strong message to organized crime and anti-state elements regarding the will and determination of the state and people to face and eliminate all challenges to the country’s sovereignty and integrity. The PM goes on to remind the political parties that they have been elected by the people to rid the country of the menace of terrorism that has inflicted such enormous losses since the adoption of the post-9/11 policies. He also reminded them of the potential unfolding events in post-2014 Afghanistan. Last but not least, the PM argued that expert opinion had been consulted to ensure the Ordinance was within the parameters of the constitution. Whatever the merits of the PM’s iteration of the scenario bedevilling the country, its reasons and the solution his government thinks offers the best shot for overcoming the present afflictions, and there is weight in his analysis, it is obvious that the PM is reaching out to the parties to ensure the passage of the Ordinance in parliament since the ruling PML-N does not enjoy a majority in the Senate. Without the support of the parties in the upper house, and particularly the opposition, therefore, no legislation can pass. That may be the obvious procedural compulsion for the PML-N to take all the parties with it on legislation that seeks in extraordinary times to put in place powers for the LEAs and judiciary to deal in extraordinary fashion if need be with the existential threat to the country posed by terrorism and the deleterious effects of the breakdown of law and order at the hands of criminal mafias determined to take advantage of the disturbed conditions. The PPP has rejected the Ordinance on the touchstone of fundamental and human rights and it also faces a legal challenge in the Islamabad High Court. This underlines the need for cooperation from all the parties or at least enough of them to allow passage of the Ordinance. As to the PM’s argument that the Ordinance remains within the four corners of the constitution, there is little doubt that the supreme law of the land does envisage extraordinary measures to meet unusual emergencies and contingencies. The moment the civil armed forces are called in by the government, as the Ordinance envisages, and empowered to deal with terrorism on a ‘shoot first and ask questions later’ basis, not to mention searching premises on the basis of suspicion even without a search warrant and disallowing bail to suspects under interrogation, fundamental rights stand suspended. This can be tolerated in situations that threaten the very existence of the state, as arguably the present scenario does, and the hope is that this dispensation will not be misused or extended beyond the exigencies defined above. The PM has also attempted to meet the criticism by Leader of the Opposition, the PPP’s Khursheed Shah, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government regarding the seeming lack of progress on the talks with the Taliban by tasking Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar with keeping all parties in the loop on this issue, in line with the mandate the government received from the APC. Both the letter on the Ordinance and the directive to Chaudhry Nisar reflect the PM’s correct approach of taking the political forces along in tackling the grave crisis facing the country.

Daily Times Editorial Oct 26, 2013

Droning unlikely to stop The atmospherics of the meeting between Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and US President Barack Obama in Washington appeared very positive. According to the prime minister, while talking to reporters in London on his way back to the country, the Pakistan side had talked to the Americans on all issues. He said it was time to come out of the duplicity and hypocrisy of the past. This remark has significance given the revelations in a Washington Post story that successive Pakistani governments had privately been in the know about the US drones programme and even approved it, while publicly condemning the strikes to pander to domestic opinion. The assertion is neither new nor devoid of substance. Ex-president Musharraf admitted in a television interview in April this year that he had given verbal approval to the drone strikes. Ex-US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson's diplomatic cable in August 2008, later leaked by Wikileaks, too confirmed this. Ex-premier Yousaf Raza Gilani and other top officials have attempted to deny this, but there is too much weight of evidence to simply wish it away. It should not be forgotten that at one point, Shamsi airbase in Balochistan had been used for drone flights. The foreign office spokesman has tried to put the best possible face on the issue by saying whatever past implicit agreements may have existed on the issue, the present government neither subscribes to them nor is willing to retreat from its stand that the drone strikes violate Pakistan’s sovereignty and are counterproductive. The prime minister has sounded optimistic that the drone strikes issue will be settled soon, although there is the opposite sense emanating from Washington. Nawaz Sharif may be playing to the domestic gallery on this matter as well as on his hopes for the US’s intercession with India on Kashmir and improving relations. Washington has made reassuring noises on both, but is unlikely to do more. The positives of the visit are the fact that it took place at all, both sides committed to understanding each other’s concerns and addressing them, and on the energy and economic front, the news seems positive. Nawaz Sharif may also be able to draw some comfort from the US State Department's statement that Washington supports his policy of talking to the Pakistani Taliban to resolve the terrorism issue. The State Department has expressed its good wishes for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s ascension to power as presenting a “renewed” opportunity to discuss the continued key bilateral relationship between the two countries and went on to assert that his visit was marked by “warmth, breadth and honesty in fulsome discussions”. The State Department reiterated the US’s commitment to substantial economic and security assistance as Pakistan continues to pursue the objectives of curbing militancy and terrorism and peace and stability for the region. So far so good. The areas of convergence between Washington and Islamabad are clear, as are the actual or potential areas of divergence. In the former, despite the prime minister’s assertions in Washington that he came looking not for aid but trade, aid still forms the critical matrix for the relationship, as in the past. US investment in energy and the economy would seal ties on the foundation of shared economic interests while lifting Pakistan out of its crippling energy shortage and struggling economy. On the rest, though, there are too many variables at play to conclude much except to point to the problem areas. Afghanistan still looms large between the allies, the withdrawal and subsequent situation causing everyone to burn the midnight oil or even perhaps gaze into their crystal balls. On it depends not only the future of Afghanistan, but also the chances of Pakistan overcoming terrorism and taking advantage of the subsequent peace dividend and its concomitant economic benefits. At the risk, therefore, of sounding too didactic, all eyes are still fixed on Afghanistan.

Daily Times Editorial Oct 25, 2013

How ‘fresh’ a start? Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has completed his visit to Washington where he met US President Barack Obama, Vice-President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and other top officials. These interactions ran true to an already familiar script. Both sides essentially restated their known positions. To that extent, there were no surprises and certainly hopes of any breakthrough were almost non-existent. In their joint news conference and the joint statement issued at the end of the meeting with the US President, it became clearer what the dialogue covered. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, as anticipated, raised the issues of a cessation of drone strikes, improvement of relations with India, including a request to the US to help resolve Kashmir, Pakistan’s energy crisis, US investment in Pakistan and the Dr Aafia Siddiqui release conundrum. Obama on the other hand concentrated on punishment of the Mumbai attackers, restricting the activities of Jamaat-ud-Dawa and the release of Dr Shakil Afridi. Although these sets of demands seem to suggest both sides were talking ‘past’ each other, and even implicitly if not explicitly agreeing to disagree, what must not be lost sight of is the emerging context of the withdrawal of the US from Afghanistan next year and the need therefore to reframe the long term relationship between Washington and Islamabad. In that respect, the interaction proved long on rhetoric and short, at least in terms of detail, on concrete outcomes. Both sides iterated their commitment to a long term mutually beneficial relationship, an aim that includes a solution for Afghanistan post-2014 that would not only be good for Afghanistan, according to Obama, but also ensure Pakistan would not suffer any adverse fallout in the long run. In other words, any lingering apprehensions in Islamabad regarding a repeat of the post-1989 ‘abandonment’ of Pakistan and the region may have been laid to rest. That may bring some modicum of comfort to Pakistan, but on the immediate issues, the results were mixed. On drones, for example, the US President made no commitment. It is another matter that Washington is far more sensitive now than in the past to the rising concern in Pakistan (and internationally) regarding the drone attacks and that in itself, combined with the impending withdrawal, may result in a dwindling incrementally of such attacks and their possible cessation after 2014. But even that is still far from a certainty, and no bets can be laid at this juncture. Ritual references by the US side to “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Pakistan will remain just that, diplomatese, until this becomes a reality on the ground. No ‘exchange’ of Aafia Siddiqui for Shakil Afridi appears imminent, nor is the US about to tread uninvited (in fact resisted) by India into the long-standing Kashmir quagmire. While the positive words expressing mutual bonhomie should not have too much read into them, it is also undeniable that Washington has released, and is striving to further release, long stalled military and civilian aid for Pakistan. There are also bright chances that US investment and help in overcoming Pakistan's energy crisis are on the cards. The stalled Strategic Dialogue between the two sides is scheduled to restart in March 2014, led on the US side by John Kerry, widely perceived as a friend of Pakistan. It may seem a cliché to argue that states have their own interests and no one should have any illusions that a free lunch is available. However, the nitty gritty of the present interaction and those to follow should not blind us to the long term implications and requirements, for both sides, of a continuing and hopefully more meaningful than in just the Afghanistan perspective, mutually beneficial relationship that helps Pakistan to determine and take strides towards the kind of state and society it wishes to emerge as in the 21st century. The US sees the benefit in a stable, prosperous, democratic, modern Pakistan that takes its due place in the sun. How far it is prepared, and will continue to be prepared, to advance that goal is and will be the space to keep an eye on.

Daily Times Editorial Oct 22, 2013

Protection of Pakistan Ordinance The federal government has promulgated the second of two Ordinances in the last two weeks to strengthen the legal and practical framework to fight the terrorists and criminal elements torturing the country. The first Ordinance, promulgated on October 11, provided, inter alia, law enforcement agencies (LEAs) protection against prosecution while taking extreme but necessary steps against elements actually or suspected of planning to cause bodily or other harm. This protection was extended to firing at or ordering firing at such elements as a pre-emptive measure. Although this Ordinance, which amended the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was widely viewed as pertinent to the Karachi operation underway, the second Ordinance seems to envisage a wider horizon than the southern metropolis. The thrust of the Protection of Pakistan Ordinance centres on establishing the writ of the state at any cost. This involves raising the minimum punishment under Part V of the constitution for terrorist or criminal acts to 10 years imprisonment. Incidents of terrorism would be jointly investigated by security organisations and the LEAs. Terrorists will be treated as enemies of the state. The Ordinance narrates the ordeal the people have been subjected to over decades. It says the people of Pakistan have been exposed to undeclared and thankless wars since 1979, causing enormous loss of lives (40,000 citizens, 4,000 soldiers since 2001), many people injured/disabled and uprooted, economic loss, downturn and crisis, and the complexities stemming from the presence on Pakistani soil of foreigners who, with local collaboration, have become arguably the greatest existential threat to state and society in Pakistan’s history. The Ordinance argues that extraordinary times require extraordinary dispensations. Hence it proposes protection within the ambit of the law and constitution to all civilian and paramilitary LEAs and includes a provision for the provincial governments to request federal help for law enforcement and anti-terrorist efforts. Special federal courts are envisaged for quicker disposal of cases as enjoined by Article 37 of the constitution, designated jails for hardened and dangerous criminals (and terrorists?), preventive detention for 90 days, searches of premises without search warrants and denial of bail to arrested suspects. In short, both Ordinances aim at a ‘get tough’ with terrorists and criminal mafias stance. This makes sense in the context of the widely held perception that the state’s writ and ability to recover it from terrorists and criminals have palpably declined and deteriorated over time because of neglect, lack of political will, and contradictory narratives and explanations for the growing lawlessness that effectively has rendered the state and its institutions responsible for security and law and order at least partially paralysed, seemingly helpless in the face of the assault from the ‘enemies of the state’, an assault showing signs of growing fiercer and more intense since the elections four months ago, not the least because the ‘negotiations’ stance of the federal and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governments has served to encourage and embolden the terrorists. The sooner the governments at the federal and provincial levels understand the nature of the threat Pakistan faces, the better for the country and its citizens. If the two Ordinances following each other in quick succession are a sign of at least the federal government having drawn the right conclusions from the ‘message’ the terrorists have delivered in response to the talks offer, i.e. pressing home a perceived advantage against a state and government riven by confusion and lack of will, it cannot be said to have arrived too early. The conundrum that presents itself is why the government is relying on Ordinances instead of getting legislation passed by parliament. One defence of the issue of Ordinances could be that the legislative process takes too long and the situation requires immediate steps, as the Ordinance too argues. The puzzling aspect is that the general perception of the government has been of its dragging its feet on the urgent steps required to meet the situation. Yet on these two Ordinances, it has moved with unusual dispatch. There is also the question of the shelf life of Ordinances, which normally require endorsement by parliament within 90 days. Does the government envisage an automatic smooth sailing for these Ordinances if and when they have to be produced and passed by parliament? If that happens, it would represent an all too rare consensus across the political class on the way forward, something that did not appear to be the case in the recent All Parties Conference, despite the appearance of unanimity. Pakistan’s terrorism and crime crisis requires the greatest attention with the greatest urgency, otherwise these and all the other problems afflicting us will drown our hopes for an escape from the mess we are in and progress towards a brighter future.

Daily Times Editorial Oct 21, 2013

Nawaz Sharif’s US visit Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif’s first formal interaction with the Obama administration is about to take place, starting with a meeting with the US President on October 23, along with meetings with top administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry. The two ostensible allies come together in a climate of improved relations after the horrible downturn in 2010 and 2011 over a host of issues that included the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the bombing that killed Pakistani troops on the Afghan border. The latter incident led to the closure of the US/NATO Ground Lines of Communication for seven months. Those logistics lines are once again open and Pakistan is being praised in Washington for efforts to control the manufacture of improvised explosive devices and the recent offensive in its tribal areas near the Afghan border against terrorists. The likely agenda, from the PM’s remarks in London before boarding his flight for Washington and reports in the media, will probably focus on four major areas: drone attacks, Afghanistan, the Pakistan economy/energy, and India Pakistan relations. On drone strikes, the PM has banged the sovereignty drum again, but it is not clear that Washington will be listening without earmuffs on. There are statements from US administration officials claiming drone strikes have already petered off, but this is such a grey and unverifiable area that it is difficult to assess the claims. Meanwhile Pakistan has confirmed to a UN human rights investigator that of the 2,200 people killed in drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, 400 were civilians and another 200 may have been “non-combatants”. Most knowledgeable observers contend that this is probably an underestimation since the whole drone programme suffers from opaqueness and the areas hit are inaccessible to independent investigators. Pakistan argues that such collateral damage from drone strikes fuel militancy and terrorism, are therefore counter-productive, apart from the sovereignty and international law violation contention. Even if Washington takes the earmuffs off, it will likely counter by asking Pakistan how it intends to deal with its militant hotbeds on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. To that question, Nawaz Sharif may not be able to supply a convincing answer, even if the widespread perception that his government is drifting aimlessly on the issue four months after coming to power were untrue. A reduction, let alone a cessation of drone attacks will therefore remain contingent on Pakistan coming up with a credible plan or strategy for tackling its terrorist safe havens in the tribal areas on its western borders. Afghanistan post-2014 has the potential to pose new headaches as the US/NATO forces withdraw without the strategic pact between Washington and Kabul settled so far that would encompass residual US force levels and immunity from prosecution under Afghan law. Fears widely held by informed opinion centres on the possibility of a fresh civil war once the foreign forces depart, either in toto or all but a small residual presence. This scenario has the potential for repercussions for Pakistan too, given the notoriously porous western border. The Afghan imbroglio is further complicated by the rivalry between India and Pakistan for influence in Afghanistan after the withdrawal. Their mutual relations, on the verge of a resurrection of the stalled composite dialogue, are once again fraught because of tensions on the Line of Control. Whether the US can play any role in easing these tensions and helping India and Pakistan to normalise their relations is an open question, since for many years New Delhi has been prickly about third party mediation, let alone intervention. The India-Pakistan-Afghanistan conundrum defies easy solution. PM Nawaz Sharif’s strong card may well be a call on Washington to help revive Pakistan’s economy and overcome its chronic energy crisis. One sign of better relations between Islamabad and Washington is the ‘quiet’ release of $ 1.6 billion in stalled military and economic aid. After Finance Minister Ishaq Dar’s recent interactions in Washington with the IMF, World Bank and American business leaders, Nawaz Sharif will be hoping to attract US investment and other aid. The two countries are also expected to restart their stalled strategic dialogue to define (or redefine) their long-term bilateral relationship independent of Afghanistan. Since that conflict may not figure as prominently in the US’s calculus any more, Pakistan will lose the leverage of having the US over a barrel because of logistics. It remains to be seen how that redefinition will play out and how far it will go. On that outcome may hinge all the other areas discussed above.