Time for new priorities

FOCUSING on all that is positive is easier said in these days of blood and gore. If media coverage is to reflect the state of the nation it must, despite exhortations to the contrary by government officials, highlight ground realities no matter how unsavoury they may be. A quick look at the front pages of Friday’s papers ought to convince even the most optimistic that the country is in complete disarray. Pitched battles are raging in Waziristan, Karachi is bracing for a new round of political violence and security forces are coming under attack wherever they are deemed vulnerable. Thursday’s deadly suicide attack on the Special Operation Task Force, a unit of the army’s Special Services Group, shows just how precarious the situation has become. If an assailant can breach security at an elite commando base, the whole country is a sitting target. No solace can be found in the dominant theory that it may have been an inside job — if true, it should be even greater cause for concern. The Sept 4 blasts in Rawalpindi, one of which targeted an unmarked ISI staff bus, had already made it clear that the militants who now see the security forces as their enemy are not wanting in precise and ready intelligence. The attack in Tarbela seems to confirm this view.

What impact such incidents are having on the morale of the armed forces can only be surmised. The fact remains, however, that over 200 security personnel recently surrendered — apparently without firing a shot — to tribal militants in South Waziristan. Could it be that soldiers motivated in their training by the motto of jihad are finding it difficult on moral grounds to wage war against militants operating under the very same banner? Drilled both mentally and physically to fight a foreign enemy, how easily can the foot soldier reconcile himself to killing his countrymen? There are no easy answers to these questions.

On one point at least there is little doubt: both the civilian and military administrations have failed miserably in tackling, let alone solving, the growing problem of Islamist militancy. Good intelligence appears to be in short supply on the official side, but that is hardly surprising when the heads of covert agencies are busier negotiating political deals for the president. The government, meanwhile, seems concerned only with self-preservation at a time when opposition politicians ought to be the least of its worries. The incumbents now need to look beyond self and to readjust their priorities according to the need of the country. A government that lacks credibility and broad-based support cannot even begin to stem the tide of Talibanisation. When the coterie in power is not taken seriously by law-abiding citizens, how can it hope to quell armed revolt? The charade must end sooner than later. While there is no guarantee of success, participatory democracy remains the best hope for repairing the damage inflicted on the country over the last eight years. It is time for free and fair elections so that a broad-based government representing all sectors of the population can emerge. Such a government alone can tackle the problem of militancy that Pakistan faces today.

US withdrawal on the cards?

PRESIDENT George Bush’s announcement of a gradual reduction in the number of American troops in Iraq should be welcomed as a sign that Washington is finally realising the grave consequences of an indefinite stay in that country. The point is not whether this realisation comes on the heels of growing domestic pressure to recall US troops or stems from the assurance of General David Petraeus (commander of the Multinational Force-Iraq) to Congress that recent efforts to tackle the insurgency had met with success. The fact is that the American presence in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Polls show that despite a decrease in militancy since the surge in American troops this year, the Iraqis want an immediate end to the US occupation. This may, of course, prove difficult, given that a sudden exit could result in a dangerous power vacuum that would attract sectarian and insurgent elements, and, in the presence of a weak political establishment, lead to greater chaos and bloodshed. On the other hand, if the Americans, even though diluted in numbers, remained, unrest would continue to spread among angry Muslim populations in the region — and beyond. Under these circumstances, the withdrawal of troops seems the most pragmatic option for the Americans, who must expedite the process to recall more numbers than the approximately 30,000 envisioned by July next year.

Since the invasion of 2003, the American-led “coalition of the willing” has dwindled, as many countries have pulled out their forces from Iraq. A neutral force — possibly made up of UN peacekeepers or drawn from the ranks of Muslim and Middle East countries — acceptable to the Iraqis must be constituted to strengthen security in the country. But the real onus lies on the Iraqis themselves. So far, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government has not been successful in reconciling differences between sectarian elements whose rivalry and constant clashes represent a major threat to the country’s integrity. Iraqi security forces, too, are not free from communal and partisan feelings that keep it from effectively combating violence. Also, despite a recent agreement on sharing resources, deep grievances exist on this score. Unless sincere attempts are made to bridge such differences, violence will continue to jeopardise the structure of the Iraqi state, besides heaping countless miseries on its citizens.

Killings in the minibus

VIOLENCE among student groups is no more confined to the campuses. The death in Karachi on Thursday of seven people — not all of them students — is yet another indication of the madness that has gripped the student community. The IJT claimed that four of those killed belonged to it, and it held its traditional rival, the APMSO, responsible for the killings. The APMSO has denied the allegation, but the backdrop to Thursday’s crime was the continued tension between the two groups, including the shootout that wounded at least three students a day earlier at the Karachi University campus, both sides blaming each other. The IJT and APMSO have also been involved in gunfights with other student groups. The cold-blooded planning that went into Thursday’s crime says a lot. The killers had done their homework well, they knew that their intended victims were on the minibus, they overtook the vehicle, first lobbed a grenade and then entered it to open up with guns, and they did not care whether their attack would also kill other passengers.

These two student bodies claim to stand for “ideologies”. While the APMSO claims to safeguard the interests of the students they represent, the IJT is committed to the “Islamic system”. But it occurred to neither of them that they could best achieve their goals by inspiring their supporters to higher feats of academic excellence. Instead, the two have taken to guns and in that process done incalculable harm to the cause of education in Karachi. Whose fault is it? Are not the mother parties to which they belong — the MQM and the Jamaat-i-Islami — responsible for the kind of militancy they have imparted to their student wings? Clearly, the half a dozen or so militant student groups we have will continue to fight and kill and turn the campuses into battlefields unless the leaderships of the political parties to which they swear allegiance wean the students away from violence. As for the university administration, which has traditionally promoted one party or another at the expense of others, it should also learn the virtues of impartiality and non-partisanship.

Embarrassing times for expatriates

NOT so long ago, Pakistan rarely topped the European news agenda. Britain was an exception, of course, but continental Europeans devoted little time to the country, preferring to focus instead on the growing political and economic clout of China and the rise of India.

There were some exceptions. Many Europeans were enchanted by the music of Nusrat Fateh Ali and curious about how former premier Benazir Bhutto had made it all the way to the top as the female leader of a conservative Muslim country. They were also well aware of the dangers of the fraught relationship between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India.

But apart from enthusiastic mountaineers and trekkers, few Europeans showed any interest in the country itself. Pakistani leaders rarely came to Brussels to see their European Union counterparts. When they did, the focus was often more on visiting Indian and Jewish diamond merchants in Antwerp than on official business. Not surprising, the busy Brussels-based press corps studiously ignored visiting Pakistani government delegations — unless invited to sumptuous lunches at Michelin-rated luxury restaurants.

How times change. The Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States catapulted Pakistan to the top of the EU news agenda, prompting massive public and media interest in all aspects of the country.

This curiosity and unrelenting focus on Pakistan, however, remains a cause for consternation and dismay to many Pakistanis abroad. And not because of any lack of interest in what happens at home. Thanks to the Internet, frequent visits home and e-mail exchanges with friends and relatives, little that happens in the country escapes the notice of Pakistani expatriates.

Once in a while, however, we would like to hear some good news about the country — and then share it with others. As it is, however, apart from a few rare positive comments about Pakistan’s economic strengths and the stalwart resilience of its people in the face of natural calamities like the 2005 earthquake, most Europeans are convinced that Pakistan today is synonymous with terrorism, dictatorship, religious extremism and repression.Articles across the continent constantly and consistently point out that, inter alia, Pakistan is a haven for international terrorists, including Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden (believed to be hiding in the mountains of Waziristan), is funding and arming a resurgent Taliban in its battle against Nato soldiers in Afghanistan and, despite Islamabad’s protests to the contrary, is behind terror attacks in Kashmir and parts of India.

The recent violent end to the Red Mosque siege in Islamabad and the seemingly unending attacks by militants on Pakistani army personnel — not to mention tragic inter-factional violence — have further heightened fears that Pakistan and Pakistanis are a danger to others and to themselves.

Last week was cringe-time again as Pakistan was spotlighted by the German press following reports that suspected terrorists accused of masterminding a foiled terrorist plot in Germany had a connection to “terror training camps” in Pakistan.

The German case, coming on top of recent successive terror alerts in Britain — and the 2005 transport bombings in London carried out by young British-Pakistanis — has convinced most Europeans that Pakistan not only produces its own brand of local terrorists wreaking havoc at home but also offers disaffected young European Muslims the training and encouragement they need to go forth and do evil in Europe.

For most of the past week, however, it’s not Pakistan’s terrorist connections but the strange political soap opera of Pakistani politics that has captured Europe’s attention. European public, media and government officials have been riveted by the dramatic but short-lived return to Pakistan of former premier Nawaz Sharif — and his immediate deportation to Saudi Arabia.

While he may not have been viewed as a great democrat when in power, Mr Sharif’s so far lacklustre profile in Europe has been boosted by what many view as his courageous attempt to do battle with General Pervez Musharraf. In contrast, Ms Benazir Bhutto, the one-time darling of the European intelligentsia, press and politicians, has seen her star dim as she ponders a return to Pakistan and a possible power-sharing alliance with the president.

“It looks too much like a marriage of convenience,” a member of the European Parliament told me, adding that he was not impressed by the PPP leader’s readiness to do unsavoury deals with the military. Several European journalists have pointed out the difference between Ms Bhutto’s courting of the US and Mr Sharif’s “independent” decision to head home alone.

Clearly, President Musharraf’s standing in Europe has been hit hardest by recent events. The episode with Mr Sharif has spotlighted the growing array of problems facing the general as he struggles to hold on to power in the face of falling popularity, a self-confident and independent judiciary and an assertive and independent press.

Never as enthusiastic as the US administration about doing business with an army man — even one with a starring role in the “war on terror” — EU officials and diplomats are watching the president’s recent actions — including the ill-considered sacking of the Chief Justice — with unconcealed alarm. This was demonstrated last week when the US called Mr Sharif’s deportation an “internal matter” but the EU took a much firmer line. In an unusually firm statement, an EU spokeswoman urged Pakistan to respect its own Supreme Court ruling and allow Mr Sharif to stay in the country.

“In our view, the Supreme Court’s view is very clear and should be respected,” said Christiane Hohmann, the European Commission’s external affairs spokeswoman in Brussels. “If there is any legal case against Sharif, he should have the chance to defend himself in a Pakistan court,” she added. Such EU plain-talking may be exceptional — but then as one EU diplomat pointed out, “when it comes to Pakistan, these are exceptional times.”

EU governments are worried President Musharraf may be tempted to impose martial law or emergency in the country, a move they warn would lead to the disastrous isolation of one of the world’s largest Muslim nations, triggering even more extremism and violence — and further aggravating a tendency to interfere in the affairs of neighbouring states.

Instead of considering the introduction of martial law, the president should be focusing on holding free and fair elections — and once that is done, should honourably retire from the political scene, said an EU parliamentarian. “Of course that’s not going to happen,” he admitted, adding: “As long as the Bush administration provides cover, Musharraf is not going to change tack because of what the EU says.”

Others agree. The EU may be an important trading partner and a key donor — providing over 330 million euros in assistance to Pakistan plus 100 million euros for the earthquake during the last 10 years — but Europe’s clout in Pakistan remains modest.

That may change as the EU becomes a more powerful player in Asia and a future civilian Pakistani government decides it’s time to look beyond Washington and spend more time and energy on making true friends in Europe. For the moment, however, Islamabad should expect more tough-talking from an exasperated EU. And as politics at home heat up even more, Pakistani expatriates in Europe should brace themselves for months of uncomfortable and embarrassing moments.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent based in Brussels.

Limited politics, more responsibility

Prothom Alo

The partial lifting of a ban on politics in Bangladesh was expected and necessary. The emergency government banned all political activities about eight months ago. Hence the government’s decision to allow so-called indoor politics has cleared the way for the Election Commission to start the much-awaited dialogue with political parties on reforms. Chief adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed’s address to the nation partially lifting the ban came as a relief — to some extent — to political parties.

The government has pledged to hold parliamentary elections by the end of 2008. The lifting of the ban shows the government’s sincerity to do so in line with a roadmap, laid out by the Election Commission. The talks with the election commssioners are a step forward.

The removal of the ban does not mean lurching back to chaotic days that ushered in the state of emergency. We welcome the chief adviser’s assurance that the election will be held well ahead of 2008, if possible. (Sept 11)

Pope paints bleak future for Europe

Ittefaq

Pope Benedict has expressed his disappointment that Europe’s future would be bleak without more children. Europe has become child-poor, he said. It seems that Europeans are too busy with themselves to care for others. “We want everything for ourselves and place little trust in the future.”

He came up with this sad message for a mass in the ancient Austrian mountains on Sept 8. The Pope deplored Europe’s declining birth rates and condemned abortion. He snubbed the concept that it could be considered a human right. He also urged politicians to make laws to help new families.

Things are different in the Third World. Asian and African countries have higher birth rates than Europe. But people in the Third World tend to follow Europeans in many aspects of life. The Pope pointed to the “faults” with European civilisation and warned of a disaster in the making. The Pope said people must return to God. (Sept 13).

— Selected and translated by Arun Devnath