Silencing Dissent By Zahid Hussain: New Age Islam's Selection, 13 December 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
13 December 2017
• Silencing Dissent
By Zahid Hussain
• A Chronicle of Surrender and Appeasement
By Abdul Basit
• Between Policy and Practice
By Salman Ahmad
• Trumpian Clarity
By Mahir Ali
• Is Trump’s Jerusalem Move Legal?
By Imran Jan
• Remembering Peshawar School Attack
By Sajjad Shaukat
• Strategic Competition in Afghanistan
By Yasir Malik
• Jim Mattis: Not As ‘Mad Dog’
By Iqbal Khan
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Silencing Dissent
By Zahid Hussain
December 13, 2017
RAZA Khan, a young civil society activist, is the latest addition to a long list of those subjected to enforced disappearances. He has been missing from his home in Lahore for several weeks. His family and friends believe he has been detained by the security agencies. His crime is that he has a thinking mind and idealises regional peace and coexistence, something that is unacceptable to the self-appointed guardians of our ideological frontiers.
Also read: 'We will not be silenced' — Pakistani activists more resolved following Raza's disappearance
In this atmosphere of fear, few dare to raise their voice against the witch-hunt. There is a criminal silence from our legislators over illegal detentions that are no more restricted to the conflict zones. Many more people are now being picked up from cities for reasons never disclosed. Some of them may have returned home after suffering torture, but many others have not been so lucky. No one knows what crime they have committed or are even accused of.
Raza is among the scores of victims of the latest wave of what is widely seen as state-sponsored disappearances. It has been reported that he is the seventh civil society activist to go missing from his home this year. In January, six bloggers and civil rights activists were picked up from their homes in Islamabad and cities of Punjab.
Apart from one, who remains missing, they returned to their homes within two months after protests from rights groups and pressure from the international community. They were reportedly tortured in detention. Moreover, a systematic campaign was launched on electronic media accusing them of blasphemy, thus putting their lives at risk.
The indiscriminate use of coercive power by the state to silence dissent undermines national solidarity.
Last year, security agencies allegedly abducted from Karachi Abdul Wahid Baloch, a progressive man of letters who also worked as a telephone operator. He returned home after four months and was so shaken that like the others he would not speak about his ordeal. Obviously, no action would be taken against those responsible for his unlawful detention.
Another high-profile case of suspected enforced disappearance is that of Zeenat Shahzadi, a young journalist who was abducted by armed men in Lahore in August 2015. She had been investigating the disappearance of Hamid Ansari, an Indian national. While there were recent reports that she had returned, nothing has been heard of her since. Her younger brother was so traumatised by her disappearance that he committed suicide.
Raza in his late 30s had reportedly formed a group called Aaghaz-i-Dosti, a platform to further the cause of peace between India and Pakistan. The group collected paintings and letters made and written by schoolchildren focusing on the themes of peace and coexistence. The paintings were published in calendar form. He was also active with a group working for environmental protection. One wonders how any of his activities could have threatened national security.
Raza may come back as happened in the case of most of the bloggers. But the real question is whether we have any rule of law in this country. No legal recourse seems to be in sight for the families of missing persons — a euphemism for those allegedly abducted by the security agencies. A recently published Amnesty International report rightly described the rising number of enforced disappearances as a “blight on Pakistan’s human rights record”.
According to the report, hundreds and possibly thousands of cases have been reported across the country over the past several years. “Victims of enforced disappearances are at considerable risk of torture and other ill treatment and even death. To date, not a single perpetrator of the crime has been brought to justice,” the report said.
What is most alarming is that the number of missing persons has marked a massive rise this year under democratic rule. The Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances set up by the government received nearly 300 complaints of alleged enforced disappearances from August to October 2017, by far the largest number in a three-month period in recent years.
Although most of these victims belong to Balochistan, there have also been reports of a large number of political and rights activists having been allegedly picked up by the security agencies in Sindh. Some were released after sometime, but the fate of the others is uncertain. It is a pity that the national media reports only a few of these incidents.
It is despicable when a state meekly surrenders to a group of blackmailers resorting to violence in the name of religion but uses strong-arm tactics against people who dare to speak their mind without breaking any law. A narrow and twisted interpretation of national security comes in handy to silence them.
There have been some recent reports of a crackdown on Facebook pages supporting diversity of association, thought and expression in the country. Many of these pages have been shut down and their moderators face threats. Such illegitimate actions are often justified in the name of national interest undermining democratic and basic human rights enshrined in the Constitution.
It would have been more prudent to allow the law to take its course if someone is engaged in any wrongdoing. Justice must not be denied on any pretext of national security. In fact, the indiscriminate use of coercive power by the state to silence dissent undermines national solidarity and integrity.
We have seen how such a repressive approach has caused alienation in Balochistan, creating favourable conditions for the insurgents and for foreign intelligence agencies to meddle. The recent wave of enforced disappearances is particularly alarming as the military authorities claim to have contained the insurgency.
Now this wide-scale crackdown on rights activists demonstrates the continuing impunity of the security agencies despite protests inside and outside the country. The enforced disappearance of Raza and so many others before him highlights how dangerous the country is becoming for rights activists and for those who dare to raise their voice against excesses perpetrated by the state. It is despicable that this cruel practice is being used against the people who are fighting the forces of obscurantism to make this country more liveable.
It is shameful for a country that is a signatory to the UN Charter of Human Rights that it should have thousands of cases of enforced disappearance unresolved.
Source: dawn.com/news/1376190/silencing-dissent1
-----
A Chronicle of Surrender and Appeasement
By Abdul Basit
December 13, 2017
The agreement signed with Khadim Hussain Rizvi to end the Faizabad sit-in marks a new low in Pakistan’s history of appeasing the religious right groups. Both state and society have paid an astronomical price in blood and treasure for this appeasement. Yet, this reckless practice continues.
Four broad arguments provide insights into decision-making of this nature. First, weak and unpopular governments appease religious groups for political survival. When governments struggle to maintain political legitimacy, provide security and deliver economically, religious and ethnic groups become the alternative suppliers of social services and political action. These alternative actors are good at producing club-goods – both spiritual and material. Moreover, they provide a strong sense of cohesion and identity to their followers so much so that group-loyalty surpasses state-loyalty. Followers from these groups form their own communal and sectarian boundaries, fragmenting society along religious lines.
After losing its chief Nawaz Sharif in the Panama case inquiry, the PML-N government has been at its weakest. The Sharifs are facing graft probes by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Pakistan’s chief anti-corruption body. Regionally, the US is breathing down Islamabad’s neck to do more to facilitate reconciliation in Afghanistan. Domestically, the judiciary has been pressurising the government over multiple issues, while political opposition inside and outside parliament is increasing.
Second, governments pander to religious groups if they have a vested interest. From the start, the PML-N viewed the Tehreek-e-Labaik Ya Rasul Allah’s sit-in as a conspiracy against the party to deprive it of its Barelvi vote-bank ahead of the 2018 elections. To keep its Barelvi vote-bank intact, the PML-N government did not take any action against the protesters for 21 days, allowing them to fortify their position at Faizabad, gather stones and sticks, create their check posts and swell their numbers by the thousands. Court orders to clear the Islamabad Highway finally compelled the government to respond.
Third, weak governments co-opt religious groups to shore up their political and ideological legitimacy. Pakistan never had a stable political order. As a result, democracy as a system of governance could not take roots in the country, leaving successive civilian regimes vulnerable to popular dissent. Due to the faith in religious groups in Pakistan, their co-option has been a source of ideological legitimacy for civilian governments.
Four, confessional nation-states whose national philosophy is constructed along religious lines find it difficult to reform laws and policies that involve religion. They face fierce opposition by religious-political groups inside and outside parliament to this end. Proposed amendments to such laws and policies are viewed as a disservice to Islam. Pressure groups employ the ‘Islam in danger’ narrative to push back against the government and deter legal reforms concerning religious issues.
Notwithstanding the theological merits and demerits, the Faizabad sit-in and the government’s response are disturbing on several levels. First, TLY supremo Rizvi has been successful in bringing the TLY from the margins to the centre-stage, turning a new chapter in Pakistan’s Islamisation. He has politicised the Barelvi identity along narrow sub-sectarian lines using the Khatam-e-Nabuwat (Finality of Prophethood) narrative. The TLY is a by-product of political turbulence and rapid social transformations in Pakistan
During the Faizabad sit-in, the TLY speeches, statements and social media campaigns have sharply criticised the Ahmadiyya community and the rival Sunni sub-sect, the Deobandis. So, the TLY is not only creating a contradistinction for its Barelvi brand of Islamism but it is also outbidding its rival Deobandis.
Barelvis constitute the largest portion of Sunni Muslims in Pakistan. Historically, the Barelvi faith, which identified with Sufism, has been accommodative, tolerant and not particularly authoritarian about its religiosity. This has allowed them to maintain good relations with other Islamic sects and faiths. Arguably, these dynamics can change when the majority faith feels insecure due to some self-imagined and perceived threat. This can result in self-destruction, intellectual stagnation, religious and new divisions. The Rizvi-Jalai split within the TLY is a case in point.
The most disturbing trend emanating from the Faizabad sit-in is the weaponisation of speech and fatwa. The intolerance in discussions involving religious matters, particularly differences of opinion, has become border line in public and social media discourses. In such a hostile environment, it is difficult to hold rational debates on religious matters because discussions turn into polemics devoid of substance and nuance. Differing opinions and disagreement with the majority’s beliefs can result in the dissenter being branded as an apostate or non-believer.
Finally, religious politics in Pakistan has moved away from pan-Islamism to narrow sectarianism with the entry of new religious-political groups. When new religious groups enter into activism, they interact with public and political life in several ways. Some of them become socially and politically controversial while others attain some level of recognition. At times, they push the boundaries of the system and refuse to conform to laws that they believe infringe their liberty.
The newly established political groupings such as the Rah-e-Haq party (a political front of the Ahle-Sunnat Wal-Jamat, a sectarian group), Majlis-e-Wahdat-ul-Muslimeen (MWM) and the TLY are shrinking the support base of Pakistan’s mainstream religious-political parties. These outfits are gaining traction among their followers. This may not be fully reflected in the upcoming elections but their social and religious clout cannot be underestimated. Their influence creates and recreates sectarian identities and political agendas with the changing circumstances.
The appeasement of the religious right has had catastrophic effects on Pakistan’s social ethos and religious landscape. It has emboldened radical groups to expand their space in society. Without improving governance credentials, service delivery and democratic institutionalisation, the Pakistani state will remain hostage to such extra-parliamentary pressures.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/255308-a-chronicle-of-surrender-and-appeasement
-----
Between Policy and Practice
By Salman Ahmad
December 13, 2017
In his article, titled ‘Clearing bureaucratic hurdles’ published in these pages on November 5, 2017, Dr Mukhtar Ahmed states that “[f]or Pakistan, education is the only gateway to the country’s prosperity and success and serves as a fundamental tool in bringing us at par with the highly competitive comity of nations”. This goes to the very heart of the existence of educational institutions.
Educational institutions, especially higher educational institutions (HEIs) are the primary transformational drivers for any country in terms of its economic, social and technological wellbeing. They contribute to the development of human capital and innovation capabilities, which ultimately contribute towards economic growth and international competitiveness.
But has our state created an enabling environment for our HEIs so that these institutions can shape and strengthen our economic and social domains? It is crucial to analyse the limitations of the institutional and regulatory elements that produce an enabling environment for our HEIs. Dr Mukhtar has rightfully lauded the HEC for its policies and interventions through which a number of HEIs have gained acclaim from their PhD-qualified faculty and research publications.
However, what is the real impact of these growth indicators on our economics and society? Why is it that our higher education institutions have considerably low international rankings and lag behind universities in China and India? Why are we not receiving any tangible gains from our academic scholars and their research on governance, professional practices and social policymaking?
Earlier this year, a team from a Pakistan-based HEI visited a leading UK university on a capacity-building trip. One of the team members was surprised that the university they were visiting conducted high-level research on sports and the Olympics so that the country’s teams can win international competitions. This exemplifies the level of conviction and confidence that these countries have on the research and knowledge that their HEIs produce.
Unfortunately, our HEIs have not done the same. It appears that the HEC and various HEIs have been quick to adopt the ‘publish or perish’ policy that is prevalent in Western countries and are operationalising it through the currently-practiced ranking and tenure track systems. However, they have completely overlooked the fact that academic research should have actual policymaking and practical implications. This reflects a major policy vacuum faced by our higher education sector. If it isn’t remedied, our HEIs will be unable to function as gateways to national prosperity and success.
In order to develop a knowledge economy and progress on its basis, the state ought to engage its HEI faculty as a contingent human capital resource in its policymaking and implementation functions. This must primarily be enabled through the state’s will. An appropriate set of objective-oriented operational mechanisms must also be implemented. The HEC should set up an office or a help-desk that could facilitate the collective working of the state and our HEIs. Steps have already been taken to identify and prioritise national challenges and academic needs within the Vision 2025. But these are merely demand-side measures and similar credentials should be registered on the supply side. These include assessing the research and knowledge strengths of national strategic importance that our HEIs already possess and formulating various policies to capitalise on them.
Parallel to the HEC’s involvement for mediating research-based linkages and the collaborations between the state and HEIs, there is an imminent need for public organisations that can fund academic research to shape public policies and make the public sector, businesses and other organisations more effective. Such organisations can be formed at both the federal and provincial levels and receive funds from government departments as well as from other sponsors.
Research awards from these organisations should be made through an open competition and must be subject to transparent processes of peer assessment and evaluation. Rigorous standards should be applied for all projects that these awards support. However, the awards should be prioritised by the national needs and the available research competencies.
With regard to the performance of HEIs at the social level, it is vital to address the challenge of a rising trend of radicalisation in campuses. In this respect, we can borrow ideas from societies that we consider to be civilised, advanced and moderate. In Australia and Britain, the school curriculum includes teaching national values to pupils. According to the headmaster of an English preparatory school, “we cannot put everyone in a single moral universe but we can teach them about cause and consequence, the value of charity and community and having values that are not able to be measured in material terms alone…we should be offering the children in our schools an education in morals and values for that would underpin their lives like nothing else”.
Developing curricular and co-curricular modules on the national values of Pakistan could act as suitable counter-narratives and deflect the emerging risk of our education-seeking youth being drifted (socially and nationally) astray. Extremism and violence are distant anti-social acts. Why should an educated Pakistani youth even drive on the wrong side of a road, violate traffic signals and queues or, for that matter, breach social and professional commitments? While the poor performance of law-enforcement agencies could arguably be a reason for the lack of a ‘trusting society’, it is our HEIs that have – whether negligently or deliberately – failed to weigh and teach moral values, civic sense and social sensitivity to our students.
Citizenship or national values have lost their strategic importance for our HEIs as they are not embraced by their visions or included within their mission statements. While these strategic policy statements emphasise on producing quality business leaders or health practitioners or engineers, they fail to improve the ‘quality’ of their graduates as human beings. Perhaps this is a major reason why those who belong to even the noblest of professions are indifferent towards malpractices. As a result, HEIs should initiate modules on national values and citizenship in our curricula and the schools (including seminaries) must follow suit.
For a social scientist, his/her intention to practice is determined by the fact that his/her knowledge and research should be measured less from academic journals and more from how his/her findings impact our lives. The primary motivation for an academic is to contribute to improving policy and practice.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/255309-between-policy-and-practice
-----
Trumpian Clarity
By Mahir Ali
December 13, 2017
PERHAPS it was no coincidence, as some commentators claim, that Donald Trump’s announcement about formally recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital preceded yesterday’s Senatorial contest in Alabama by less than a week.
After all, the chances of accused child molester Roy Moore winning the seat substantially depended on bringing out the evangelical vote. And American Christian fundamentalists generally tend to back the Zionist project on the grounds that Israel’s strength (and breadth) is directly proportionate to the probability of Armageddon and the End Times.
It may seem contradictory that Israel, even under its Likudite dispensation, welcomes such support, given that the subtext implies its imminent destruction. But it could simply be a case of acknowledging biblical prophecies only to the extent that there can be political purpose behind claiming divine right over someone else’s land.
Amid an orgy of predictable protests across the Middle East in the wake of the White House declaration, Benjamin Netanyahu invited himself to Brussels this week, brandishing his Trump card and seemingly expecting the European Union to follow the example set by the US, which purportedly intends to move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem within a couple of years.
It’s unfair to damn Trump for killing the two-state solution.
The EU was never likely to take the bait, as Netanyahu must have known — or at least realised after his encounter with Emmanuel Macron in Paris. After all, none of the 14 other members of the UN Security Council backed the US stance last Friday, prompting US ambassador Nikki Haley to bash the UN yet again for its ‘bias’ against Israel — just because it routinely violates UN resolutions and universal standards of decency. It’s worth noting that when Trump was still only president-elect a year ago, his aides Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn sought to importune other nations, notably Russia, to forestall a UN wrist-slap for Israel that the Obama administration refused to veto. Fortunately, the ploy failed.
In a somewhat different context, it was a hopeful sign that Haley did not resort to complaints of bias against her president when confronted with questions relating to accusations of sexual transgressions by Trump, instead upholding the right of his accusers to be heard — even though the White House has labelled the women concerned as liars.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, has been busy perpetrating the obvious lie that Jerusalem — a city holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike — has been “the capital of the Jewish people” for 3,000 years. Without a break.
Identifying the Israeli state and Zionist aims with “the Jewish people” inevitably appeals to anti-Semites, and has always done so in Europe, where the most ardent Israel supporters are to be found among governments to the east of the continent, all too often coinciding with anti-Semitic notions, although they tend to be overshadowed by Islamophobia.
It is unfair, all the same, to damn Trump for killing the two-state solution, or compromising Washington’s role as an honest broker in the moribund peace process. Anyone who considered the US an honest broker was delusional. And the possibility of a fair divide has been dead for years. As Israeli historian Ilan Pappe puts it, the two-state solution is a corpse that is produced every now and then, before being returned to its coffin. It died of neglect after the Oslo accords more than 20 years ago failed to prevent Israeli settler-colonialists from continuing to encroach on Palestinian territory. (Pappe’s most recent book, Ten Myths About Israel, is highly recommended as an antidote to the most common Zionist fallacies.)
Perhaps Trump has presided over its funeral. As the perennial Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat recently claimed, the only feasible alternative that remains is a one-state solution. Historical Palestine can be one country again, provided the hitherto marginalised Palestinians are accepted as citizens with equal rights, and the victims of ethnic cleansing during the past 70 years are offered the right of return.
No, that’s not a likely scenario in the short term. But are there any feasible alternatives? Two states formed along the lines of the 1967 borders are no longer a possibility. Nor, one would like to think, is the likelihood of Netanyahu and his perverse allies succeeding in driving out all Arabs from their ancestral lands and annexing the West Bank as part of an exclusively Jewish state.
Tongue in cheek, the Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy suggests that when this outcome is achieved, Trump should be offered honorary citizenship. But it could be a long time coming, and US president is already in his 70s.
One can be reasonably sure, though, that he’ll live long enough to see whether his favoured candidate in Alabama, Roy Moore, makes it to the Senate. Domestically at least, his fate could delineate the shape of things to come.
Source: dawn.com/news/1376187/trumpian-clarity
----
Is Trump’s Jerusalem Move Legal?
By Imran Jan
December 13, 2017
Donald Trump has deconstructed the belief that campaign talk and post-campaign actions are two different things. Candidates running for president promise doing things undone by presidents before them. Once in the Oval Office, sobriety takes over the campaign hangover. Not with Trump. He just announced moving the US embassy to Jerusalem in a slurred speech, instead of the racial slurs Trump is fond of. However, he never uttered the word Palestine, instead called them Palestinians.
The overwhelming and rightful critique of this move is regarding counter-productivity. Bin Laden as a teenager was deeply saddened by Palestinians’ plight. The brutal Israeli military occupation creates enormous anger not just in Palestine but in much of the Muslim world. Trump has kissed the strategy of keeping-the-water-from-boiling goodbye and embraced let’s-boil-the-heck-of-it. He will succeed.
Israel never wanted a one-state democracy because of the demographics problem. Arabs would outnumber Jews. The two-state solution has East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, endorsed by almost the entire world, with the exception of the United States and Israel. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner as co-director of Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation has donated to the construction of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied-Palestinian land. Kushner family’s friendship with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is old. The teenager high-school basketball player, Kushner, slept in the basement leaving his room for Netanyahu who was on a visit to New Jersey.
That said, very less, if any attention has been given to the legality of Trump moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Most of the arguments dealing with the legality are about the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. For imperial states, domestic laws trump international laws, which they say violate their sovereignty. Last time I checked, that was the definition of a rogue state, a label reserved for Iran and North Korea. More importantly, from the outset, there is an effort to deny applying the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention to occupied territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians in two situations: armed conflict and military occupation.
Article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention states, “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” In a resolution of September 1969, United Nations Security Council called upon “Israel scrupulously to observe the provisions of the Geneva Convention and international law governing military occupation.” In December 1992, the Security Council “reaffirm[ed] the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.”
The General Assembly from 1970 to 1998 in many resolutions has declared that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and that the occupation of East Jerusalem violated the convention. In a 1970 resolution, the General Assembly called on Israel “to comply” and in a 1971 resolution called on Israel “to comply fully.” The usual two dissenting member states: Israel and the United States (veto state).
Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross, London-based Amnesty International, New York-based Human Rights Watch, Israel-based B’Tselem, the International Court of Justice (judicial arm of the UN) have all contributed to the international consensus on the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories. Naturally, Israel disagrees, arguing that East Jerusalem is not an occupied territory but a disputed territory. There are scholars who support Israeli actions in manners very unbecoming of scholars.
Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard professor, justifies Israeli actions vehemently. Dershowitz is a stronger advocate of Israeli actions than the Israelis themselves. Despite the fact that he is known as a leading scholar on the subject and frequently appears on CNN and other mainstream channels for commentary, he has carefully ignored to mention Geneva Convention in his written work. From 2002 to 2008, Dershowitz has published five books about the Israel-Palestine conflict. A Google Book search reveals one reference to ‘the Geneva Convention’ in an endnote of chapter five of the book Why Terrorism Works. No mention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is specific to this issue.
Dershowitz laments that the international humanitarian law is unfair towards the US and Israel. He notes that, “traditional wars were fought by combatants in uniform, representing nations with return addresses and accountability.” That the terrorist hide among civilians, target the civilians, supported and financed by the civilians, they are the civilians. When captured, they claim prisoner of war rights, when the US and Israel go after them in civilian areas, the terrorists complain that they are violating the Geneva Accords by killing civilians. Dershowitz concludes that the terrorists exploit the ‘Geneva Accords’ to their benefit. Howard Friel points out in his impeccable book Chomsky And Dershowitz that there is no such thing as ‘Geneva Accords’, no instrument of humanitarian law exists by that designation. Dershowitz remembers to mention the international humanitarian law being inherently unfair to the US and Israel, but fails to mention its foundation, the Fourth Geneva Convention, let alone its applicability.
It may be legal inside the US but not outside. Just to mention one legal reference, Principle II of the Nuremberg principles says, “The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.”
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1582426/6-trumps-jerusalem-move-legal/
-----
Remembering Peshawar School Attack
By Sajjad Shaukat
December 13, 2017
IN one of the bloodiest-ever terror attacks in Pakistan, six Taliban militants mercilessly killed at least 141 people, including 132 children and nine staff members of the Army Public School and College in Peshawar, on December 16, 2014. They also burnt a lady teacher alive. After eight hours operation, Pak Army’s commandos cleared the school area, and six militants were killed. On the same day, Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) claimed responsibility for the ghastly act at the Peshawar school. The tragic loss of the lives of innocent children moved the entire world deeply. Every Pakistani said that shame on these terrorists who considered innocent children as their enemies, and martyred them through brutal tactics.
The then Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and former Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Raheel Sharif including leaders of various political and religious parties strongly condemned the heinous attack at the Peshawar school. PTI Chief Imran Khan called off the December 18 (2014) countrywide shutdown, and also decided to cooperate with the government against terrorism. However, after that inhuman gruesome tragedy, question arose as to what measures required to eliminate terrorism from the country.
In this context, the former Army Chief Gen. Raheel accompanied by DG ISI rushed to Kabul on December 17, 2014. Resources suggested that during his meeting with his Afghan counterpart, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and the ISAF commander, he presented evidence of the Peshawar massacre’s linkage with TTP sanctuaries in Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nuristan. He also asked the extradition of the TTP chief of Mullah Fazlluah, and handing over to Pakistan.
In fact, Afghanistan has become a hub of anti-Pakistan activities from where external secret agencies, especially Indian RAW are sending logistic support to Baloch separatist elements and TTP insurgents in Pakistan. In the recent years, especially TTP’s militants and its affiliated banned groups conducted many terror-activities in various regions of the country as part of the scheme to create chaotic situation in the country. Hence, RAW also used TTP terrorists in relation to the attack at the Peshawar School.
There arose the need of immediate execution of outstanding cases of death penalty to terrorists. In this respect, ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif revoked the ban on capital punishment in terrorism cases. The nation also expected that politicians should show no politics on the blood of innocent children. For the purpose, leaders of all the top political parties including PTI Chief Imran Khan attended a meeting of the parliamentary parties convened by Prime Minister Sharif after the deadly attack at a school in Peshawar. However, all the leaders unanimously decided to form a parliamentary committee to chalk out a “Plan of Action” in seven days which would be approved by the political and military leadership.
In this connection, on January 2, 2015, besides the chiefs of almost all the political parties and military top officials agreed on a draft of legislative measures which paved the way for establishment of special military trial courts. It was unanimously agreed that the 20 points National Action Plan (NAP) enunciated in the All Parties Conference (APC) Resolution of December 24, 2014 was being acted upon—the bill as 22nd (Constitutional) Amendment was enforced soon after its approval from the parliament. Special military courts were established and the ruthless terrorists facing death penalty had been hanging. In this regard, the role of the Armed Forces is appreciating in uprooting the terrorists from their so-called safe havens. But, inability and evident reluctance on the part of political leadership remains a major contributing factor affecting the implementation of NAP in its true spirit. It may be informed that in January 2015, apex committees were formed to expedite the implementation of the National Action Plan. 15 committees and sub-committees were set up; however, no plausible developments were witnessed. Ironically, the inability on the part of government was covered with mere verbal statements in relation to NAP implementation.
Unfortunately, a full-scaled activation of National Counter-Terrorism Authority (NACTA) remains in limbo even after eight years of its creation. Lack of allocation of appropriate resources for NACTA, non framing of service rules for the authority etc. made NACTA a real midsummer night dream. Debate may be generated over all twenty points of NAP to highlight the progress and performance of the government with respect to its implementation. It may be highlighted that some federal ministries are taking steps in the right direction, but the pace is quite slow. Interior ministry’s prepared rules and regulations for International Non-governmental Organizations (INGOs), local NGOs, policy draft over arms licenses, Madrasa reforms etc. remained non-implemented. Ironically, after TTP, a newer and more formidable menace in shape of IS is raising its head in the region. Recent terror attacks by these outfits in various regions of Pakistan, especially in the Balochistan province might be cited as example. In this connection, the nation must press the political leadership to realize the task and fully implement the NAP. To supplement the gains of the military operations Zarb-i-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad, there is a need to declare 2018 as the year of the complete implementation of NAP. Government should be encouraged to end its nap on NAP. The focus should be on NAP and its implementation. Nonetheless, tragic memory of the Peshawar School Attack will remain fresh in the minds of people, as mass murder of children is a manifestation of the most barbaric face of the Taliban insurgency led by TTP.
Source: pakobserver.net/remembering-peshawar-school-attack/
-----
Strategic Competition in Afghanistan
By Yasir Malik
December 13, 2017
AMONG variety of chronic regional issues, Afghanistan conundrum dominates the agenda. The developments in the past few weeks have re-set the regional strategic balance. For Islamabad, the situation is quite disappointing despite series of attempts to normalise the stagnant relations with Kabul. Pakistan’s leverage as a determining factor in the protracted morass of Afghanistan is constantly declining. The intransigent behaviour on both sides of the border and subsequently heated exchanges in the bilateral rhetoric has been leading the prospects of easing tensions away from any hope.
Conversely, taking advantage of the hostile environment between Kabul and Islamabad, India continues to foster its ties with Afghanistan. New Delhi maintains strong presence in Kabul’s political circles sharing its huge investment in infrastructure development of the war-torn country and successfully engaging Kabul in Chabahar, which it deems as a strategic competitor to Gwadar. Surprisingly, the degree of bilateral cooperation between India and Afghanistan has reached to an unprecedented level. Over the years, India shrewdly adjusted its presence in Afghanistan exploiting Pakistan’s role in the prolonged Afghan quagmire. New Delhi swiftly keeps on operationalising Chabahar and also started to conduct commercial activities with Afghanistan via Iran’s Chabahar port. Pakistan had long restricted transit access to India across its territorial neighbours but in recent times, India is materializing her decades-old dream of approaching Pakistan’s neighbours.
The Indian-sponsored port of Chabahar was aimed to fulfil this aspiration. The trilateral transit agreement signed by India, Iran and Afghanistan in the previous year had manifold objectives for India. Firstly, it fulfils India’s desire to further boost up economic ties with Afghanistan and to encircle Pakistan’s influence by consolidating its footings. Ending Kabul’s dependence on Pakistan to access maritime route via Indian Ocean, India also opened up the possibilities to access Central Asian markets. Chabahar also helps India to engage Iran to revive its connection with the global community and compensate its economic woes. Likewise, India also seeks a geo-political advantage in the region against China and Pakistan operationalising the Chabahar port. While Pakistan, contrarily, could not even manage to sustain the already meagre trade relationship with Afghanistan. With seldom skirmishes at the Durand line, the channels of engagement with Afghanistan often disrupts that costs millions in vain.
In the whirlpool of intense relations with India, uncertainty with Iran, Islamabad’s ties with Washington has also turned conditional over its Afghan strategy. Washington is persistently warning Islamabad to alter its Afghan policy and comply with the US demands. However, Pakistan contends that the US strategy is bound to be failed as it has been in the past 16 years. Pakistan also asserts that a broad-based politically negotiable settlement mainstreaming all factions is the only viable option to establish peace and stability in the war-ravaged country. In a chain of bilateral exchanges with Pakistan, the US administration remained at cross roads with Pakistan and showed no leniency in pressurizing Pakistan to act against Haqqani group, a secondary militant faction functioning under the umbrella of the Taliban.
Meanwhile, Islamabad concerns about India’s increasing role in Afghanistan and its backing of insurgent groups to launch terrorist activities inside Pakistan remained unaddressed. Pakistan rejects India’s enhanced security role in Afghanistan, assigned by the US which is only meant to aggravate the violence inside Afghanistan and Pakistan’s bordering areas. Washington’s stress for an Indo-US nexus to determine the future of Afghanistan outweighing all other options evidently remains a major impediment in peace endeavors and contributes to exacerbate the already fragile security environment of Afghanistan. It might be comprehended that the status quo in Afghanistan serves the interests of both India and the US as they are not interested in peace building in Afghanistan at the expense of their interests. Therefore, whenever the peace options are opened up to bring any fruitful outcomes, violence in Afghanistan spurs up with the backing and consent of some internal stakes.
In the very recent scenario, former Afghan President Hamid Karzai unveiled America’s support to IS-K in Afghanistan, an offshoot of ISIS, but it spurred no heat. Ironically, the Kabul government is completely paralyzed even unable to enforce its own will and dictated solely by the US. Therefore, it is unwilling to consider any option that collides with the US interests. Resultantly, a surge of militant attacks by the Taliban and other warring insurgent groups have been witnessed in the recent months following the US resurgence of troops in Afghanistan. Given the current geo-strategic regional environment, Pakistan’s strategic reach and political influence inside South Asia is heading for a downward trajectory. It is high time for Pakistan to introspect upon its foreign policy contours and directives. Imperatively, Islamabad needs to reverse its diminishing influence in the neighboring Afghanistan foiling Indian subversive ambitions in Afghanistan.
Source; pakobserver.net/strategic-competition-afghanistan/
-----
Jim Mattis: Not as ‘Mad Dog’
By Iqbal Khan
December 13, 2017
THE US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis’ visit to Pakistan marked the end of ministerial level bilateral contacts triggered for damage control in the wake of President Donald Trump’s WestPoint hate speech on August 21, followed by America’s botched up South Asia policy, again scapegoating Pakistan, for what all had or could go wrong in Afghanistan. For a change, this time, Pakistan refused to be cowed down and conveyed back that it was no longer available for taking the blame for others’ follies faults and acts of commissions and omissions leading to current mess in Afghanistan.
Defence Secretary’s tone prior to his visit was conciliatory. He quipped to a media guy that ‘butting heads’ was not his style, “That’s not the way I deal with issues. I believe that we [can] work hard on finding common ground”. Asked if he saw any indication that Pakistan was “open to do more”, Mattis replied in the affirmative. When probed about a recent statement by General John Nicholson, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, that despite promises Pakistan has not changed its policies and continues to retain relations with some Taliban groups, Mattis said: “We have heard from Pakistani leaders that they do not support terrorism. So, I expect to see that sort of action reflected in their policies.” Ostensibly Defence Secretary treaded cautiously during his visit. Notwithstanding, the core message from Mattis echoed the larger concern of Trump administration about Pakistan’s counter terrorism role.
Outcome of Jim Mattis’ meetings with Pakistani leadership indicates that the two sides are moving ahead to find a common ground for cooperation. He was told that Pakistan was prepared to look into the possibility of miscreants exploiting its hospitality to Afghan refugees. And Mattis ‘agreed’ to look into Pakistan’s legitimate concerns, including India’s growing footprint in Afghanistan. Jim’s tone was not as harsh as of Director CIA, Mr. Pompeo, who chose to send a harsher message when asked at the Reagan National Defence Forum, on December 02, about ways and means to persuade Pakistan to adhere to the new Afghan strategy of the US: “You begin by seeking their assistance.” In the absence of the Pakistanis achieving that, we are going to do everything we can to make sure that safe haven no longer exists,” he said. A US embassy statement issued after Mattis’ meeting with Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa indicated that the defence secretary reiterated that Pakistan must “redouble its efforts to confront militants and terrorists operating within the country”.
At the same time, Pakistan, strongly rejects the charges, and had recently asked the US not to ‘dictate terms’ on the war on terror as it violated the country’s sovereignty. American frustration for its failure in Afghanistan is understandable. However, what is beyond comprehension are its attempts to channel out all its anger on Pakistan. Reportedly, in his meetings James Mattis made it clear that his country had not ‘seen any practical change’ in Pakistan’s attitude even after exchange of several high-profile visits to raise the trust level. Pakistan has sought time from the United States to show better results against the terror remnants, assuring that Islamabad was not playing a ‘double-game’ with Washington. Pakistan has reservations about new US South Asia Strategy that is why the two countries are trying to find convergence on some issues.
Over the years, Pakistan’s relationship with the US has transformed into transactional pattern, and lately it has become so both ways. Projections have that this pattern is likely to continue. This style has its own advantages and disadvantages; there is less of decent behind the scene diplomacy and more of open and crude power play. Major advantage is that if a particular segment enters a bad patch, remaining sectors continue to operate in a normal manner.
Also, of late, beside direct arm-twisting, America is often found in league with other counties to apply multi-dimensional pressures. For example, a meeting between the foreign ministers of the US, Japan and India was held on September 18, 2017 on the sidelines of United Nations General Assembly’s ministerial session. During that meeting, North Korean nuclear programme was deliberated. Indian foreign minister subsequently issued a statement on the meeting containing usual propaganda against Pakistan by hinting that the North Korean proliferation may be linked with Pakistan. During Modi era, India has made it a routine to label Pakistan for anything going wrong anywhere in the World. And Americans often exploit this Indian psyche to their advantage.
However, at the same time, to Indian chagrin, the US Department of Defence (DoD) came forward boldly to persuade the House Armed Services Committee to drop a provision linking financial aid to Pakistan with Islamabad taking demonstrable action against Lashkar-e-Taiba. The provision was part of National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA), impacting the US military spending in 2018. The DoD convinced key Democratic and Republican aides to remove the conditionality introduced by the Senate.
From one perspective, American “trend line” on Pakistan remains hard as the amount of US aid is shrinking while the portion coming under strict conditions is increasing. Pakistan has lost about $750 million in Coalition Support Funds over the last two years because of its alleged failure to act against terrorist groups as secretary of defence did not certify that Pakistan was taking adequate steps to curb terrorism in a clear indication of the current thinking in Washington. Half of the $700 million in military and economic aid for Pakistan for 2018 is also tied to conditions related to counterterrorism measures against the Haqqani network. In keeping with these realities, Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif said on December 05 that Pakistan’s foreign policy has for long remained US-centric, he highlighted the possibility of a policy shift and said revisiting Islamabad’s policy was the need of the hour. “China lives next to us… Russia can also be our good friend.”
Source: pakobserver.net/jim-mattis-not-mad-dog/
-----
URL: