TOP STORIES

PML-N, MQM agree to join hands for 'stronger opposition'

A joint statement said that the two parties would work together on key national issues such as inflation, load shedding, law and order and corruption.

Leaders from both parties met here and discussed the formation of a ‘grand opposition alliance.’ Raza Haroon, Haider Abbs Rizvi and Waseem Akhtar represented the MQM in the meeting while the PML-N was represented by Ishaq Dar, Saad Rafique, Mushaidullah and Pervez Rashid.

A joint statement read out by Haider Abbas Rizvi said that the two parties would work together on key national issues such as inflation, loadshedding, law and order situation, corruption and AJK elections ‘rigging.’

Senator Ishaq Dar said both parties will play the part of a stronger opposition in lawful and constitutional manner.

He added that both parties had set aside their differences and decided to work together in the interest of the country.

Taliban Again refute claims of peace talk with west :

“The rumour about negotiation with America is not more than the talks aimed at the exchange of prisoners,” the Taliban said.

In a statement emailed to media, the Taliban also repeated their long-standing position of rejecting any negotiations for peace as long as foreign troops were in Afghanistan.

“The rumour about negotiation with America is not more than the talks aimed at the exchange of prisoners. Some circles call these contacts as comprehensive talks about the current imbroglio of Afghanistan,” the Taliban said.

“However, this shows their…lack of knowledge about the reality. It is clear as the broad daylight that we consider negotiation in condition of presence of foreign forces as a war stratagem of the Americans and their futile efforts.”

Last month, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the United States was in direct talks with the insurgents but that talks were not at a stage where the Afghan government was sitting down with the militants.

Washington and London have both acknowledged there have been recent contacts with insurgents although former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said he expected it could take months before any headway could be made.

But so little is known about these contacts that they have been open to widely different interpretations and any discussions that may be taking place are still not at a stage where they can be a deciding factor.

Despite trumpeting military gains, particularly in southern Afghanistan, foreign leaders and military commanders have long recognised the need for a political solution to a war that has now dragged on for almost 10 years.

In Wednesday’s statement, the Taliban said they had been in contact with “some” countries to arrange prisoner exchanges, including most recently with France for the release of two French journalists and their Afghan translator last month.

The men were seized outside Kabul on December 30, 2009 and held captive for 18 months.

France has denied any ransom was paid to secure the release of the two men, and their Afghan interpreter Reza Din. Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said revealing details of the negotiations could damage efforts to free other French hostages in Africa.

The Taliban said they were also continuing “direct and indirect” contacts to secure the release of US and Canadian prisoners.

IED attacks in Pakistan increase by over 145%

 

ISLAMABAD: The number of attacks from improvised explosive devices in Pakistan has grown by more than 145 percent in the last four years, as expertise in the crude bombs has flowed from terrorists in Iraq to Afghanistan and eventually to Pakistan, officials said. 

Just on Tuesday, three separate IED attacks in North Waziristan near the Afghan border and Balochistan in the southwest killed nine Pakistan border troops and wounded 30. 

“Where this expertise is coming from, probably initially it came from Iraq, and then from Afghanistan and now it’s here,” said an intelligence official. He said there had been a dip in suicide bombings in Pakistan with a correspondent increase in IED attacks, which are increasingly the weapon of choice for terrorists.

IEDs are also one of the Afghan Taliban’s most effective weapons against coalition troops in Afghanistan.

A team of law enforcement officials from Pakistan and the United States began meetings in Islamabad on Tuesday as part of their strategic dialogue, with a large part of the discussions focussed on ways to fight the menace of IEDs. 

“It’s a lethal weapon,” Interior Minister Rehman Malik said at the opening of the session, vowing to equip security forces with better detection equipment. 

According to figures provided by the Inter-Services Intelligence, the number of IED attacks on Pakistani troops and security forces soared from 413 in 2007 to 1,015 in 2010, an increase of 145 percent. A breakdown of casualties from IEDs was not available. 

But unlike in Iraq, where caches of munitions hidden by Saddam Hussein’s regime were the main source of explosive material, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, most IEDs are made using ammonium nitrate, a common fertiliser in Pakistan. 

In March 2010, the authorities seized more than 6,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate hidden in a market in Lahore. Zulfiqar Hameed, a senior police official, said three men arrested had links with terrorists.

“Explosives are very easily available,” said another senior police official in Peshawar, who requested anonymity to speak to the press. “If somebody wants to buy explosive material for mining or other work he can get it through legal ways, but then there is no check or tracking whether it’s used properly.”

Pakistan shuts key Afghan war supply-route

Pakistan shut down a pivotal US-NATO Afghan war supply route yesterday following a NATO attack on a Pakistani border post that killed three Pakistan Frontier Corps troops and injured three others.

Attack helicopters from the US-NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) twice strafed positions in Kurram, one of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Thursday morning, first about 5:30 AM and again some four hours later.

NATO officials have justified the attack on the Mandata Kandaho outpost as an act of “self-defence,” just as they did three helicopter attacks last weekend that killed more than 50 people.

According to a Pakistani military spokesman, the Frontier Guards at Mandata Kandaho had fired in the air to indicate to the ISAF helicopters that they had entered into Pakistan airspace: “Instead of heeding to the warning,” the helicopters fired “two missiles, destroying the post.”

Soon after yesterday’s attacks, Pakistan officials closed the crossing into Afghanistan at Torkham, north of Peshawar. By the end of the afternoon, the blockade had reportedly forced more than 150 NATO trucks and oil-tankers from the road.

Pakistan government and military officials have not publicly called the border closure retaliation for the violation of its national sovereignty and murder of its citizens. But on Tuesday, Pakistan’s military warned NATO leaders in Brussels that if NATO forces continue to mount military strikes inside Pakistan, Pakistan will no longer be “able to ensure the safety” of ISAF supply convoys.

While Pakistan’s government has for years tacitly accepted US drone attacks in FATA, it has strongly protested whenever US and NATO forces have crossed into Pakistan, including making thinly veiled threats of military retaliation.

This is hardly extraordinary. Under international law, cross-border attacks are tantamount to an act of war.

In commenting on Thursday’s developments, Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik said, “We will have to see whether we are allies or enemies.”

Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit vowed Pakistan “will protect our sovereignty in all circumstances.” When asked how Pakistan might retaliate he said, “I leave it to your imagination.”

This latest crisis in US-Pakistani relations erupted one day after Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, claimed to have reached a “decent understanding, with General Ashfaq Kiyani, the head of the Pakistan Army, about last weekend’s incursions into Pakistan and on a day that CIA director Leon Panetta was consulting with top Pakistani officials in Islamabad.

British PM pays surprise visit to Afghanistan

 
 

British Prime Minister David Cameron made a surprise visit to Afghanistan Monday but had to scrap part of the trip as forces hunted for a missing British soldier, an AFP reporter said.

Cameron arrived on a Royal Air Force plane at Camp Bastion, the main British and US base in Helmand province, then later said he had cancelled a visit to the town of Lashkar Gah so helicopters could be used in the search.

"I arrived here today and received the news about this very worrying incident of a British soldier going missing in central Helmand," he told reporters at Camp Bastion.

"I was just very clear that you've got something like that absolutely urgent taking place, where you want to concentrate all the assets and ability that you have to try and find this person and bring it to the right conclusion.

"It's just absolute common sense that the military should concentrate on the most important requirement of all, which is to help and find this person rather than to bother flying me around."

Cameron confirmed British media reports that he would withdraw some of the 9,500 British troops in Afghanistan but did not say how many, adding that he would give a full statement in parliament Wednesday.

He said the campaign against Taliban militants had entered a "new phase" ahead of the handover of security to local forces by the end of 2014 and that Afghanistan's army and police were "increasingly confident".

US President Barack Obama recently announced that he would withdraw 33,000 US "surge" troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012, bringing the overall number of US forces there to 100,000. (AFP)

Sri Lanka police chief makes exit after union clashes

Sri Lanka’s police chief submitted his retirement papers on Wednesday and investigators arrested two police officers for firing on workers during a union protest that turned violent and sparked President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s first big labour problem.

Inspector General of Police Mahinda Balasuriya was due to retire on June 18, but gave formal notice and requested immediate leave until then, the president’s office said. The Defence Ministry told media Balasuriya’s early exit was a “historic display of public accountability” but analysts dismissed it as a ploy to deflect worker anger over a new pension scheme that prompted Monday’s violence. “Balasuriya was anyway going to retire and this government has used him as a scapegoat to come out from the debacle that happened and to clean its hands,” said Kusal Perera, an analyst with the Centre for Social Democracy in Colombo. The clashes broke out at a free trade zone near Sri Lanka’s only international airport on Monday, with protesters throwing rocks and police firing teargas and later, live ammunition. At least 200 people including 15 police officers were hurt. The violence prompted 26 trade unions to band together and vow continuous strikes until the police responsible were punished, and the government scrapped a private pension proposal opposed by employees and employers alike.

Two police inspectors were taken into custody by the Criminal Investigation Department on Wednesday and accused of firing at protesters, police spokesman Prishantha Jayakody said. Strikes could cripple Sri Lanka’s $50 billion economy at a time when the government is doing its best to boost sagging foreign direct investment despite enjoying a third full year of peace, and generate record growth of 8.5 percent in 2011.

Sri Lanka’s unions have traditionally wielded big influence in the Indian Ocean nation’s political scene, but Rajapaksa has largely sidelined them after asking union leaders to hold off on demands until the government won a quarter-century civil war. Victory against separatist ethnic Tamil rebels came in May 2009, and unions are increasingly demanding Rajapaksa deliver promised wage and benefit increases. However, the government is under pressure to trim its big public sector wage bill under the terms of a $2.6 billion International Monetary Fund loan.

The proposed private pension scheme would make workers wait longer to access their savings and add yet another cost to employers, who already pay big benefits in a nation with one of the highest numbers of annual paid days off in the world. “I need not tell you that this pension scheme is trying to rob the hard-earned money of private sector workers” said a woman who works for the state-run Bank of Ceylon, who joined a protest by hundreds of union members in Colombo on Wednesday.

Eurozone May inflation slows, ECB rate rise still seen

Eurozone inflation slowed in May largely thanks to lower oil prices, but the dip is likely to be temporary and will not stop the European Central Bank from raising interest rates in July.

European Union statistics office Eurostat estimated that inflation in the 17 countries using the euro was 2.7 percent year-on-year this month, down from 2.8 percent in April.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected inflation to stay at 2.8 percent year-on-year. The ECB wants to limit price growth to just below 2.0 percent over the medium term.

“I think they are still on target to increase interest rates by a further quarter point this summer, probably in July. Then I think we’ll get one more this year bringing the refi rate to 1.75 percent,” said Martin van Vliet, economist at ING.

The ECB raised interest rates in April by 25 basis points to 1.25 percent to try to stem inflationary pressures in the eurozone following a sharp rise in commodity prices.

There is no breakdown or monthly data with the Eurostat inflation estimate, but economists said that once more details were published in mid-June, they were likely to show that energy prices fell sharply as a result of a drop in oil prices.

Food prices were likely to be on the rise again but core inflation, which excludes the volatile costs of energy and unprocessed food, was likely to have eased.

“Seasonal patterns will contribute to keep core inflation subdued over the next few months, but the underlying trend in core inflation is upwards, reflecting the gradual pass-through of higher commodity prices along the price formation chain,” said Eoin O’Callaghan, economist at BNP Paribas.

“The ongoing moderation in economic activity will probably ease some of these pressures but will not change the overall picture. We expect core inflation to hit 1.7 percent year-on-year in December, from an estimated 1.5 percent this month and up from 1.1 percent in December 2010,” he said.

“Headline inflation, overall, is expected to peak above 3 percent in the fourth quarter.”

Eurostat said the unemployment rate in the eurozone was unchanged at 9.9 percent of the workforce in April for the third month, despite small declines in the number of jobless in Germany, France and Italy.

It said 15.529 million people were without jobs in the eurozone in April, 115,000 fewer than in the previous month and 457,000 fewer than a year earlier.

“With eurozone growth currently showing signs of losing some momentum, the suspicion remains that eurozone unemployment will trend down only gradually over the coming months,” said Howar Archer, economist at IHS Global Insight.

“The jobs situation continues to vary markedly across the region, with improving labour markets in Germany, and other core northern eurozone economies contrasting with still very high unemployment in the struggling periphery economies,” he said.

European stocks jump on Greece rescue hopes

Europe’s main stock markets rose strongly on Tuesday on hopes of a second international bailout for Greece, but investors remained cautious over an easing in the eurozone debt crisis.

Sentiment was also boosted by bumper gains across Asia, where Japan published impressive factory output data. London’s benchmark FTSE 100 index of top shares added 0.97 percent to 5,996.59 points, following a bank holiday the previous day.

Frankfurt’s DAX 30 gained 1.99 percent at 7,302.58 and in Paris the CAC 40 won 1.48 percent to 4,007.73 points. “So another little bounce ... as investors price in the full expectation of another bailout for Greece next month,” said Capital Spreads analyst Simon Denham.

“There’s little chance that they will be able to repay their bond holders come mid-July, where a default was inevitable, and so now they know further aid is in the pipeline. “The concern is that the money will just be frittered away and over the extended week end Greece’s opposition party rejected the Prime Minister’s austerity package.

“This is the major problem and if Germany keeps throwing good money after bad, there’s little incentive for the Greeks to eradicate the debt burden.” Eurozone junior finance ministers will meet Wednesday in Vienna to go over Greece’s debt problems, including the possibility of fresh aid, a European source told AFP on Tuesday.

Greek officials are currently locked in negotiations with representatives from the three organisations which last year bailed out the country with a 110-billion-euro ($157-billion) loan. Athens needs a scheduled instalment of the loan, worth 12 billion euros, to pay its bills in July. But the IMF has threatened to withhold its share of the funding without a broader agreement that will make Greece’s debt — over 350 billion euros — sustainable. “Sentiment over Greece has been swinging between optimistic and negative like a see-saw for much of the last few months,” said City Index strategist Joshua Raymond.

He added: “A second bailout buys Greece time, but the market must be convinced that this will be the final time such a requirement is needed and until then, sentiment over sovereign debt within the eurozone is likely to remain fragile.” Asian stocks surged earlier on Tuesday, with Tokyo boosted by data showing factory output lifting last month, raising hopes for Japan’s recovery from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. But the yen tumbled against the dollar and euro after Moody’s warned that it may cut Japan’s debt rating. Tokyo jumped 1.99 percent to finish at 9,693.73 points, its best percentage jump since March 30. Hong Kong soared 2.17 percent, Sydney added 0.87 percent and Shanghai leapt 1.37 percent.

Womenfolk and our society

Paradoxically, our otherwise divided society has a strange commonality in itself — belief in subjection and inferiority of womenfolk. Almost everywhere male chauvinistic attitudes have ossified this universal image about women that men may treat women as they deem fit. This attitude has a deeper hue in rural and tribal areas where women are supposed to live in complete subordination to men; the situation in the urban areas is generally considered better though not always.

The historical roots of this may be traced back to the Indo Pakistan civilisation where women were considered to be born into subjection, like other old civilisations of the world. Although Islam gives a respectable position to women and has outlined an ethical code in this regard, yet discrimination against women remains prevalent and persistent. For instance, Islam gives the right to inherit property to women but they are generally denied this right. The pre-existing cultural behaviour and stereotypical thinking towards women remain dominant despite Islamic precepts. Due to this, maltreating women is considered normal and is generally dismissed as a personal or private affair. Thus in Pakistan, crimes against the person of women are not considered as serious as is in the case of men.

Crime against women is prevalent in contemporary Pakistani society. Countless women suffer from battery, rape, burning, acid attacks and mutilation. The estimated percentages of women who experience spousal abuse alone range from 70 to upwards of 90 percent. If there is anything more disturbing than the prevalence of these crimes, it is the impunity with which they are committed. Rape is one of these crimes which carry huge socio-economic cost for the victims.

Although there is a need to address the issues related to the criminal justice system to create effective deterrence in society, this aspect of the issue is not altogether ignored by the policy-makers and helmsmen. However, the miserable life of victims in society has remained obscure due to one or the other reasons rooted in our particular cultural and societal ethos.

The big dilemma facing state and society is that the perpetrators of such crimes generally find escape through the grey areas of our criminal and judicial system but their victims continue to face ongoing agony let loose by societal apathy in the aftermath. This public apathy results in making them complete social outcasts and in some instances precipitate declaring them complete societal pariahs. Unfortunately, victims of parents and siblings are at the forefront in manufacturing this state of misery for them. This worst kind of social exclusion is thrust upon them for no fault of their own. The irony is that on the one hand they are subjected to heinous crimes like rape in the form of physical assault on them and on the other hand they have to undergo an immense amount of mental and psychological stress when they become unwelcome and criminals in the eyes of society. This double jeopardy pushes women victims to commit suicide in some cases because suddenly they become unacceptable for their own families.

This happens again because of our skewed cultural and social mindset, which is constructed by our explanation of family pride and honour associated with women and the thinking that a rape victim is a stigma for the family and is a symbol of disgrace. This is because no one will be ready to marry her and she will be considered as a drain on the family. Her exclusion at home has both social and economic reasons: since society does not accept her, therefore her own family has to support her which has an economic cost. Here it is a catch-22 situation in which society and family are both responsible for creating social exclusion of rape victims but the tragedy is that it is not taken as a serious problem to be addressed.

The problem merits concerted efforts from our media, policy-makers, religious clerics, helmsmen in criminal administration, women’s rights activists and international donors. In order to address this social and economic crisis for rape victims, changing the mindset of the public is very important. It is difficult and resistant to change and can be achieved only in a gradual manner and should be an ongoing effort waged jointly by the media and women’s rights activists. Both the print and electronic media should design and telecast such programmes and plays which bring out the importance of dealing with such victims in a normal way. They can build around themes of Islamic teachings by highlighting the status of women determined by Islam and suggesting that Islam does not discriminate against rape victims. Religious clerics may be asked to provide their help in this regard.

Education being the catalyst of developing minds should be used as a tool to create a positive mindset about women in society. The curriculum designers should envisage this point in designing the curriculum for various levels in schools and colleges. Teachers’ training institutions should also be sensitised to include gender sensitive practices in their training modules and lectures. This will be a gradual but everlasting approach because collective social behaviour is intricately linked to the socio-psychological makeup that students obtain during the formative phases of their education.

Economic independence by women can provide a partial solution to the extent that if a rape victim becomes economically independent, her family will not consider her an economic burden though the social problem will still persist. Then it is also important to highlight the plight of rape victims in society in order to create deterrence. The politicians, police, policy-makers, judiciary, women activists and international community should jointly pool their efforts to bring out such policies and programmes that specifically aim at highlighting the plight faced by the victims and also bring forth practical programmes to reach out to such victims for possibly settling them in society. The jurisdiction of Dar-ul-Amans should be extended in this regard to assist such victims in every possible way. In case such victims are abandoned by their families and society, these institutions should be prepared to house them and arrange for their further rehabilitation.

One of the practical steps towards creating institutional support for such victims is to create a supervisory organisation with some quasi-judicial powers. The National Commission on the Status of Women already exists, although without necessary teeth to deal with the situation. This commission may be given sufficient legal and financial power by empowering it with judicial powers to try the offenders. It should also be assisted by the police force and forensic assistance. Besides this role, the commission should continue to play the role of a watchdog over the provincial governments and continuously keep tabs on the efforts made in this regard.

Time is of the essence in this matter and it is important that state and society as a whole should gear up its efforts to address this serious matter in a practical manner. Though the journey is long and arduous, it will eventually be covered provided the first step is taken.

Washington board nixes colon cancer ‘butt’ billboards

A health board in Washington state has reversed itself and voted against endorsing a colon cancer awareness campaign that uses billboards saying, “What’s up your butt?” The Tri-City Herald reports that Wednesday’s vote by the Benton Franklin Health District in Kennewick, Wash., was in response to complaints the ads are in poor taste. The butt billboards were earlier displayed in Yakima to raise colorectal cancer awareness and encourage people to get screened for the disease.

NEC approves new growth strategy

The National Economic Council (NEC) on Saturday approved a new strategy for growth prepared by Planning Commission of Pakistan. The new strategy will focus on both the governments and markets.
The approved strategy is based on sustained reform that builds efficient and knowledgeable governance structures, and markets in desirable, attractive and well-connected locations. It recognises the severe resource constraint that the country faces and therefore focuses on ‘productivity’ improving the efficiency with which assets are used. Global indicators such as competitiveness and cost of doing business also highlight factors such as management, innovation, quality of regulation and governance and research and development as the more immediate constraints to growth.
The thrust of this strategy, therefore, is to focus on the ‘software’ of economic growth (issues of economic governance, institutions, incentives, human resources, etc.) so as to provide an environment in which the ‘hardware’ of growth (physical infrastructure) could be expanded and made more productive at every level.
The growth strategy diagnostics point to two important constraints to economic growth i.e. inadequate market development, (lack of competition, tax, tariff and policy distortions, entry barriers, government involvement, poor regulation, etc.), and lack of efficient public sector management to (a) provide core governance goods such as security of life, property, transaction and contract, (b) facilitate markets and investment with informed policy and competent regulation, and (c) promote deepening of physical, human and social infrastructure.
The growth strategy is informed by the latest in economic thinking and seeks to strengthen both government and markets. It is not a ‘government versus markets’ approach but a ‘government and markets’ approach.
According to the strategy the economic growth is ensured through the accumulation of labour and capital and through the efficient allocation of these assets—known as Total Factor Productivity (TFP).
The contribution of productivity in the growth of Pakistan’s GDP has been less than impressive. Labour productivity in Pakistan is growing at a comparatively lower rate than neighbouring countries.
Our analysis and consultations have shown poor governance and dysfunctional markets to be among the most important reasons why growth in Pakistan has not achieved a sustained acceleration.
Currently the government is an active player in every sector, as a direct market participant and competitor, obstructing private sector entry. Research by the Competition Commission of Pakistan has also established that government intervention is impeding the development of competitive markets. Better government should be established following a two-pronged approach a) reorienting the role of government—which focuses on an exit from markets and deeper deregulation, and b) improving public sector management—which includes reforming civil service, improving resource mobilisation, elimination of untargeted subsidies (particularly to loss-making public sector enterprises), efficient public investment through results-based management.
While announcing export promotion in some sectors, policy has relied heavily on import substitution in others. Consumers have paid the price for these policies through taxation for export subsidies and through high prices and sacrifice of quality goods where import substitution policies prevail. Meanwhile, innovation and entrepreneurship have suffered as the incentives are skewed in favour of lobbyists (rent seekers) rather than reliance on competitive markets.
The growth strategy presents a clear road map for developing vibrant markets. Public enterprise reform and privatisation where necessary, will make space for increased entrepreneurship. Several markets require the government to move from producing and directly participating in markets to just regulation. For example, the current regulatory framework represses domestic commerce (retailing, warehousing, and transport) and construction and city development.
Direct participation of government in agriculture, storage, transport, construction, to name a few, is stifling investment. Openness and city development combined with focused public sector management would go a long way towards developing innovative markets.
Commercial activity requires well-connected cities and communities. Connectivity is critical stratagem of the growth framework. While our PSDP has built physical infrastructure, given significant fiscal constraints, private investors should be encouraged to participate in development projects.
Pakistan will have to keep pace with trends in international connectivity. This will require strong efforts. Government should also pass electronic signatures act, which should provide legal cover to the use of digital IDs. The use of ICT services, if encouraged across the board in the public and private sectors can greatly reduce the costs related to transport and logistics.

Taliban, the US, Pakistan and the future

Last week started with yet another disgrace inflicted upon Pakistan’s security forces in particular and the entire nation in general by the militants our armed forces are fighting or not fighting in the northwest of the country. With every coming day a new slur came about from the terrorists — all against the people and/or forces of Pakistan.

The day PNS Mehran’s siege was broken by the SSG commandos, a drone strike in Mir Ali near Miranshah in North Waziristan killed seven militants while Rashakai Bridge in Nowshera was blasted with a remote-controlled bomb the same day. On the same eventful day, Mangal Bagh’s Lashkar-e-Islam (LI) group clashed with Zakhakhel volunteers in Zakhakhel area near Landikotal, ending up with three dead. Five more were killed on this day in Parachinar during a gun battle between two tribes. LI militants had been fighting the tribesmen from Zakhakhel for quite some time for deserting it. The fierce tribal battle goes on without any security force daring to even go to that area.

A day later, at least eight people were killed and more than 40 were injured in a pre-dawn suicide attack on a CID police station at University Road, Peshawar. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the bombing, claiming it was their fourth reprisal for the death of Osama bin Laden. The next day, a suicide bomber blew up a car laden with explosives at a checkpoint close to the Hangu Police Station and Hangu DPO Office, killing 32 people and wounding 60 others, as the Taliban vowed no reprieve in their quest to avenge the US killing of Osama bin Laden. We are still on Thursday and the Taliban fired a mortar bomb at a military checkpoint in North Waziristan Agency with no casualties. The attack happened near Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan, which remains a hothouse of support for al Qaeda and allied Taliban terrorists.

If you are thinking that all this was happening without Pakistan’s security forces taking any action, you are obviously wrong. Pakistani fighter jets, on Friday, pounded terrorist hideouts in “...the country’s northwest”, as a newspaper reports, killing 23 suspected terrorists. Where this happened was not in South and North Waziristan. It was in Parachinar, the same place where the LI has been busy killing Zakhakhel volunteers. But strange is the fact that the only noticeable and condemnation-worthy incident for some politicians was the drone strike in Miranshah.

Just three weeks after the US’s unilateral operation in Abbottabad that killed Osama without taking Pakistan into confidence, a deadly attack on Pakistan’s naval base in Karachi shook the security machinery just as it shook Pakistanis’ confidence in their armed forces. National response remained as confused as ever. Major sections of the media and some political parties once again tried their best to confuse the masses by blaming it on the ‘foreign hand’. That the targeted P-3C Orion aircraft were India-specific (a claim that remains refutable) was used as ‘evidence’ to establish it as a job done by India. It all was happening despite Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP’s) claiming responsibility.

And just when all of this was happening during the last week, UK’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mark Sedwill, informed the media that the Taliban leadership was engaged in talks with various stakeholders with the full backing of the US with the sole aim of finding a solution to the Afghan problem from within. The proposal for ‘solution from within’ was accepted by Pakistan when its Foreign Secretary briefed the media. He reiterated that Pakistan would support a solution owned and led by the Afghans. He also said that Pakistan was interested in stability and peace in Afghanistan and that it supported a sovereign, independent and unified Afghanistan. Now that is something new, and interesting. Seems a sharp change in Pakistan’s Afghan policy is in the offing.Another interesting development was the Taliban’s statement whereby they vowed not to attack Pakistan’s nukes. The statement came after the strong concerns raised by India and the US alike, after the disgraceful failure of Pakistan’s security forces to defend its own military assets in Karachi last Sunday. The concerns took serious height when many news reports pointed to the radicalisation of the armed forces of Pakistan, fears of the existence of extremists and militants within the ranks of the security forces, and a strong suspicion of the naval base attack as an inside job or at least supported by some insiders. It was rather interesting that the Taliban, who have been and supposedly are fighting our security forces, came to the rescue of Pakistan’s military establishment and readily pledged publicly that they were not eyeing Pakistan’s nukes. Meaning, thereby, that the world should stop worrying about Pakistan’s nuclear assets and keep playing the game.

In continuation of what Mark Sedwill said last Thursday, the process leading to ‘meaningful’ talks between the Taliban and the US went on and in fact got new impetus when reports came in of a meeting between US officials and some Taliban leaders held in Germany a week ago to facilitate the process. At a dinner thrown by the US Embassy on Thursday, when I asked a senior US diplomat how he would sum the process up, all he had to say was that the US was not seeking a Taliban-led government in Afghanistan post-2014. I explained that there were people in Pakistan who had been against any negotiations between the Taliban or al Qaeda and the state of Pakistan.

This opposition dates back to 2003 when we had started voicing concerns loudly about the duality of the then dictator, supported by the US. We were still against the negotiations in 2004 when they broke down after Nek Mohammad’s killing. We did not support it even in 2006 and 2007 when half a dozen new agreements were broken by the Taliban and other militant factions in the tribal belt. We did not support even the present government when it sought an agreement with them in Swat in 2008. Time has amply proved how right was our opposition to any settlement with the terrorists. The US taking the same course now is not going to end up in a winning situation for either party.

It is neither a win nor a viable exit strategy for NATO. All it will produce is, let me warn all the stakeholders, a repeat of the 1990s — fierce radicalisation and civil war in Afghanistan that would overflow the Durand Line to the detriment of Pakistan. A Pakistan in turmoil means a South Asia, Central Asia, Middle East and — not kidding — an America in turmoil. The small jihadi groups incubated to tackle India have grown into formidable global militant organisations. Their agendas converge so perfectly while Pakistan and the US can still not work out their points of convergence. A pity that Pakistan’s politicians are fast taking on the establishment’s ride. Bad politics, bad strategy, bad future.

Dollar settles near 3-yr trough, eyes record low

The dollar hovered near a three-year low against a basket of currencies on Friday, undermined by the spectre of low US interest rates and the crushing weight of the US budget deficit, with some players looking for it to test an all-time low when players return from the Easter holidays. The dollar index slipped to a three-year low of 73.735 on Thursday, having slipped below its 2009 trough of 74.170. It last stood at 74.061 on Friday, about 4.7 percent above its record low of 70.698 marked in March 2008. Trade was thin as many markets were shut for Easter. But some participants said the greenback's downtrend looked set to resume once players come back from the holidays. The euro fetched $1.4575, after hitting a 16-month high of $1.4649 on Thursday. Dollar/yen traded at 81.84 yen, near a three-week low of 81.61 yen hit on Thursday. It has broken below key support around 82.00 yen, a 38.2 percent retracement of its rise from a record low hit in mid-March of 76.25 yen to a six-month high of 85.53 yen in early April. The dollar also fell to a record low of 0.8782 Swiss franc on Thursday before settling down at around 0.8862 franc on Friday.

Imperialism through UN

History presents irrefutable evidence that great powers have invariably shown an irresistible propensity to subjugate small nations, intervene in their internal affairs on different pretexts, impose their cultures on them and even make attempts to create a world order conforming to their cultural values and political ambitions; a phenomenon known as imperialism. In the post-World War II era, imperialism has assumed a humane configuration and is being practised under different forms in the name of ‘humanitarian intervention’, using the UN as a conduit. The powers that be have manoeuvred the UN-adopted concept of ‘responsibility to protect’ to handle international affairs to their own liking.

The driving force behind this concept is that human rights are universal and every state should protect them and if a particular state fails to do so, other states must ensure their protection. Put in simple words, if a regime is guilty of abusing human rights and does not heed to the appeals of the international community or the UN in this regard, the other nations or the UN must intervene to save the population of that country from oppressive regimes. The concept was invoked for the first time for intervention in Nigeria in 1967 to end the civil war, followed by similar actions in Srebrenica in 1992, Rwanda in 1994 and Serbia in 1999.

The latest examples of this concept at play are the regime change in Ivory Coast through military action and the intervention in Libya under the umbrella of the UN. The UN resolution for intervention in Libya never authorised military action but the US and its allies, who, since long, had been looking for an opportunity to settle scores with Gaddafi have exceeded the UN mandate by resorting to air strikes against targets inside Libya — which reportedly have also done extensive collateral damage — and extending military support to anti-Gaddafi forces on the ground. At the start of the Libyan campaign, President Obama had emphatically stated that the action was not aimed at regime change in Libya but to protect the population being persecuted by Gaddafi. However, at the latest moot between the allies in Berlin, it has been unequivocally asserted that the future of Libya with Gaddafi at the helm of affairs was inconceivable, which means that they are definitely striving for a regime change in Libya. The most perturbing aspect of these ostensibly humanitarian interventions has been that they have resulted in more human casualties and bloodshed than they were meant to save and protect against. And, regrettably, they have been selectively used by the ‘assault gang’ comprising the US, Britain and NATO to achieve their non-humanitarian objectives. Their criminal apathy and indifference to the sufferings of the Palestinian, Kashmiris and other people around the globe groaning under oppression tells the whole story.

The assault gang bypassed the UN to attack Iraq on the pretext of taking out weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. Nevertheless, they succeeded in their real objective to get Saddam Hussain and to seize control of the oil wealth of the country, remaining oblivious to the human lives that have been consumed by the conflict and the never-ending sectarian strife triggered by their blitzkrieg in Iraq. Do they care about it? Do they feel any grain of remorse for what they have done to that country? Certainly not.

The military action in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 with a mandate from UN is yet another manifestation of the imperialist mindset of the assault gang, considering the fact that some other options could have been tried to deal with the phenomenon of terrorism. Their actions in Afghanistan and the tribal belt of Pakistan have caused an exponential increase in terrorism worldwide instead of curbing it, the ostensible objective of their offensive in Afghanistan. It has also badly affected Pakistan. The madness continues with incalculable loss of human lives and resources. The imperialists refuse to recognise the demographic and historical ground realities in Afghanistan. It is, however, encouraging to note that the representative government in Pakistan, of late, has started resisting the arm-twisting tactics of the US imperialists and is exhibiting unswerving determination to regain the sovereignty that was surrendered by the outgoing dictator. A similar kind of approach and strategy is needed at the global level to forestall the designs of the imperialists.

The philosophy of making the world a better place through the use of military muscle, subscribed to and practised by the American imperialists and their cronies has certainly brought misery to the human race and is likely to trigger more conflicts and abuse of human rights. Therefore, to make the world a better place, the new form of imperialism in the name of ‘humanitarian intervention’ will have to be checked in its tracks through the collective efforts of the world community, particularly the Third World countries. They must strive for reforms in the UN structure and increase in the permanent members of the UN Security Council that gives equal representation to different geographical regions, vested with the veto power as enjoyed by the current five permanent members. Another option could be abolishing the veto power altogether and giving effect to the UN Security Council resolutions on the basis of simple majority. Undoing the monopoly of the western countries and their clout in securing the support of the UN for their ulterior motives can greatly help in saving the world from the depravity of the new form of imperialism. Apart from UN reforms, the developing countries can also ensure their security and obviate the chances of their vulnerability to the machinations of the assault gang through regional organisations designed to enhance regional security, and economic and political cooperation among the member countries.

Oil clings to narrow range before Fed decision

 Oil traded narrowly lower, then higher, in nervous, choppy business on Tuesday ahead of a US Federal Reserve policy meeting that could signal a change in the country’s easy monetary policy.

Prices were also caught between the impact of contrasting remarks over the economic impact of high oil prices from the world’s top oil exporter Saudi Arabia, which voiced concern, and the top energy consumer the United States, which said current levels did not pose a risk. By 1441 GMT, North Sea Brent crude futures were 50 cents up at $124.16 a barrel, having briefly turned negative.

US crude futures were trading 20 cents higher at $112.48 a barrel. Analysts said they expected some investors would rely on technical indicators to take profits from short-term trading and the price range might remain very narrow until the Fed meeting wraps up on Wednesday.

“This week, it will be all about the Fed meeting. Volume and volatility will come back after the meeting,” said Olivier Jakob of Petromatrix in Switzerland. Investors were focused on the meeting, due to start later on Tuesday, particularly since Ben Bernanke is to give the first regularly scheduled news briefing by a Fed chief in the bank’s 97-year history following its decision on Wednesday. The dollar fell to a 16-month low against the euro.

Saudi Arabia concerned: Oil prices have surged this year due to conflict in oil producer Libya and unrest in other countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Brent crude was around $86 a barrel in late April last year. A senior official with Saudi Arabian state-run firm Aramco voiced concern over high oil prices.

“We are not comfortable with oil prices where they are today. I am concerned about the impact it could have on the global economy,” Khalid al-Falih, Aramco’s chief executive, told an industry gathering in Seoul.

Saudi Arabia has enough capacity to meet any spike in demand and plug short-term outages in supply, and there is no tightness in global oil markets, Falih said. His comments echoed Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, who said last week that the kingdom had cut oil output in March as the market was oversupplied.

On the other hand, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the current level of oil prices would not endanger global economic recovery. “At current levels, on its own, it won’t put the recovery at risk,” Geithner told an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. At 2030 GMT, US oil industry group the American Petroleum Institute (API) will issue its weekly oil data, followed by the Energy Information Administration on Wednesday.

Entrepreneurial opportunities in IT can boost economic growth

Entrepreneurship initiatives especially in Information and Technology (IT) are vital for the economic development of Pakistan where creation of job opportunities via small businesses is an important driver for growth and wealth distribution, Moin Fudda, Country Director, Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) said while speaking to a group of IT entrepreneurs, aspiring students and startups on Monday.

Moin Fudda said CIPE’s main focus is to improve the private sector participation in policy reforms of Pakistan. In this regard, he added, CIPE will work with Pakistan Software Houses Association for IT and IT Enabled Services (P@SHA) to develop recommendations through stakeholders’ participation in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad.

The next two events in this series are the event in Lahore on 4th May and in Islamabad on 10th May 2011. P@SHA, and CIPE have initiated a stakeholders’ dialogue entitled “Entrepreneurial Opportunities for Youth in the IT Sector”. The objective of this initiative is to look at the impediments/entry barriers for young entrepreneurs in the IT sector and to determine whether there are any legal/regulatory reforms that are needed to improve entrepreneurial opportunities.

Partnership solutions for missions impossible

During World War II, the US Navy’s construction battalions, affectionately known as ‘Seabees’, bragged that accomplishing the difficult was easy and the impossible just took a bit longer. Today, the United States and the Obama administration face an array of foreign policy problems that include the intractable and the seemingly impossible. Consider the rebellion against authoritarian regimes in North Africa and the Middle East with huge consequences and the enduring intractability of the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as well as the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and, by extension, Pakistan). This column has likened this progression of instability to July 1914 and the run up to World War I but in slow motion.

A conventional third world war is not a danger. Yet, the unravelling of a large slice of geography of vital importance to the West, largely but not entirely related to oil, is not out of the question. So how can the US government respond to these realities while engaged in two military conflicts and facing crises over debt, deficits and the political roadblocks to making and taking tough choices? President Obama was on the right track in deputising NATO to take the lead in dealing with Libya. Unfortunately, the administration is on no track in advancing and arguing what a new strategy could be and why it is in many interests, not merely American, for it to succeed.

The crucial word is ‘partnership’. Unlike the Cold War, when the enemy was neither as dangerous nor as cunning as we feared, the US leadership was relatively simple — one superpower restraining another (lesser) superpower for the good of, if not all, surely the many. Today, it is self-evident that no single threat clarifies the mind as the Soviet Union did. Terror, instability, religious fanaticism and other dangers have no boundaries, no capitols and no armies and air forces to defeat. Furthermore, ‘interests’ and ‘values’ are not always coincident as during the Cold War. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are in some ways as autocratic and monarchical as Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and, of course, Libya. But no one is calling for the Saudi king to abdicate as in the other states.

President Obama, reflecting these constraints, called for NATO and European states to take the lead in Libya. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates amplified this position, noting that while the U.S. had no vital interests in Libya, others do. Inherent but invisible so far in the administration’s thinking is a broader strategy that could emerge from the Libyan experience of relying on international partnerships. This approach will have many obstacles to overcome. One is former Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s correct assessment of the need for “coalitions of the willing” to deal with individual crises or dangers too difficult for alliances and international organisations to tackle. US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq under that banner delegitimized its strategic merit.

The US simply must make better use of international partnerships to advance its interests and those of others. Success in Libya is essential in this regard. However, consider other opportunities to employ this model, beginning with Yemen.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), consisting of the six major Gulf states, has been negotiating a peaceful settlement between embattled president Ali Abdullah Saleh and the opposition who want him gone now. If the GCC succeeds, the use of different coalitions to advance common interests will have been reinforced and not just in theory. Other coalitions such as the Shanghai Cooperative Organisation (SCO), consisting of China, Russia and four of the ‘stans’, might be utilised for dealing with regional issues. The SCO has as observers and other parties, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Iran.

In addition to building Egyptian stability, the major crises threatening the region and beyond are the Arab-Israeli and Afghanistan-Pakistan conflicts. Clearly, Iran is a subset in each. While the US has promised action on both, little positive is occurring. Two actions are needed.

First, a major and enduring means for resolving the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be set in motion aided by the GCC. Second, with support from the SCO, a parallel forum must be organised to deal with the Afghanistan-Pakistan-India conflicts. These must be serious and leadership not only from the US but catalysed by Washington is crucial.

As the GCC recognised, an exploding or failed Yemen was in the worst interests of all. Thus, the incentive of preventing a breakdown and the likely exploitation by al Qaeda forced action. Similarly, neither Arabs nor Israelis can afford the continuation of that conflict. And to give Afghanistan the best chance of success, Pakistan, Iran and India must engage.

Many of the current crises appear intractable and even impossible. But mutual self-interest is powerful. The Obama administration needs to exploit this truth. New partnerships are the most sensible way to achieve these vital aims.

Beyond the call of duty

During rare moments of reflection, a soldier might wonder what really is the call of duty that one may one day decide to rise above. Few in the army seem to really grasp the full scope of this military phrase beyond the compass of their own interpretation, bound within the envelope of the situation they find themselves in at a given time. Broadly speaking, anything and everything within the army is inside the ambit of duty. Space beyond the call of duty is also duty despite this differentiation.

British commanders were the original authors of this notion, primarily to reward natives under their command who excelled in battles that were aplenty in those imperial times. Understandably, it was the Raj’s compulsion to encourage a band of loyal servants tested in battle to perpetuate themselves. This legacy of patronage and perpetuation, as left behind, became embedded in the psyche of basically colonial but now national armies of the subcontinent. Gradual erosion of political authority and demolition of civil institutions in Pakistan left the field open to the military to amplify and invent the sweep and the scope of its duties from purely military to civil, political and ideological endeavours as well.

Take, for example, the ingenious inclusion of the word ‘ideological’ in the mission statement of the Pakistan armed forces, which was disastrously projected as the defence of the ideological frontiers of Pakistan in the times of late General Ziaul Haq. This subtle but loaded addition opened the door for the military’s customised intervention in national affairs under this guise. Nobody paused to tell how one defines and draws an ideological frontier when ideology is a function of the mind. Resultantly, a perceptual chaos and disruption set in, conveniently wrapped under the call of duty or rather beyond the call of duty that no one really assigned.

At each level, and in almost every capacity, officers and soldiers have been confronted with this dilemma, especially those performing civil duties under military governments. Discretions and attempts to rationalise own reactions led to comic and at times pathetic situations, which were glossed over as hazards of service. These hazards of our adventures were transferred to our civil society with devastating consequences, mutilating and nearly paralysing the entire national socio-political structure. From governance to state policy, from perception to reality and from self-esteem to nationhood, everything has been terribly confounded.

Then there have been unlikely cross-breeders of this malevolence. Under the cavalier leadership of the late General Naseerullah Babar, it had to be the interior ministry that babysat and nursed the Afghan Taliban in their nascent phase — a foreign policy adventure far and absolutely beyond the pale of their responsibility. Also, it was utterly outside the compass of their duty and ability both. The result is a millstone, spindle, handle and base plate all together around Pakistan’s neck that has the weight to sink it decisively. Over-reading catchy phrases can be so unhelpful.

We have yet another case that could be an educative study in such an over-reach and, once deep into the dung pit, a typical exercise in shrugging off the onus of our military misadventure followed by an attempt at rewarding command incompetence. All this at the cost of the people of Pakistan. This refers to the Kargil disaster that so uniquely degenerated from a successful tactical action into a strategic defeat, also tying us firmly and irreversibly to international terrorism and being labelled as an irresponsible state. Our nuclear weapon state status has been left awkwardly in suspended animation ever since. No one in the otherwise naïve political leadership of the time had ever ordered to launch a full-scale military operation across the un-demarcated line of control in the Drass-Kargil sector. This was purely an ambition-driven self-generated military gamble that failed miserably, in the end pushing the region to the brink of a devastating nuclear war. The failure triggered a chain of sordid events that resulted in General Musharraf’s takeover. That is not all, it also resulted in rewarding almost every other senior officer who was directly involved in this harebrained operation with being kicked up at least two steps for their incompetence and for their ready obedience regardless of the call of duty to the country and men under their command. Pakistan has never been able to move out of that stigma ever since.

Uncle Sam, this is your century

The world has always been in conflict and the decisive player has always had access to sea routes. It has usually been said, throughout time, that whoever controls the seas controls the world. Well, in this present century, all other navies of the world combined are insignificant when compared to the US Navy. All oceans of the world are ruled by the US. Europe had its day and enjoyed it for the last 500 years but after World War II, the US reigned supreme on the much coveted North Atlantic route to dominate the world, at last.

While our Uncle was just a baby, he started his end goal’s grand design as early as the end of World War I (when the League of Nations was born) with the Treaty of Versailles. Baby Sam’s annoying dictates were unwittingly painful for the Germans and it was only a matter of time before it would result in its inevitable end — conflict. Germany was to follow strict orders on handing over territory, restrict its military, pay damages to the amount chosen at will by damaged nations and was to sign and accept a ‘War Guilt Clause’. Surely, even Germans have a tipping point. In 1933, Hitler refused to pay up and this started the systematic breaking of the terms. Thus came World War II and its end (the UN was born) brought the Washington Treaty of 1949 to give birth to a global attack force, abruptly named NATO. These were the sweet beginnings of the Cold War era. Baby Sam was out of the cot and knowingly used containment of communism as its main strategy to put the Soviet Union into a cot.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, interestingly, saw arrogance being flaunted by a proud and promising adolescent Sam, albeit in a clandestine manner initially. The sudden birth of the neo-conservatives was synonymous with the US becoming the dominant power of the world. Unlike the Dalai Lama, I think Sammy was becoming more a worldly kinda guy.

Looking at a brief history of neoconservative ideology takes us back to the 1930s and 1940s where one can explain it as once being leftist or liberal. Seeing Stalinism, they moved towards the right and supported the Cold War, thus moving into the realm of foreign affairs. They found refuge in the ideology of the liberal democrats in the 1960s, who demanded a hard line against the Soviet Union. They rejected the New Left of the 1960s, aka the ‘hippies’. The New Left were considered Anti-American by the neocons. Their focus on human rights abuses around the world and support for labour unions domestically was in contrast to a logical and superior pathway the US had paved out for its prosperity and control over the globe. Looking at Sam’s moral value and family ethics, do we not all want our daddy to be just like Sam?

The neocons were moving forward. They had think tanks, academic institutes and government covered. They had a plethora of white papers ripe to make them government policy. Most notably, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) achieved its systemic penetration. PNAC has its roots in neconservative ideology. PNAC outrightly blurts that after the end of the Cold War, the US is the most powerful state on the globe and it fears no one. If I am allowed to explain in plain words, the philosophy of the project has been that the US has to prevent an emergence of any rival and to make damn sure of this it can act in isolation and can pre-empt an attack. Secondly, it is required to police the world and has to keep tabs on all other nations and any conflicts. Academics like Paul Wolfowitz and Francis Fukuyama are original signatories of PNAC, including Dick Cheney, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, Zalmay Khalilzad and Donald Rumsfeld. Prominent members include Robert Zoellick, Richard Perle and Richard Armitage. Sam became the company he kept.

Furthermore, this god complex to monitor the world has also been reflected in the US Navy’s new strategy, presented in 2007, called A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower. Basically, it raises the notion of prevention of war to the same philosophical level as the conduct of war. PNAC’s fundamentals reflected the exact philosophy that the Roman Republic evolved into and were eloquently orated and cherished by Marcus Tullius Cicero. Cicero, who among his numerous legacies, as a republican, inspired the founding fathers of the US.

A similar philosophy has been around in the military establishment. RAND — a private sector think tank — is its base. RAND originated in the minds of leading air force generals after World War II. Sammy’s childhood toy soldiers came to life. RAND’s decision in the 1950s to re-model the globe towards a new world order changed everything. With the development of Rational Choice Theory, it turned people from citizens into consumers, as rights and responsibilities were replaced with choices and people’s lives slowly came to be dominated not by integrity or principle, but by what they spent their money on. Sam’s entrepreneurial itch started to play.

Interestingly, if you look into Leo Strauss’s views of the Republic, being a political philosopher, he points to Cicero’s explanation of Plato’s Republic through a quote of his: “The Republic does not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things — the nature of the city.” In effect, the system is not stirred by efficiency and humanism, but lineage, law, society and suffrage. That is the reason Strauss believes politics and philosophy are intertwined and Socrates’ trial was the inception point of this fact. Strauss feared that people trying to force a world state to come into being in the future, would eventually result in it being a tyranny. Sam always knew tyranny is never suffered by the tyrant.

Today we have it; the neocons eventually evolved a pathway for their ideology, turning it into a system dictating the future of mankind. All their white papers are policy. It is inevitable. It is not forced but merely an eventual pathway.

Looking closely we see that people, thinkers, leaders, are a product of their previous generations to an extent, and ideas, although they have the luxury of centuries to shape and penetrate, hardly evolve. Ideas are in constant conflict throughout the ages as that is their characteristic. They rise and fall. They win battles, arguments, discussions and regime changes but the war continues.

In short, the new century will be a dangerous one: lots of conflict, war and death, not to mention the plethora of natural disasters gaining probability. Historically, Sam likes war. He reflects an increasing trend towards it. Though he has the muscle and will, he is still young and immature, and that is what makes him dangerous. Wherever the US takes its wars, its effects will be detrimental to those countries and their future, but for Americans these constitute distant skirmishes not affecting daily life. I reiterate: this is your century Uncle, though I will always be expecting presents on Christmas and Easter, at least.

More incursions in the offing?

Pakistan is already in enough trouble politically and economically. Terrorism has added to our woes and it seems like that in the coming days, more trouble may follow. According to a report published in the New York Times (NYT), “senior American military commanders in Afghanistan are pushing for an expanded campaign of Special Operations ground raids across the border into Pakistan’s tribal areas”. It is plain that this proposal has more to do with military strategy than with politics. Pakistan has been stalling a military operation in North Waziristan for some time now. Our argument is that the military is already stretched in Swat and South Waziristan, that we fear more IDPs, and we do not have enough money to conduct a large-scale operation. This delay has not gone down well with the US military commanders based in Afghanistan. The US-led NATO forces are running out of patience with us because of the safe havens that have been provided to the Afghan Taliban on our soil, particularly in North Waziristan. The military commanders now want to hit the Taliban in their rear base areas to make life difficult for them.
The NYT reports that the “Afghan militias backed by the CIA have carried out a number of secret missions” in our tribal areas. Although NATO forces have denied these reports, Pakistan’s military establishment should understand the gravity of the situation. NATO’s denial is due to the political sensitivity involved. Pakistan is the frontline ally of the US/NATO in the war on terror and the Americans want to keep us on their side rather than push us away. On the one hand the withdrawal date of foreign troops from Afghanistan is looming large and on the other hand, the frustration of military commanders is growing. Will they be held back by political considerations is a question worth pondering. Already there is outrage in Pakistan against the increase in drone attacks, which WikiLeaks has confirmed are with the tacit approval of Pakistan’s government. The political fallout of more clandestine operations can be seriously damaging, but under the circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the Americans might opt for it if our military establishment keeps up its dual policy.
Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, has ruled out ground operations and asserted that our military is quite capable of handling the terrorists within our borders. With all due respect to Ambassador Haqqani, our military is definitely capable of doing this, but does it really want to? Our military establishment must understand the limits to which we can push this dual policy because great danger lies ahead now if we keep on with our misadventures.

Towards maturity

The near-unanimous approval of the 19th Amendment bill by the National Assembly has set a precedent of restraint, wisdom and mutual respect among various institutions of the state in Pakistan. The need for this amendment was felt when the Supreme Court (SC), while deciding on identical petitions challenging the 18th Amendment, made recommendations to parliament regarding the procedure for the appointment of judges to the superior courts. The Parliamentary Committee for Constitutional Reforms (PCCR) accepted all but two recommendations. It increased the number of judges from three to five in the judicial commission (including the Chief Justice of Pakistan), agreed to the holding of the parliamentary committee’s meetings in camera, and made it mandatory for the parliamentary committee to give reasons in writing in case it rejects a nomination made by the judicial commission. These changes have increased the serving judiciary’s power in the appointments process. The PCCR, however, did not accept the proposal that rejected nominations will be sent back to the judicial commission for reconsideration and if the commission reiterates its decision, it would become final. It did however, adopt a provision that any rejection by a three-fourths majority of the parliamentary committee would have to record its reasons in writing, to be forwarded to the judicial commission through the prime minister. Nevertheless, parliament and its committee would have the last word, a befitting reiteration of parliament’s sovereignty over and above all other institutions of state.

Another important feature of the 19th Amendment is the empowerment of the judicial commission in the appointments of ad hoc judges. An amendment to Article 182 of the constitution binds the chief justice to appoint ad hoc judges in consultation with the judicial commission. Experience shows that leverage in the hands of one person, even one as competent as the Chief Justice of Pakistan, laid these appointments open to accusations of bias or personal likes and dislikes. There is an inherent risk of bias in favour of retired judges or advocates who might be considered close to the court because of frequent interaction. The broadening of decision-making powers will make the appointment of ad hoc judges less likely to become controversial.
The SC’s verdict on the 18th Amendment petitions shows its respect for parliament. By passing the 19th Amendment, parliament has reciprocated that gesture of respect. The PCCR examined the SC verdict on merit and incorporated most of the recommendations made by the SC. This is the spirit of institutions working within the boundaries set by the constitution, which can make democracy work. A clash only becomes inevitable if institutions intrude onto one another’s turf. Despite provocations by certain sections of the media, parliament, the judiciary and the executive have all observed their boundaries. Better sense prevailed on all sides. It shows that institutions are beginning to learn to work in cooperation with each other, not at cross-purposes. This is no mean achievement.
Pakistan had to wait so long for this to happen because of frequent military coups. The democratic process has been interrupted so many times that systems could not evolve. Every time there was an intervention, the question of how to govern the country went back to the drawing board. How can the various constituents of the system work together in such an environment? The history of democratic experience stands witness to the fact that continuity strengthens a system and ensures its success. Developed countries have taken centuries to evolve their systems. Continuity, reform and wisdom are the key factors in institutionalising democracy. This was the first such instance of this happening in Pakistan. It must be welcomed. It is hoped that this tradition will be upheld in future too.

US Afghan war review

US president Barack Obama will announce his annual review of the Afghan war today (December 16, 2010). A successful legal challenge to Mr Obama’s healthcare plan and hectic congressional activity to extend the Bush-era income tax cuts had pushed this review off the US media radar, but the death of the Special Representative Richard Holbrooke has managed to put it back in the news-cycle, at least for the time being. What was expected to be a low key affair will still remain a whimper but more questions are being asked about the shape of the things to come as a larger-than-life member of Mr Obama’s Pak-Afghan team made his exit from the diplomatic and world stage.

The Washington Post has reported that Mr Holbrooke’s last words, spoken to his surgeon, were: “You have got to stop this war in Afghanistan.” Incidentally, Mr Holbrooke’s surgeon happened to be a King Edward Medical College-educated Pakistani. Of course, neither the surgeon nor the common Pakistanis have much to do with the war in Afghanistan but given the Pakistani establishment’s massive involvement in favour of the Taliban, Mr Holbrooke’s last words seem almost surreal.
Mr Holbrooke, however, was not the only one calling for ending the war in Afghanistan. On the eve of the Afghan war review, a 25-member group of experts on Afghanistan, which includes respected names like Ahmed Rashid and Professor Antonio Giustozzi, has published an open letter to Mr Obama, calling on him to authorise a formal negotiation with the Afghan Taliban and seek a political settlement. However, buried in the text of the 1,030-word long plea to talk to the Taliban is the key sentence: “With Pakistan’s active support for the Taliban, it is not realistic to bet on a military solution.”
Mr Obama is very likely to claim progress in his statement (no speech is expected) and declare that the strategy he announced a year ago at the West Point Military Academy is working. However, he has very little to show in terms of tangible progress, especially in dealing with the continuous Pakistani intervention in Afghanistan. He may reiterate what he had told the US troops on his recent visit to Afghanistan: “We said we were going to break the Taliban’s momentum. That’s what you’re doing.” The idea being that the use of military force to change the political landscape of Afghanistan will continue as planned. The only addition anticipated is a prominent mention of the year 2014 as the withdrawal date for the NATO troops and security handover to the Afghan national forces. But the start of the troops’ drawdown in July 2011 will still remain as one of the objectives, albeit more as a rest stop rather than a milestone.
However, it is erroneous to make a claim about breaking the Taliban momentum during the winter months, which is literally the ‘down time’ of the war. During the anti-Soviet war of the 1980s one could tell by the drop in price of a Kalashnikov in Peshawar that the winter lull in fighting was about to start. But then again nobody claimed Mr Obama to be an expert on Afghanistan.
In fact Mr Holbrooke, along with his boss Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, had vociferously criticised the president when the latter was putting together his Afghan strategy, commenting: “It cannot work.” However, all of them and General David Petraeus did sign on to Mr Obama’s flawed plan. At the time I had noted in an article ‘The Alsatia of FATA’ written for the Aryana Institute that “the American and NATO planners need a paradigm shift in their approach to handling the mess in FATA. Without setting up metrics for specifically measuring the Pakistan Army’s efforts in dismantling its jihadist assets, the US will be setting itself up for failure.”
The White House is saying that Mr Obama will talk about the al Qaeda’s senior leadership, Afghanistan and Pakistan and, more specifically, about increasing cooperation with the Pakistani government. How Mr Obama fleshes up this last agenda item is what would determine the future shape of things in Afghanistan — and Pakistan. I agree with Ahmed Rashid and Professor Giustozzi et al that with Pakistan’s active support for the Taliban, a military solution is not possible. However, I maintain that without the US confronting the Pakistani establishment on its continued support for the Taliban, a political solution to the Afghan imbroglio will remain elusive as well. Mr Holbrooke had told Bob Woodward that he saw a 1 in 10 chance of a good outcome in Afghanistan. I would say that it is a safe bet to make it a 1 in 1,000 chance.
The word victory has never featured in Mr Obama’s speeches in the Afghan context and is unlikely to pop up now. We will hear a lot from him about the build-hold-clear-stabilise-handover process and the long term US ‘commitment’, but there will be hardly any reference to nation-building or even sustained counterinsurgency. At the risk of eating crow tomorrow, I submit that there would not be any reference, even in fine print, to setting up any benchmarks for measuring the Pakistani establishment’s cooperation in helping evolve a political solution to the Afghan morass.
With Mr Holbrooke’s demise, General Petraeus will be lugging many aspects of coordination with the civilians in both Afghanistan and Pakistan in the short term. He, along with Robert Gates, has a much more realistic view of the ground realities than their commander-in-chief. In fact, the Lisbon agreement on the 2014 withdrawal timetable was very much a result of their efforts. They are also cognisant of the fact that while al Qaeda has been neutralised in Afghanistan for now, even a semblance of a jihadist victory will effectively revive the Islamists’ fortunes not only there but in Pakistan as well. In fact a US debacle in Afghanistan will give the turban, jeans or khaki-clad Pakistani jihadists a morale boost that will dwarf the post-Soviet withdrawal euphoria.
Like the 25 experts on Afghanistan, Mr Obama’s Afghan war review is likely to miss the potential logarithmic growth of jihadism in Pakistan that a negotiated settlement with the Taliban will entail. This will leave Pakistan’s moderate voices and the centre-left political forces out in the cold. While Petraeus et al will provide a cushion of time to the Pakistani political forces, counting on the US would be a mistake that the latter will regret at their peril. What they need is a Pak-Afghan policy review of their own.

Women, but not weak

International Women’s Day has been celebrated annually on March 8 ever since the early 1900s when 15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights. Presently, it is an official holiday in most countries of the world. Initially, this day was a reminder of all the negative aspects of women’s status in society, however, with great improvements having been made in the past century, it is now more of a celebration of women’s achievements.

Pakistani women have struggled hard for their rights and have been able to achieve larger presence in the public sphere, as exemplified by reservation of women’s seats in parliament and women’s quota in public service. In urban areas, girls have outshined boys in education in almost every field and are giving them tough competition in job market. Pakistan has seen women in key positions such as prime minister, governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, Speaker of National Assembly and president of Supreme Court Bar Association, which is the envy of women of the entire Muslim world. However, women of Pakistan still have a long way to go and also deal with emerging challenges.
While women of urban and semi-urban areas have progressed somewhat, their counterparts in rural areas are lagging far behind. Despite improvement in Pakistan’s literacy rate, the educational status of Pakistani women is among the lowest in the world. There are very few women who have control over their properties and other financial resources. In addition, they have to fight off different forms of violence, such as female infanticide, childhood and forced marriages, rape, honour killings, domestic violence and risk of being sold off to settle disputes of family men. These are the result of patriarchal attitudes and a particular brand of Islam in our society that can be traced back to the Zia era when he tried to push back women in the name of Islamisation. Legislations enacted during that period, such as Hudood Ordinances, Law of Evidence, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, and later legitimised by elected governments made Pakistani women more vulnerable to violence. Later, the democratic regimes of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif failed to address gender inequalities due to the gap between policy making, legislation and implementation. Zia’s legacy has been given a new lease of life by the ongoing terrorist activities targeting women’s education. But Pakistan women must unite and raise high the banner of their rights and defeat these elements with steely determination.

Reconciliation policy and some hard truths

When the Charter of Democracy (CoD) was signed between Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Benazir Bhutto and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif back in 2006, both parties decided to adopt a policy of reconciliation. The PPP and the PML-N played a game of musical chairs from 1988-99. We witnessed four governments during these 11 years — two terms for the PPP and two for the PML-N. Both parties were not able to complete their five-year term even once. In the end, the military got rid of Mr Nawaz Sharif’s last government by toppling it. That was the end of a democratic era in Pakistan for nine long years. When the PPP formed a coalition government after the 2008 elections, it adopted a policy of reconciliation in the same vein as had been envisioned by the party’s late leader, Ms Bhutto. Prime Minister Gilani was unanimously voted to lead the government. The PML-N initially joined the federal government apart from forming a coalition government in Punjab with the PPP. Both coalitions came to an end; the PML-N left the coalition at the Centre quite early but ousted the PPP from the Punjab government only recently. Mr Sharif has now vowed that his party will not play the role of a ‘friendly opposition’ anymore and will take a hard stance on the government’s failures.

It is in this backdrop that Prime Minister Gilani has once again expressed his government’s desire to ask all parties to join hands together in order to discuss and find a solution to the security and economic crisis our country is facing. As far as the economic issue is concerned, there is no denying that this government is not the root cause for our situation. General (retd) Musharraf and his so-called economic ‘wizard’, Shaukat Aziz, are far more responsible for our economic mess than anyone else. The economic mismanagement in the previous regime broke all barriers. On top of it, the global financial crunch created further problems for the PPP-led government. But the incumbents should not blame everything on the previous regime and the economic meltdown worldwide for our economic woes. This government too has not been able to manage our economy as well as it could have under the circumstances. Allegations of corruption against the government are at an all-time high. International donors are not willing to bail us out because of these allegations. The IMF’s programme has now basically come to a standstill after the RGST fiasco. Even though the RGST is a step in the right direction as it will lead to documentation of the economy, the PPP did not do enough spadework on it and were not able to persuade other political parties about it either. Before presenting it to parliament again, the PPP must bring all parties on board and make them understand how imperative the IMF programme is for Pakistan’s financial survival.
As far as the issue of terrorism and security situation is concerned, there has been a contradiction in the PPP’s posture. On the one hand, the PPP was able to form a consensus in the war against terrorism and the military campaigns in Swat and FATA. On the other hand, it was not able to come up with a successful counter-terrorism plan. Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer and federal minister Shahbaz Bhatti are only the latest examples of the government’s failure in curbing terrorism. The PPP’s appeasement of the religious right further weakened it and strengthened the terrorist networks. The government needs to do more in terms of intelligence and police work so as to fight terrorism. Infiltration of terrorist networks is imperative for this to be successful. Past policies concerning Afghanistan and Indian-Held Kashmir (IHK), which have apparently led to a rise of a domestic terrorist movement, need to be revisited and recast to deal with this looming menace.