NRO on highway to hell

With men like Peter W Galbraith (Benazir Bhutto’s old buddy), Matthew Hoh and Nick Horne around, we can dare to hope. We can also dare to dream of a fairer world order. The three have raised the bar for truth. They have challenged the UN and the US for following a trajectory in Afghanistan mined with iniquity, death and deception. As the UN deputy special representative in Afghanistan, Galbraith rang the alarm bells back in August against Karzai’s electoral fraud. He got promptly fired by his boss, the UN secretary-general. Matthew Hoh, an American diplomat stationed in Afghanistan, resigned recently against US occupation in Afghanistan. Richard Holbrook’s sweet persuasion failed to convince Hoh not to quit. And Nick Horne, another UN political affairs aide in Kabul, has just resigned for similar reasons.

“Among the greatest mistakes of the international community has been its laissez-faire approach to the corruption, cronyism and venality of the Afghan government,” said Horne. Galbraith too said the United Nations not only ignored massive fraud in the August election but also told him to keep quiet. UN officials told a lie to reporters saying there had been a “personality clash” between Galbraith and his senior, Kai Eide. “I might have tolerated even this last act of dishonesty if the stakes were not so high,” wrote Galbraith in The Washington Post. “For weeks, Eide had been denying or playing down the fraud in Afghanistan’s recent presidential election, telling me he was concerned that even discussing the fraud might inflame tensions in the country. But in my view, the fraud was a fact that the United Nations had to acknowledge or risk losing its credibility with the many Afghans who did not support President Hamid Karzai.” Besides, the sacked diplomat said he felt loyal to his colleagues who worked in a dangerous environment to help Afghans hold honest elections. “At least five of whom have now told me they are leaving jobs they love in disgust over the events leading to my firing.”

While one can’t expect these resignations to have rocked the US or the UN, still there is something called the “domino effect.” The revolt has begun, and there’s no saying where and when it will end.

While the White House and the State Department has declared Karzai the president of Afghanistan, his counterpart and brother across the border is facing his own demons crying for his blood with the NRO. President Zardari struck a special friendship with Karzai in recent months, with the latter declaring him his “Bhaijan.” They are brothers in arms on hell’s highway — marooned in their presidential palaces fearing for their lives. Spurned at home, spawning a tainted track record, the American acolyte pair have duly been sanitised and declared kosher by Washington.

Don’t you think Secretary of State Hillary Clinton erred on the wrong side of grandiosity when she archly asked Pakistani businessmen why the rich didn’t pay income tax? “At the risk of sounding un-diplomatic,” she intoned, “Pakistan has to have internal investment in your public services and your business opportunities… The percentage of taxes on GDP is among the lowest in the world… We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan,” she sneered.

Great observation, Madame Secretary! But wait. Is it not your great country that exonerates corruption by devising devilish laws like the NRO? Was it not your predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, who baptised the NRO? Was it not Washington that connived with the Pakistani Army (read Musharraf), the PPP (read Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari) and the ISI (read Gen Kayani) to wash away the sins and crimes of our leaders now facing Pakistanis’ frontal wrath?

“You do have 180 million people,” continued Clinton. “Your population is projected to be about 300 million. And I don’t know what you’re gonna do with that kind of challenge, unless you start planning right now,” she said. Great observation, once again, Madame Secretary! But your concern has such a hollow ring to it. Why, because the US has never considered the interests of the “180 million people” but has cherry-picked a handful few to rob a country screaming for help.

Mrs Clinton was huddled with Zardari and Gilani in Islamabad when the Peshawar bombing occurred. She, along with Zardari and Gilani, shed crocodile tears at the “loss of human life.” (Oh, how empty and hypocritical these words sound!) Better it would have been had the good lady and our “grieving” leaders asked the Hoti government whether the following factoids were true: One ambulance per 200,000 persons in Peshawar; seven ambulances for Lady Reading Hospital, four of which are 1986 model and (needless to add) in pathetic shape, the only new one reserved for VIP use. Can young Hoti confirm reports that the 260-or-so wounded were taken to the hospital on motorcycles and rickshaws?

If the chief minister’s answer is in the affirmative, then Hillary Clinton as the representative of America, the NRO-tainted leadership of Pakistan and their elected high priests in Peshawar have lost their moral compass. Death stalks Peshawar daily and not to even have one new ambulance is simply criminal. Where has the Hoti government spent all the money from USAID, the UN and donor countries? We need answers. But who will ask when their bosses in Islamabad steal with impunity?

Needed, then, are a few brave men in Pakistan who will stand up and say “enough!” Shahbaz Sharif sang Habib Jalib, Main naheen maanta/Main naheen jaanta, last year in support of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. Why is he not singing now? Why did he allow his party MNA turncoat Zahid Hamid, the fellow who as Musharraf’s law minister passed the NRO, to abstain from voting on the bill in the standing committee because Hamid had a flight to catch? Are the Sharif brothers and the MQM leader Altaf Hussain duping us by publicly opposing the “National Robbers Organisation” (NRO) while playing footsy with Zardari? And why is America-returned Aitzaz Ahsan causing more confusion by giving conflicting statements on the NRO, instead of taking a firm position? Is he with the masses or with Zardari?

One brave citizen of Karachi, Naeem Sadiq, has launched “People’s Resistance,” inviting all to join in a peaceful protest walk against the NRO: this “black law will rob Pakistani citizens of all equality and justice while providing indemnity to those who indulge in the biggest crimes and corruption.” Huzaima and Ikram, another brave couple teaching at LUMS recently wrote: “Pakistan’s economic crisis is due to criminal culpability of our ruling elite. The policy of appeasement towards tax evaders, money launderers and plunderers of national wealth–NRO is a classical example–is proving disastrous. The state is going bankrupt, but those at the helm live lavishly–see their residences and investments in London, Dubai and elsewhere.”

And they don’t pay taxes either! Corrupt and inefficient departments like the police and revenue, “faithfully serve their masters” and, in the process, also make huge money for themselves. The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) not only failed to tap the actual tax potential of Rs4 trillion but the Rs1,130 billion it raised in 2008-2009 in taxes got “plundered and wasted by the ruling elite. The ministers, state ministers, advisers, MNAs and MPAs alone squandered 700 billion on perks and perquisites.”

Thank you America for gifting us the NRO and giving crumbs to the poor after our leaders have had their feeding frenzy under your benevolent eye.

India’s Arihant — upping the psychological ante

While Pakistan’s decision makers squabble over whether to go ahead and implement the 2008 decision of buying German submarines or alter course and seek more French subs instead, India has put its prototype nuclear powered submarine, INS Arihant, into the waters. Incidentally, those in Pakistan who have been ranting for years over the use of Islamic warrior names for our missiles seem absurdly mute in commenting on India’s aggressive usage of Hindu mythology warrior names not only for its missiles but now also for its nuclear-powered submarine. Of course, the reality is that the nuclear reactor of this submarine will not go critical till 2012, so at the moment Arihant is more of a symbolic reflection of where India is headed in terms of its nuclear arsenal. Nevertheless, the development has signalled the nuclearisation of the Indian Ocean by a littoral state – since nuclear weapons have been present in this Ocean through the military presence of the external nuclear powers, especially the US.

That is one major reason why the US, France and UK always opposed the UN General Assembly’s efforts to make the Indian Ocean a weapon-free “zone of peace” – as reflected in the first UN GA Resolution of 16 December 1971(2832:XXVI). Ironically, along with the Soviet Union, India was a major force behind this Non-Aligned Movement-supported UN resolution. But then this has been the hallmark of Indian security policy: seeking time through multilateral diplomatic moves while it builds its military capability. In contrast to the Indian position on the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace resolution, the US, France and the UK always voted against this idea and in 1989 they chose to withdraw from the 44 member UN committee on this issue that had been set up in 1972. The US in fact demanded that the committee be eliminated so as to reduce UN spending and we know how this whole issue simply died for lack of visible progress. Now that India has also moved towards nuclear militarisation of the Indian Ocean, it will be difficult to see any revival of the zone of peace proposal for this region in the future. With the launching of the Arihant, India has moved still further away from being a proponent of nuclear disarmament to being a projector of nuclear force. Strategic rationality makes it incumbent on Pakistan to seek to restore the nuclear balance for the future.

However, this should not be a major issue for us even in financial terms, as long as the lure of commissions does not distort or destroy our strategic interests. We already have conventional submarines including the Agosta-type which are not only capable of carrying nuclear warheads, but can be upgraded to being fitted with air-independent propulsion technology (AIP) specifically designed to allow conventional subs to remain submerged for longer periods. That is the main advantage of nuclear-powered submarines, along with the speed element – they do not need to surface like conventional subs that need to surface after short periods of being submerged and therefore become vulnerable. AIP technology is specifically designed for conventional subs and the Germans have been in the forefront of this technological development, although the Agostas can also be upgraded.

It is unfortunate that Pakistan’s purchase of subs has been delayed apparently over the commissions lure, because now the international community will make it harder for this country to acquire these subs. Have we learnt no lessons from what happened to Pakistan in 1974 after the Indian nuclear test? India tested and Pakistan was penalised! The Canadians withdrew from KANUPP despite IAEA safeguards and a legal agreement. There is nothing to suggest that things will be different this time round – given how Hillary Clinton practically blessed Indian militarisation with a new defence pact. Besides Pakistan’s pathetic record of asserting legal agreements with its allies makes us easy victims of foreign pressure and diktat – remember the replacement of F-16s with wheat and soya beans? Not only did we lose our money, but before the US finally retracted on the deal, we were made to pay parking charges for these F-16s also! But we always forget US abuse and present ourselves for more of the same whenever the occasion arises!

Coming back to the Indian nuclear powered submarine – it should be pointed out that we do not yet know how it will perform once its reactor goes critical. Will it actually have the speed and capability – given that it has been built with Soviet/Russian technology and the fate of many Soviet/Russian subs lies at the bottom of the seas – taking a heavy toll of human life and reflecting the limitations of Soviet weapon systems? A major disadvantage of nuclear-powered subs is that they are noisier because they have to keep the reactor powered on all the time so if conventional subs can acquire longer submergeable capability through AIP technology – although it will still not be the same as a nuclear-driven sub – the imbalance can be offset to some extent.

Sea-launched nuclear missiles are central to second strike capability which acts as a stabiliser in the context of nuclear strategy since it reduces the imperatives for first strike. In this context, although Pakistan has not officially made any declarations regarding the development of this capability, it is now fairly well-established that we are already on the way to ensuring this second strike capability. It is also now recognised that we have had more success with missile development than India – probably because we have kept our missile ranges and types limited and focused more on developing solid fuelled delivery systems (which, again, are more stable) and reducing circular error probabilities. India, on the other hand, chose to have a wide-ranging missile programme including seeking the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). While we have stabilised our cruise missile as well as moved towards the beginnings of sea-launched ballistic missiles, from all accounts, India has not been too successful in both these fields – especially with the Sagarika (which is to be its sea-launched missile) in surface tests. So if India is to gain any advantage from its nuclear-powered submarine, assuming it will perform as expected once its reactor goes critical, it will have to work more on its delivery systems.

For Pakistan while there is no need to go into panic mode, we will have to stop sacrificing good deals simply because of the greed over commissions. The fact that a French inquiry has hinted at commissions lying at the root of the death of the French engineers in Karachi should be a sobering moment for any leadership. But the brazenness with which our successive decision-makers have been proceeding, with scant regard for propriety and wastage of limited national resources, shows that no lessons have been learnt – nor is there any desire to learn from even recent history.

Worse still, our rulers are full of bombast but are unwilling to take proactive concrete actions. Take the case of Balochistan. Political leaders of all shades have been repeating ad nauseum the need for political healing and economic investment in that province but why have the first steps in that direction not been taken beyond publication of reports and statements? Why is the leadership so hesitant to declare a general amnesty for all Baloch political figures and the release of all political prisoners? When we can talk to militants (and we should if they are our own people prepared to accept the writ of the state) and be allied to the Americans who continue to kill our people through drone attacks, why are we so unwilling to begin the healing process with the Baloch people and their leaders? Why are we allowing our detractors to provide support for the dissidents instead of taking the punch out of their dissidence by granting them a one-time amnesty if they accept the writ of the state? How can we rise to external military challenges posed by countries like India and the US when we are unable to deal with our own people? Our weakness lies within ourselves reflecting a psychological confidence deficit which makes the rulers aggressive and non-accommodative with the nation and timorous before external players. The Indians and Americans are exploiting this well which is why the Indian’s are making grandiose statements about a submarine that has yet to show how it performs!

Will India, Pakistan stop playing pot and kettle?

At the height of the Cold War, a Russian was showing off his country’s achievements to an American visitor. There was a train from Moscow to Vladivostok every three hours, he boasted. And, regardless of the vast stretch of 9,288 kilometres the journey involved, there was never a minute’s delay.

When the train didn’t show up for the entire day, the Russian detected a victorious smile on the American’s face. ‘Look here, Yankee,’ he growled. ‘You too have a black problem in your country.’

India and Pakistan are often enough like the pot calling the kettle black. Take the latest story of a bigoted Pakistani cleric called Hafiz Saeed who preaches hatred of Hindus and Jews, Shias, Sunnis, Christians – everyone except Wahhabis and Salafis. India says he masterminded the Mumbai terror attack. There is a good chance that the claim is right. Some of Saeed’s colleagues are being tried for their alleged role in the crime. As the leader of the pack he should logically be seen as culpable in the incident, which has injected litres of bad blood in the India-Pakistan equation.

However, Hafiz Saeed may well have done, if he did what India says he did, on behalf of someone else – perhaps someone who found it objectionable that the national security advisers of India and Pakistan had an excellent meeting in Delhi in October. Remember also that Mumbai was attacked in November, precisely on the day, in fact within hours of, a good meeting between the Pakistan foreign minister and his Indian counterpart in Delhi.

Was the Mumbai attack planned to torpedo improving India-Pakistan ties? It could be one of the reasons, if not the entire explanation. And everyone in India and Pakistan who believes that the two countries should continue to mistrust each other are complying, if not colluding, with the terrorists’ strategic objectives carried out in Mumbai, Kabul, Bangalore, Lahore, Delhi and Karachi among a growing number of places in their cross-hairs. The Lok Sabha TV, an official channel that I find somewhat balanced in contrast to its several private counterparts, asked me if Pakistan lacked the will to prosecute Hafiz Saeed. Former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, G. Parthasarthy, who I see as a hawk on Pakistan (a lethal combination with his army background) was the other discussant. I asked the anchor to try to use the word alleged, as the old-fashioned (and more reliable) journalists would. Parthasarthy disagreed.

He said Hafiz Saeed would not qualify for the cautionary word we were taught to treat as sacred in journalism. For him Saeed was as much a culprit as Ajmal Kasab was in Mumbai’s November nightmare. Why don’t we just abandon the trial and hang everyone we ‘know’ to be guilty?

With this attitude Indians are basically double guessing Pakistan’s Supreme Court, which did not find grounds to keep Hafiz Saeed in captivity any longer. Indians would not normally like others to question their apex court. And if you did something like that in India you could be sent to prison as Arundhati Roy was, for questioning the Supreme Court’s hitherto unquestioned wisdom. So Indians should first canvass to change the colonial-style judiciary and the blind faith in their courts. And then perhaps they would be justified in questioning the integrity of Pakistani judges and to pontificate about their superior judiciary to the rest of the world. Let’s grant to Parthasarthy the possibility that Pakistan’s highest court had acted, like any other court would, on the material evidence placed before it. Perhaps the ISI, or whoever it was that handled the prosecution of Saeed, did not deliberately want to arrest him for whatever compulsions and, therefore, presented a weak case. That’s theoretically possible. In fact this kind of thing happens all the time, not in Pakistan alone. How do we proceed along the commonplace and patently Indian narrative that the Pakistan establishment, which rejoices in the death of a rabid hate-monger like Baitullah Mehsud, is in fact doing everything to set his ideological clone Hafiz Saeed free? I said to the TV anchor that it was possible that Pakistan has unknown compulsions, like the ones India has revealed on several occasions in domestic affairs.

It would be preposterous, for example, to suggest that India had some kind of willingness to free a group of terrorists in a swap deal for the passengers of a hijacked Indian Airlines plane in December 1999. But it certainly must have had its compulsions. Whether we agree with that or not is beside the point. In fact I can even see a hint of continuity of that line of thinking even though India has a different government today than the one that freed the Pakistani terrorists.

The faith in the Vajpayee-era policy, in fact its endorsement, is evident in the fact that the foreign ministry official who accompanied the terrorists to Kandahar with his foreign minister to set them free there, happens to be the head of the group that was authorised by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to lead the talks on terrorism with Pakistan after the Havana meeting with President Pervez Musharraf.

One of the fellows thus freed in Kandahar went on to fund the group that slammed hijacked planes into the World Trade Centre in New York. He then proceeded to brutally slit the throat of a fine journalist, partly because he happened to be a Jew. The other fellow released by India is believed to have staged the December 2001 attack on India’s parliament. What were the compulsions for India to free these people?

Some lives were saved, others put to risk. Could there be a similar compulsion for Pakistan to handle Hafiz Saeed with cotton wool? A senior editor from Pakistan, who has some credibility in Delhi, told an Indian TV channel that perhaps Pakistan does not want to have a domestic backlash when it was engaged in a war against the Taliban. Do we accept that argument? Is it possible that the Indian government is aware of the pitfalls that Pakistan faces if it presses too hard against everyone that New Delhi wants to be put behind the bars? Without a degree of trust, at least between the prime ministers of the two countries and not necessarily their foreign ministries, I doubt if they could have clinched the agreement to share ‘real time intelligence’ against future terror threats. I think that was the biggest achievement of Sharm el-Sheikh. Parthasarthy believes the agreement is unworkable.

As far as compulsions go India has had quite a few of its own. There has not been a single conviction in the genocide of the Sikhs in 1984. Does anyone know why? Not one person has been sent to jail for breaking the law (and also the heart) of India in Ayodhya in 1992. The Justice Shrikrishna Commission Report on the pogrom against a minority community by a well-armed group of fanatics in Mumbai, assisted by the police, has been all but thrown into the dustbin. It had named names and given police wireless records of the culprits and their culpability. Nothing happened. When a group of Indians protested against the killing of nine Christians in Pakistan by Muslim extremists I thought there should have been many more angry demonstrations against what happened across the border. There should be demonstrations in both countries against atrocities committed by religious fanatics. The massacre of Christian tribes people and Dalits in Orissa is a case in point where there should have been a collective condemnation of the horrific killings. That’s the way we used to be. If we have a common destiny, then we have a stake in each other’s pain and grief.

However, the focus has already shifted to the looming elections in Maharashtra, a prestigious contest for the ruling Congress and the rightwing opposition. All the attacks on the Indian prime minister’s agreement with his Pakistani counterpart in Sharm el-Sheikh, from within his party and the opposition, are not unrelated to the politics of elections. After all Mumbai is the capital of Maharashtra and the Shiv Sena and the Bharatiya Janata Party are looking to exploit the shaken sentiments of the sprawling multi-cultural city.

And so the story of the train to Vladivostok and America’s black problem is not likely to lose its currency anytime soon. The South Asian narrative is a tragic variant of the pot calling the kettle black.

Better alive than dead?

The ISPR has stated the victory over the Taliban would not be complete until the top leadership was defeated. 

This of course makes sense. The dramatic story of Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers, who were eventually forced to surrender after a 25-year struggle as they were cornered in a piece of jungle barely larger than a football field, is one that ends too with the death of 

Velupillai Prabhakaran – the elusive leader who pioneered the suicide belt and from his jungle hide-out ordered a series of high-profile kidnappings, including that in 1991 of Indian Prime Minsiter Rajiv Gandhi. But in the context of Pakistan, where death is associated by extremists with martyrdom, the army suggestion that final victory can come with the killing of men like Maulana Fazlullah, who the ISPR says has already been targeted thrice, raises some questions.

This is also borne out by the chilling interview given to ‘The Sunday Times’ by the man known as ‘Colonel Imam’. Between 1979 and 1989, Amir Sultan Tarar, himself trained at Fort Bragg and courted by US presidents, helped raise the mujahideen army that defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan and then played a key role in raising the Taliban force that eventually over-ran the country. Men like Mullah Omar rank among his pupils. Like a handful of ISI officers, he is believed to have retained links with the militants even after his former US mentors changed their stance. Today, Tarar warns the Taliban can never be defeated and that each death will lead to more supporters rising to replace the man who fell. This may be an exaggeration, but it would be unwise to completely dismiss the warning. The building up of militants as martyrs has played a part in their phenomenal growth. This is true not only in the tribal areas, where the notion of an ‘eye for eye’ justice remains strongly rooted, but even in towns like Gujranwala where squares have been re-named for jihadi ‘heroes’ and which has seen a series of crimes motivated by extremism, including the 2007 murder of Punjab minister Zill-e-Huma, shot dead by a fanatic who opposed a role for women in public life. Similar sentiments can be detected in other places. Even in Lahore, there are those who seek still to defend the Taliban, and to blame the bombings in our cities on some plot hatched in Washington. 

These factors mean that the state may need to rise above ideas of vengeance and revenge. Rather than deliberately attempting to kill Fazalullah and others who form the top tier of Taliban leadership, perhaps we need to focus on the need to bring them to courts – and to lay out the truth before people. Too many facets of this truth remain hidden. People in Swat need a chance to talk openly of Fazalullah’s own role in extortion; of rape and sodomy committed by his men. The refusal by state agencies to come clean is one reason why men like Hafiz Muhammad Saeed are able to walk out unpunished after periods in detention, waving confidently to supporters and making speeches about ‘moderation’. The stories told by ‘Colonel Imam’ testify to the close links that have existed between the state and the extremists. The existence of this nexus alone explains why men like Hafiz Saeed or Maulana Masood Azhar seem able to time and again escape the reach of the law without even facing charges. We need now to squarely confront this past; to talk about it openly and to admit to mistakes made. Otherwise the blackmail hold of militant leaders who threaten to divulge details of these ties in order to coerce the authorities into silence will remain intact and prevent the process of prosecution and justice that is at this point essential.

Through history, there are many examples of the manner in which death bestows immortality. We need to guard against this. The sight of men like Fazalullah and Muslim Khan in the dock would help dispel the myths that still persist. In Swat there is some evidence that these are being deliberately propagated, by the remnants of the Taliban, who speak of their ‘escape’ as evidence that God has sided with them. There is a need to challenge such assertions and the myths that will in time evolve.

More too needs to be done. Looked at it retrospect, there is no doubt the Afghan war that began with the Soviet invasion of that country in 1979 altered the contours of our society. General Ziaul Haq’s opportunistic ‘Islamization’ and the US policies pursued at the time contributed to this. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has accepted this without further attempts to deny the past. But in the period that followed the dark Zia years, fundamental errors were made. After every war, an attempt to re-assimilate combatants is necessary. People engaged in fighting need to be re-introduced to the different pattern and priorities of life in times of peace, assisted in the role of re-adaption to changed circumstances. This requirement has been completely overlooked. The thousands of young fighters who were encouraged at various points to take up arms in the name of ‘jihad’ were never deprogrammed or offered other roles in society. In Swat, those who went with Sufi Mohammad Khan to Afghanistan in 2001 to fight US-led forces were in many cases simply released back into society when they returned as angry, defeated warriors some of whom had faced mistreatment in Afghan jails. These men, some no more than teenagers when they were recruited by Sufi, today form in many cases the ranks of the Taliban in the Valley.

We need a rehabilitation plan for them and for others who have since been herded into madressahs and other training institutions. For many of these boys, power stems only from the gun they see in the hands of others and yearn to hold themselves. A similar phenomenon was seen in Kashmir as militancy emerged in that once-peaceful region. A well-planned policy is needed to turn it back and to demonstrate to people that there are indeed other ways of getting ahead in life. Somehow, the cycle of vendetta and violence needs to be broken. Simplistic arguments being put forward say the people of NWFP, the families who lost loved ones in the current conflict will seek revenge. It is said suicide bombers include those who lost relatives as a result of armed action in Waziristan or elsewhere.

There may be some element of truth in these assertions. But what needs to be emphasized is the importance of moving beyond it, of lifting people up from their past and encouraging them to look towards the future. The government now needs to work towards carving out this future. For many people none currently seems to exist. Involving them in the process of creating one, by offering education, jobs, opportunity – and at the same time dispensing justice in an open and fair manner – may be the key to turning back the tide of militancy and ensuring it does not in the future return to flood our society.

Waziristan – Final Battle?

The Wazirs are a more warlike Pakhtoon tribe than the Durranis, Lodhis, Suris and Ghalzais who ruled the subcontinent. They inhabit South and North Waziristan in Pakistan and Birmal, Matun districts in Afghanistan. Wazirs preferred a life of isolation, or they could have established a dynasty in the subcontinent. 

In 1979, when the Russian forces entered Afghanistan. The Americans found an opportunity to contain communism and settle scores with the USSR. Billions of dollars were pumped in to make Pakhtoons fight against Pakhtoons. The Pakhtoons had a rich culture of tolerance, openness, moderation, music, poetry and art. In the NWFP and FATA, Sikhs, Hindus and other minorities enjoyed equal rights. Never had any communal riots occurred. Sikhs and Hindus lived peacefully in Afridi and Orakzai Tirah for ages, where no Pakistani official could enter until 2002. Both North and South Waziristan were used as bases for the Afghan jihad. A few local youths, influenced by the jihadis, joined them to fight against the Russians. Though the impact of jihad, on the Pakhtoon culture of Waziristan, was not very significant, the seeds of extremism were sown in these areas.

The Durand Line divided tribes in six tribal agencies .The line, since not demarcated on ground, was never considered as border by tribal. Cross border, movement was a routine. The shinwaris of Landikotal would go to Jalalabad to play football matches. Tribal from Pakistan were member of afghan parliament. Political dynamics of Afghanistan always have a strong impact on FATA. In September 1996, Taliban captured Kabul. Inspired by their success, local Taliban became active in Mir Ali Tehsil of North Waziristan by 1998. Utmanzai Wazir and Dawar are the main tribes, while Kharsins, Siadgis, Gurbaz, and Malakshi Mahsud also reside in North Waziristan. Few men from these tribes joined afghan Taliban to fight against Northern Alliance.Baitullah Mahsud was one of them. His father, Mulana Haroon, was imam Masjid in Bannu Cantonment. Baitullah was born and brought up in Bannu. He got religious education from a madrassa in Daud Shah, Bannu and for some time he studied in a Miranshah madrassa. He remained an Imam Masjid in Mati Mamman Khel village in Jani Khel area of FR Bannu. After 9/11, he moved to his ancestral area of Shabi khel Mahsud in South Waziristan.

Foreign militants entered Waziristan in March 2002 in the aftermath of operation ANACONDA, conducted by NATO forces in Shahi Kot area of Paktiya province. Baitullah was then not well known in Waziristan. Shelter to foreign militant was provided by Ahmadzai Wazirs of Wana. Nek Mohammad,Sharif Khan,Noor Ul Islam,Omer were the prominent facilitators.Ahmedzai Wazir and Mahsuds are the main tribes of South Waziristan,while Dotanis,Suleman Khel and Urmers also inhabit the area.Mahsuds and Ahmedzai wazirs have never enjoyed cordial relations.. Since foreign militants were mainly in Wazir areas therefore to isolate them, an agreement was inked with Baitullah Mahsud in February 2005. The deal made, was in good faith, to isolate Ahmadzai Wazirs and to ensure that Biatullah men do not conduct operation across the border. During the next 2 years Baitullah consolidated, his position .He formed Tahreek E Taliban Pakistan in December 2007, with the support of Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda’s leadership. He was declared Amir of TTP.

The army’s final battle is likely to be fought against Baitullah in South Waziristan. The remnants of terrorist from Swat,Mohmand,Orakzai,Kurram,Darra, are likely to fall back to South Waziristan.The elements of banned jiahadi organizations, lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Jaish and other jihadis are likely to join this battle for their survival. Timely and successful completion of the Malakand operation will have immense effects on future operations. Extraordinary security arrangements should be made to make the job of suicide bombers difficult. The nation is already geared up for the cause of the IDPs. A quick, transparent and efficient mechanism for reconstruction of conflict areas should be designed and executed. Pakistan is at war and we must win it for our future generations to enable them to live a life of their choice, especially for the daughters of this nation.

Avoiding a quagmire?

The magnificent performance of the rank and file of the Army fighting the counter-insurgency in Swat is no surprise. Whether in Kashmir in 1947-48, Dir in 1958 and 1976, the Rann of Kutch, occupied Kashmir (Operation Gibraltar) and later in the full-fledged war of 1965, during the 1971 war, in the Balochistan counter-insurgency in 1973-5, Siachen continuously since 1985, in Kargil in 1998 and in FATA since 2004 (and many more small conflicts that would take many more pages), officers and men have kept their commitment.

The average officer-to-soldier ratio in combat fatalities during conventional operations being 1:17 or 1:18 in most Armies represents the command structure at the field level functioning adequately, young officers (including lieutenant colonels) leading rather than sending men to their deaths. In the Pakistan Army and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), the superior 1:10 or 1:11 average through many conflicts means that the young officers are far more enthusiastic at leading from the front in the face of fire. This ratio is also usually higher among commandos (Special Forces). 

The 100-plus fatalities to-date reveals a disproportionate number of officers in combat-related deaths, the ratio in Swat reportedly 1:5 or 1:6 being unusually high. Sons of a number of ex-servicemen (including friends of mine) have given the ultimate sacrifice for their nation, this is a great indication (and vindication) of the moral fibre of this Army. One cannot eulogise such men, fathers and sons, in mere words. 

The operational plan is sound. The concept of overwhelming force was applied, and from concentric directions. Always a difficult proposition, the problems is force-multiplied in mountainous terrain without adequate heliborne mobility. What was achieved without such capability is remarkable, a tribute to the outstanding pilots of Army Aviation. The Taliban did not expect the Army to move so swiftly from different directions and with such determination, particularly against dominating heights where they were well dug in. To limit collateral damage in the towns, the Army took the calculated risk that the Taliban would leave their fortified positions in built-up areas and come and attack them. This was a fatal miscalculation, rather wishful thinking, compounded by the fact that road exits and mountain passes were not all blocked, possibly due to paucity of human and equipment resources. That is where a shortage of helicopters was critical, but it does not seem to have been militarily appreciated. This permitted a large number of Taliban to melt away, mostly in pickup trucks, with time and vehicular capacity to even take away their generators.

It is of vital importance when going after insurgents to target their leadership, locating and eliminating leaders like Fazlullah and Shah Doran. The inability to eliminate their top leadership is most probably due to inadequate intelligence rather than intent. With the Army’s presence in some strength giving the locals confidence, optimum use must be made of information gleaned from all sources. Unless the hardcore Taliban are eliminated they will always have the capacity and potential to come back in strength.

People with credibility and capability are needed to reach a sound assessment. Two outstanding veterans of different vintage with a track record of being blunt helped answer my queries. Both readily admitted that the Taliban were far better trained, equipped and motivated than the opponents they faced during their period. Capt (later Brig) Manto was the SSG company commander in the Dir operations in 1958. He took over Maj Ziauddin Abbasi Shaheed’s Bravo Squadron (Sept 11) in Guides Cavalry during war and commanded 26 Cavalry in battle in Chamb in 1971. In 1976 as CO 36 Baloch Lt Col (later Lt Gen) Lehrasab, who entered occupied Kashmir as part of Operation Gibraltar in 1965 as a lieutenant and was wounded grievously, being the last to be medically evacuated from East Pakistan in 1971, took the surrender of tribals in Dir. 

A well planned operation is falling short because of shortage of adequate intelligence and heliborne resources. We should brace ourselves for long-drawn guerrilla warfare that could tie the Army down while eating away the moral and material resources of the country. For a third opinion (and I deliberately did not turn to another genuine hero, my old CO Brig Mohammad Taj, SJ and Bar, for reasons that could have been embarrassing to the ISI), but someone who (like his course-mate Lehrasab) has shed blood for this country, his rifle company being almost wiped out, refusing to surrender when completely surrounded in East Pakistan in December 1971. Grievously wounded, Maj (later Brig) Akram woke up days later in captivity in an Indian Army Hospital. Nobody could recognise this hero’s emaciated self when he walked out of captivity in 1973. Presently helping in relief operations deep inside Malakand, Brig (Retd) Akram sent me an SMS that about sums it all up. “Our security agencies are still doing a lousy job. They virtually have no information on extremists’ leadership. Operations going very slow, lack of aggressiveness and absence of coordination is visible. Contents of daily sitrep (situation reports) as if fighting (is) taking place between two regular forces. More when we meet!” 

Instead of turning to the motivated with a gift of the gab, Kayani could take counsel from the likes of Manto, Lehrasab and Akram, and many others like him who have really fought (and not just talked the good talk) for this country, even shed blood for it. Their experience and sacrifice may give you that cutting edge in a fight that we must win. And maybe spare a thought for those fathers whose sons have already given the ultimate sacrifice for their country as was their wont and earnest desire. Only superior generalship and true rendition of the cause, not pandering subservience to the Constitution as it stands today, a controversial document mutilated by the black NRO, will make their supreme sacrifice worth the blood they have spilt for this nation.

Military operation and the fallout in Lower Dir

Originally under the control of the Nawab of Dir the area has been divided, subdivided and seen battles for ownership by local groups. The latest battle is one that the state of Pakistan must solely take responsibility for. A decades-long blundering and short-sighted policy has finally taken its toll. Now tanks and troops roll in to rectify the damage. Not an easy undertaking. Hundreds of thousands of the population is displaced, foreign insurgents freely hound our places and people are striking unholy alliances. The weakened state, rather a collaborating state is now attempting to make amends. It’s a tough task. But one that cannot be ignored.

The strategic significance of Lower Dir is illustrated by the fact that on its west lies Afghanistan, on its south is Malakand and Bajaur, in its north is Chitral and on its east lies Swat. Of Lower Dir’s approximately 130,000 population essentially 79 percent have left for safer places.

The local forces essentially consist of the Frontier Corps, known as Dir Scouts in the area. The Taliban have mounted offensive attacks gradually since end- March. Tensions have now spread to Upper Dir has well. The military commander maintain there is peace in five of the seven Lower Dir tehsils but what is seem while driving towards Maidaan,Chakdara and Gulabad signs of peace and security are not visible.

By mid-March violence raged in the area. The dates were of significance. None other than the local Frontier Corps commanders correlated the signing of first the February agreement between the NWFP government and the TNSM and the Nizam-e-Adl in April.

This reassertion of the Taliban was helped by the movements in the neighbouring Mohmand Agency’s Mohmaghat post. Mohmand provides the basic linkage between Bajaur, Dir and Waziristan. The significance of Bajaur is relevant for Lower Dir as well. With Kandharo, the place where the Taliban had their base where there had training camps and force concentration, has road access to Lower Dir.

It was in Kandharo that the Taliban declared the existence of an alternate Lal Masjid. Soon after the Lal Masjid operation was conducted the local Taliban set up a “Lal Masjid” in a mosque adjacent to the Hajisahib Tarangazis shrine. It is this mosque which the Taliban turned into their base. On a huge wall there are names of the Taliban who were killed during the operation. Kandharo, hence, is the hub from where Taliban are supplied to other surrounding areas, including Lower Dir.

The state has hitherto not been able to prevent the movement of inter-agency Taliban. Indeed, a tall order! What however is important is that the government must stop the easy movement of foreign militants from Kunar and Nagharhar in Afghanistan to the Suran Valley and beyond.

Buoyed by their foreign support, for example in Lower Dir, about 10 school kids were killed in a suicide bombing attack. Following that about 10 major blasts took place, killing dozens of locals. An estimated 80 people died. A local commercial bank manager was kidnapped and later killed. Similarly a DCO was also killed in early April. The kidnappers demanded a Rs20-million ransom. Finally they killed him. A similar fate awaited a local tehsildar. The hitherto banned FM radio station became active. Regular Taliban intercepts picked up indicated influx of foreign Taliban using the Kunar Valley-Suran Valley routes near Momandghat post bordering Bajaur and the Mohmand Agency.

Finally the government and the GHQ agreed to launch an operation between the night of April 25-26, with the Dir Scouts using two army units and an armoured unit. An about 2,000-strong force, including logistical support, was launched. Maidan aread was attacked. The significance of Maidan lies in its being the hub of Sufi Mohammad, the TNSM chief. The famous Qambar Bazaar passes through this stronghold–essentially Sufi Mohammad’s residential area. Sufi Mohmamad’s following has naturally been the strongest here. Above the Qambar Bazaar lies a strategically important post, the Kalapani post.

Kalapani lies at a height, just the perfect vantage point from where to hit the enemy from a height. Linked to Kalapani is a matted road which comes onto Qambar Bazaar, giving access to those who control the Kalapnai post. Two other important posts that fall in the Maidan area are the Lala Qila and the Qambar posts.

According to the army’s own estimates they are a fighting a force of no more than 500 to 600 Taliban. However, in the fishbowl battlefield of Maidan the strategic heights count. All Bajaur commanders repeatedly indicate that numerical superiority does not matter in the counter-insurgency battles fought in the mountainous terrain. The battle is treacherous. The IEDs are vastly spread. The locals can be on either side. Along the Timergarah-Maidan Road there are no guaranteed safe paths. In a quarter kilometre distance the media was taken by the army surrounded by hundred armed men, a tank ahead of us and dozens of troops perched on the jeep in which we sat. This is no safety zone in which civilians will return.

The Taliban too manage to go on the offensive. For example recently in Hayat Sarai the Taliban laid an ambush was a major surprise attack by the Taliban. Taliban had RPGs and mines and gave the army a tough fight.

It’s a tough task all around. The occasional civilians seen on the roads wear the look of fear. Initially they worked with locals worked with an approach to co-existence with the Taliban initially. They asked them to say their prayers in the mosque, they offered to provide them protection, to pray for Allah’s blessings. But subsequently they demanded that these people make financial contributions and also contribution. There is an appreciation that the operation may have brought destruction but there is hope that it may bring peace and security in the region.

Irrespective of what news may trickle out from either the Taliban or the army the fact is that the battle for Kalpani post and the control of the Qambar-Timergarah road still rages. Indeed reports suggest that the battle will be over soon. It is unlikely that a definitive answer is in the offing.

The counterinsurgency strategy is a tough one to implement.

The endgame target: a weak nuclear defanged Pakistan

First, a brief comment on the Obama address, since much has already been written about it. Certainly, for a US president, the address was a major shift in approach but it was sad to see how he referred to the 3,000 plus innocent victims of 9/11, but not a word about the well over one million Muslim deaths as a result of the Bush-launched retaliatory war stretching from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nor was Obama willing to concede that the 9/11 attackers were Saudis and not from this part of the world. It was also sad to see rhetoric accepting that force would not resolve Pakistan’s problems but the reality of continuing use of force through drones. 

The one major positive substantive policy shift – beyond mere rhetoric – was the reaching out to Iran for talks without preconditions. This should be an eye-opener for the servile past and present leadership of this nation – Iran stood by its nationalist posture and brought the US to where it wanted: a dialogue amongst two sovereign powers. On the Middle East one has to wait and see what actually happens on the ground since Obama also seemed unwilling to accept the electoral success of Hamas – which led him to state the bizarre claim that Hamas has “some support amongst the Palestinians!” 

But there is little positive for Pakistan that one can expect from the US even under Obama. But then when we have a continuing compliant leadership willing to do all that the US bids, why should Obama adopt a healthier and more positive approach to Pakistan? The sight of the president and a mere ambassador, Holbrooke, standing side by side at a press conference really said it all. International beggars and grovellers – our leaders have stripped us of all national dignity. The cowardice of our leadership was exposed by Holbrooke when he revealed that the Pakistani leadership had not taken up the drone issue with the US leadership at all. It is in this context, that many of us are concerned over the chief justice’s meeting with Holbrooke – now held on what can only be termed as terrible advice from the Foreign Office. Was it a deliberate ploy by the government to adversely impact the public perception of the chief justice? Was it simply coincidental that this meeting was advised by the government when the chief justice had made a reference to the NRO?

Meanwhile, with an unabated spread of violence across the country, and the renewed negative focus on our nuclear assets, we need to continue to connect the dots and realise the serious targeting of these assets and of those who will in the final analysis ensure their safety. Coincidences are becoming the hallmark of so many developments across the national spectrum, that there is also a need to see whether there is a deliberateness involved or are the timings truly coincidental. For instance, is it a mere coincidence that the ethnic battle is going on unabated in Karachi just when the nation is focused on the now-widening military action from Swat to FATA? Is this part of the overall plan to keep all parts of the country ignited so that the instability paradigm being plugged by the US and our other foreign detractors continues to sound credible and prepares the ground for taking control of our nuclear assets? 

As for the military operation, it is becoming ever more evident that this may be open-ended since there is still no overarching political strategy for the post-military scenario. One sees no effort to build the civil capacity for taking over from the military. It appears as if the civil government has simply handed over all responsibility to the military and has gone into a state of mental paralysis instead of ensuring that local governance and security capacity is created within the civil administration. 

Is it a mere coincidence that our military is being propelled into endless operations within the country at a time when India has begun a campaign against the Pakistan army? According to a Times of India report (May 16), Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has told Obama that some of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are already in ‘radical’ hands! Reaching out to anti-nuclear lobbies in countries like Japan, Indian analysts like Brahma Chellaney (closely linked to the Indian establishment) have begun a campaign declaring that it is Pakistan’s ‘military insiders’ who are a threat to the country’s nuclear assets. Probably basing his erroneous assumption on the fact that the Indian military has become increasingly Hindutva-oriented, he asserts that the Pakistan army has been infiltrated by a jihadist culture and both “Islamists (Jehadi, Islam, Islamists – all these terms are randomly used interchangeably by Chellaney) and US-sponsored generals” are labelled as threats to international peace and security. This theme is played out to its ridiculous conclusion that the US must take over Pakistan’s nukes!

Chellaney is just one of a handful of Indian and US analysts who periodically revive the campaign against Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The leader of the pack is David Albright whose histrionics against Pakistan have become so absurd that Peter Lee, a businessman who has been writing on Asian affairs for over thirty years, felt compelled to write an article entitled, “The world does not have a Pakistan nukes problem — it has a David Albright problem” – the title says it all. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter not only exposed Albright’s claims to being a UN weapons inspector in an article “The nuclear expert who never was”, he also pointed out that “Albright has a track record of making half-baked analyses derived from questionable sources seem mainstream. He breathes false legitimacy into these factually-challenged stories by cloaking himself in a resume that is disingenuous.” Incidentally it was Scott Ritter who also wrote that Holbrooke was the wrong man for the job when Holbrooke was appointed as special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan and many of his arguments are now becoming more evident. 

While one expects external detractors to play the anti-Pakistan nuke game, is it a mere coincidence that some of our local papers have suddenly become full of locally written articles full of forebodings regarding our nukes? Is it a mere coincidence that one of the leading native critics of our nuclear weapons, a physicist, has simultaneously appeared in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists alongside physicist Albright for some years now? There is a two-pronged strategy that is now becoming obvious in relation to Pakistan’s nukes: externally the drummed-up scare over our command and control – despite the fact that it is the US that has revealed the disarray of its own command and control – and internally using local critics of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to sow doubts regarding the relevancy of atomic weapons (although if this was the case why the US is pursuing a programme for mini-nukes, etc) and to create a falsehood that such a capability is a liability for Pakistan. 

Why is there such renewed attention on our nukes? It would appear that we have moved beyond India in certain critical developments. We already had the uranium enrichment advantage (India’s was a plutonium-based weapon); now we have managed the plutonium-based skills also. Our delivery systems have moved from trial tests to training tests, and second strike capability is on the horizon also.

No wonder our foreign detractors are desperate to gain access at all costs. A new, third prong has been added to their strategy – the floating of trial balloons of offers of civil nuclear assistance kept deliberately vague to see how much access can be gained through non-US sources that may have more credibility in the country. The talk of French nuclear assistance is part of this game – we had begun to reach out to France during the India-US nuclear deal negotiations; now Sarkozy, a close ally of the US, has moved on this front and there is a deliberate ambivalence that is still being maintained. A story was also leaked of a US offer of civil nuclear assistance – but insiders have denied this. 

This is a dangerous game that is being played with Pakistan. Of course, if our leaders had the gumption, they would insist that our new impending safeguards agreements with the IAEA should only be on the Indian model. Our leaders should ask France and the US to support us in our move to demand that the IAEA give us the same country-specific safeguards agreement given to India for civilian facilities. Otherwise, all offers on nuclear cooperation are suspect and should be refuted – but that requires a major shift in our rulers’ prevailing subservient mind set.

The year when it all began

President Barack Hussein Obama’s much-anticipated speech at Cairo University was without precedent. His narration encompassed the sweep of Islamic history in a way that no sitting president of the United States had achieved before.

 

The speech will continue to be analysed from all angles in the weeks to come. One thing is clear. His vision of peace and cooperation between the Muslim world and the West will be welcomed by all but the most hardened anti-Americans in the Muslim world and the most hardened Islamophobes in the West.

 

Obama said that he was seeking a ‘new beginning’ between the US and the Muslim world based on ‘mutual interest and mutual respect’. He said that America and Islam were not mutually exclusive. Indeed, while travelling to Egypt, he told a German reporter that the US was one of the world’s largest Muslim countries.

 

In Cairo, he said America and the Muslim world shared common principles of justice, progress and tolerance and, most importantly, they conferred dignity on all human beings.

The speech was remarkable for what it contained and equally remarkable for what it did not contain. Obama did not apologise for American policy in the Middle East, as many in the region had hoped he would. Neither did he hurl invective at Muslims or their faith, as some non-Muslims would have liked. In recognising the current tensions between the US and the Muslim world, he conceded that the Cold War and the decades of colonial rule that preceded it had fuelled tensions. But he pointed squarely at violent Muslim extremists for making the ties worse.

 

The people who had carried out the attacks of 9/11 were continuing on a global rampage, attacking civilians regardless of faith to further their agenda. He said these extremists did not represent either the Muslim world or the religion of Islam. In so doing, he echoed what many Muslims throughout the world have been saying. Unfortunately, many religious leaders in Muslim countries have not been saying it loudly enough. They continue to blame America for all their problems.

 

This will not do. It has to change. The ulema have to come out and condemn terrorism in all its forms. And the political leaders in the Muslim world need to sow the seeds of tolerance both within their own societies and where other societies are concerned. Obama put it very well when he said: ‘So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather peace.’

 

What Obama did not go into, perhaps given the impolitic conversations that it might engender, was how the US and the Muslim world had arrived at the current impasse. Much of the current tension dates back to events that took place 30 years ago. As the year 1979 dawned, the UN declared it the International Year of the Child. It would prove to be a prophetic title but not in the way that it was intended. It would spawn geopolitical problems that would linger on for decades.

In January, the Shah fled from the land where he had ruled as the ‘king of kings’. The Shah had been America’s boy in the Middle East. He was known to flip through the pages of Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, shopping for arms like it was the Sears catalogue. He was expected to guard the oil resources of the region once Britain closed its East-of-Suez bases.

 

In February, Ayatollah Khomeini ended his exile in France and landed in Tehran. In April, Iran was declared an Islamic republic. In November, staffers at the American embassy were taken hostage. The war against the Great Satan, which had installed the Shah by deposing an elected civilian ruler in the 1950s, had begun.

 

Meanwhile, in neighbouring Iraq, Saddam Hussein took over as president. He portrayed himself as a secular alternative to the emerging theocracy in Iran. The West bankrolled him in his eight-year war with Iran which killed some 1.5 million people on both sides and left Iraq with a mountain of debt. When Kuwait called on him to repay the debt, he annexed that country as Iraq’s 19th province, precipitating the Gulf War.

 

That war led to a sizable American presence in Saudi Arabia and gave credence to Osama bin Laden’s cause in ways that were not anticipated by Washington. Al Qaeda would not be what it is today without that blunder. In April 1979, the military government of Gen Zia in Pakistan executed the deposed prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, making the military ruler a pariah in the West. On Christmas Eve, Soviet tanks rolled into Afghanistan placing Kabul under the iron hand of the Red Army.

 

Zia played up the Soviet threat by recalling the dreams of the czars to have a warm water port. The West now made him its saviour, granting him billions in military and economic aid. This myopic act by a Republican administration in Washington conferred legitimacy and longevity on what would otherwise have become a discredited regime.

 

Democracy was placed on the backburner. Once the Soviets pulled out, the Mujahideen broke out into a civil war which would lead to the birth of the Taliban in the mid-1990s. Pakistan’s intelligence agencies served as the mid-wife for a new regional order based on a deadly cocktail of narcotics, Kalashnikovs and religion.

 

In the years to come, the Taliban, in conjunction with Al Qaeda, would engage in suicide bombings aimed at innocent civilians, beheadings of Muslims and non-Muslims alike and the enslavement of Muslim women. In November 1979, in a sign that politically disenfranchised movements were breaking through the surface, the Grand Mosque in Makkah was taken over by extremists. The Saudi royals did not pay heed to the simmering revolt by reforming their society and would pay for it in the decades to come.

 

As he embarks on a journey that has the potential to transform ties between America and the Muslim world, President Obama will be attacked from all sides by people who seek a clash between civilisations. Attacks from the neoconservatives have already begun pouring in. That is why it is essential to view current events through the lens of history. There is no better way to shed light on what happened and why it happened and to derive insights about what needs to be done in the future to prevent a repeat.

Turning a new page?

In his much heralded address to the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims, President Barak Obama made a compelling case for a new beginning in long strained relations between the west and the Islamic world. In a masterly tour de force, cast in language seldom used by his predecessors, President Obama’s speech hit many of the right notes and set a welcome tone of respect in an effort to redefine the relationship.

Cynics cast the speech as little more than a public relations exercise that “repackaged” unchanged US policies. While the speech may not have broken new policy ground and was purposively short on specifics, this rejectionist view minimizes the import of President Obama’s effort at a rapprochement with the Muslim world and the possibilities this opens up.

President Obama himself acknowledged that one speech could not wipe away years of mistrust. But the vision he set out of charting a cooperative course on shared challenges marks a sharp departure from the with-us-or against-us paradigm of his predecessor. In seeking to build coalitions of consent, the president is also adapting to a globalized and interdependent world in which US power has been diminishing.

The Cairo speech marked President Obama’s latest and most significant outreach to the Muslim world. After his inaugural address in which he called for a new way forward based on “mutual respect and mutual interests”, he pressed this theme in an interview to the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya TV network, a videotaped message to the Iranian people on Nauroze, and his speech to the Turkish Parliament.

These public diplomacy initiatives, capped by the Cairo address, have several interrelated objectives, which include: a) to repair the image and standing of the US among Muslims that was especially battered during the Bush years; b) to create the atmosphere and space to restart the Middle East peace process; c) engage vigorously in the battle of ideas to drain support in the Muslim world for violent extremism; and d) to challenge Muslim communities to rethink some of their positions on issues ranging from religious freedom to Israel. 

These objectives also reflect a national security imperative for the US: to defuse and neutralize the threat from violent extremism and reverse the rising tide of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world which feeds extremism.

That President Obama refrained from using the word terrorism in his speech represented an effort to break from the overarching template of US engagement with the Islamic world in the post 9/11 years. This aims at signalling that Washington’s ties with Muslim countries will not be defined by this single prism even though, as President Obama declared in his speech, the US would “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat” to its security. And he reiterated what he told the Turkish Parliament: that America is not and never will be, “at war with Islam”.

He listed seven issue areas which the US and the Muslim world had to confront jointly: violent extremism, the Arab-Israeli dispute, the nuclear issue and Iran, democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights and economic opportunity.

The Cairo speech represents the most forthright public appraisal ever undertaken by a Western leader of the reasons why relations between the US and the Muslim world have plummeted to their lowest ever point – a fact attested to by opinion polls conducted over the years. In his review of this troubled legacy, he mentioned colonialism, the proxy relationships of the cold war era, the wars of “choice” and “necessity” in Iraq and Afghanistan, the measures America took after 9/11 which were “contrary to its ideals” (Guantanamo), Palestine and the tensions generated by modernity and globalization.

In weaving into his speech a nuanced recognition of Muslim grievances President Obama demonstrated both a grasp of history and an ability to understand the Muslim narrative.

Disappointingly the speech did not show similar understanding and empathy for South and South West Asia. The history review made no mention of the US contribution – albeit unwitting – to the toxic mix of problems bequeathed to the region by the long campaign waged against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Acknowledgement of the US role in waging this war of unintended consequences would have helped to remove the burden of history and signal to people in Pakistan that Washington was willing to accept its share of responsibility for the turmoil in the region. 

The one-speech-cannot-address-everything argument doesn’t hold ground on this count because explaining how and why violent extremism came to afflict this region is much too important to have been ignored in an address that tried to be fair to history.

The speech was also silent on Kashmir. An opportunity to win hearts and minds in Pakistan – the world’s second largest Muslim nation – was missed by this omission. Calling for a peaceful settlement of a dispute that has locked South Asia in a cycle of conflict and mistrust and fed into the longstanding Muslim perception that US policy is not in favour of equitable solutions to Muslim issues, would have cost him little.

Mention of the issue would have been consistent with Obama’s own assertions before his election that a Kashmir solution was essential for regional peace. And it would have raised his moral stature among Pakistanis and Kashmiris at a time of renewed turmoil in the Valley.

The centrepiece of his speech was the Palestinian–Israeli dispute, the issue that galvanizes Muslims everywhere and that has long come to symbolize their sense of historical grievance and injustice. Decades of uneven-handed policies that placed the security of Israel above any concern for justice for the Palestinian people and international law, alienated Muslims from the west. It is here that President Obama departed decisively from the past in signalling his determination to promote a settlement in as even-handed a manner as can be expected from an American President.

Although he did not lay out a detailed plan for Middle East peace, he set out the parameters for one. In his tone and language – including “occupation” and “daily humiliations” of the Palestinian people – he went further than any previous American President in aligning with the Muslim narrative. While describing his country’s bond with Israel as “unbreakable”, he delivered the sharpest public rebuke ever to Tel Aviv for its policy of settlements on the occupied West Bank. 

Whether or not this marks an end to Washington’s unqualified support for Israel, it does pitch the US as a neutral broker for the first time. By endorsing a two-state solution, President Obama sought to lay the ground to launch a vigorous round of diplomacy.

The litmus test of his promised change in relations with the Muslim world will be his ability to press Israel to accept a two-state solution consistent with the 2002 Saudi-framed Arab Peace Initiative. In coming months President Obama can be expected to engage in a battle of wills with the hard line Israeli leadership at a time when opinion polls in Israel show that the majority of people support a freeze on settlements.

The speech dealt with Afghanistan and Pakistan in a rather sketchy way. Whether or not this was a function of an address directed more to the Arab heartland than beyond, the impression it conveyed was of the lack of a strategic framework for Afghanistan. 

While President Obama justified the 2001 military intervention in Afghanistan as a war of necessity, he rationalized the continued deployment of American troops there as aimed at preventing “violent extremists from killing Americans”. Until the US is assured of its security its commitment to stay in Afghanistan “will not weaken”, despite the costs. But he held out the assurance that the US did not seek a permanent military presence in that country, which will be welcomed in Pakistan and beyond.

President Obama reiterated that military power alone was not the answer to problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the strategy he has rolled out so far remains at odds with this, placing too much reliance on military escalation, as signified by the troop surge in Afghanistan and intensified Drone attacks in Pakistan.

President Obama’s eloquent call to “re-imagine” the world in which the US and the Muslim world partner to confront common challenges on the basis of shared values holds much promise. Whether his speech will turn a new page in a turbulent relationship will depend on what concrete policy actions will follow. It will also depend on how Muslim leaders take up the political and intellectual challenge and engage the US to chart a new and hopeful course.