For better coordination
MORE controversy has come to surround the American Predator attacks and missile strikes on suspected terrorist targets in Fata and now even in settled areas of Pakistan. Yesterday, in the first such attack outside Fata, US strikes targeted a suspected hideout near Bannu in the Frontier province. The claims and noises made in the aftermath of all such strikes by American and Pakistani officials in recent weeks do not match. Pakistan also trashed a story appearing in The Washington Post quoting US government/military sources that a tacit understanding was reached between the PPP-led government and the US for American strikes on terrorist hideouts inside Pakistani territory. The report also alleged that a further understanding existed between Washington and Islamabad that while the former might continue striking targets inside Pakistan, the latter would understandably voice its opposition to such attacks that are seen as a breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty to avoid a political backlash at home. The government’s official view as voiced repeatedly by the prime minister and the president, as well as ministers in the National Assembly and members of the Senate, is quite the contrary. The strikes have been condemned in unequivocal terms, protests have been launched with the US ambassador to Islamabad, and promises made to tell the Americans to ‘cool it’.
Simultaneously, President Zardari has argued in his exchanges with the Americans for better equipping Pakistan’s own paramilitary forces with weapons of modern warfare so that it is they, and not the Nato-led force or the US military based in Afghanistan, who carry out any strikes against the terrorists on our side of the Durand Line. The question remains: what does one make of the contradictory claims emanating from either side, and indeed a wish list that seems to go nowhere? Perhaps there still exists a trust deficit between the US military/intelligence operatives in Afghanistan and a section of their Pakistani counterparts across the border. If the Americans suspect any of the Pakistanis of having their sympathies elsewhere and if that’s the reason why they act on their own intelligence immediately and unilaterally, the issue needs to be addressed more adequately than it has been.
The political repercussions of this lack of coordination of views and actions for the democratic government that took office in Pakistan in a very challenging environment after the February 2008 election can be dangerous. As a government committed to fighting the scourge of terrorism without being apologetic for its stance, unlike its predecessor, it deserves to be treated with more respect. The least the Americans could do is plan better coordinated action and post-operation explanations to avoid causing embarrassment to a key ally in what is also Pakistan’s own war against terrorism and the forces of obfuscation.
Heat of the media glare
THOUGH there is no official guideline in place yet, the authorities seem to have started feeling the heat of the constant media glare on their rather questionable policies in various spheres of life, mostly the government’s strategy in the war on terror in the north. This is evident from the rising number of incidents against media practitioners and outlets. News reports in the last fortnight or so have been speaking of incidents taking place from Karachi to Gilgit and from Toba Tek Singh to Quetta. Forced suspension of transmissions through cable operators, bans on publications and threatening text messages are all being employed to seriously restrain the national media from carrying out its professional duties. Along-side the government apparatus there is also pressure from certain political and religious parties that have no qualms about using violence as a means to instil fear and a sense of subjugation. Every profession has its hazards and journalists tend to take it all in their stride but the situation, as acknowledged by the federal information minister the other day in Islamabad, is getting worse by the day. Surprisingly, the minister didn’t say anything about the government’s continued reluctance to publicly deal with cases in which the security and intelligence forces have been implicated by victims or their families. The cases of Hayatullah in the NWFP and Mukesh in Sindh are just two examples in this connection. Both relate to the tenure of the previous government, but the incumbent administration cannot absolve itself of the responsibility to go public with the detailed inquiries which it has not conducted despite assurances to the contrary. Seen together with all such incidents that have taken place since it assumed the reins of power, the government is not proving to be any different at all when it comes to putting up with an independent media. This, to say the least, is regrettable.
That the media has its own shortcomings is a fact not denied by even the journalists themselves. In fact, the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists happens to be the biggest proponent of putting in place an independent and powerful media watchdog with which both the government and the common man may file their complaints. It is the government that is sitting on the proposal. It is time a civilised approach was adopted vis-à-vis media practitioners who, after all, are trying to ensure society’s fundamental and undeniable right of access to truth.
Poverty and children
IT is impossible to imagine the trauma and anguish of the eight children who were left by their parents at an Edhi Foundation shelter in Karachi on Tuesday — two days, incidentally, before Universal Children’s Day. Equally immeasurable is the pain felt by the desperate parents who handed over their children to a charitable trust so that the kids aged between five and 12 could be fed properly and receive an education. But despite their untold suffering, as adults the parents are perhaps in a slightly better position to rationalise the tragedy. They can also hope that life will improve soon and allow them to bring their children back home. There is no such consolation for the kids who have been uprooted from their homes at a time when they need all the love and guidance that only parents can provide. They were clearly too shell-shocked on Tuesday to comprehend what was happening to them and what they had done to deserve such a fate.
Despite the care the Edhi Foundation will doubtless provide them, the children could still grow up harbouring feelings of both guilt and resentment. They are too young to understand that their families, and this country, is experiencing a kind of poverty that has perhaps never been seen before. Basic nourishment is a problem now as food prices skyrocket and more and more people slip into the ranks of the poor. Kids are being pulled out of schools by parents who can no longer afford the fees but were able to do so about a year ago. The link between malnourishment and poor physical and cognitive development is also well documented and, combined with the lack of education, could be a factor in cyclical poverty handed down generation after generation. As Abdul Sattar Edhi pointed out, it is the state’s responsibility to provide care to children whose parents can no longer afford to feed them. But the state, as we well know, has let us down in almost every arena. It is up to individuals to assist, not just with money but also time, love and care, those who are selflessly promoting the humanitarian cause.
OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press
At long last
The Egyptian Gazette
WORK will soon start on eliminating landmines planted in Egypt's northwest coast region, in the vicinity of Al Alamein, el Sallum and Mersa Matruh. The plan is to remove around 16.7 million mines in stages.
The first stage, which starts in a few days' time, will be completed next June at an estimated cost of $3.2m, according to Fathi el Shazli, director of the executive secretariat for removing mines and developing the north coast.
The European Union is also involved in the project, costing an estimated total of $10.8bn. The de-miners will have 250 mine detection devices at their disposal, as well as 250 special suits, designed to withstand bomb blasts, and three ambulances. This project will free around 787,000 feddans (acres) for cultivation, relying on rain and groundwater, along with another two million feddans for pasture. The idea is also to attract about one million citizens to live in the new communities that will be created in this region, abandoned since World War II, due to the danger of the mines lurking beneath the sands.
The region is very good for cultivating wheat because of the rain, while money should be invested here in cattle and sheep farming to end our reliance on imported … meat. The public … should support this giant project, especially given the harsh economic climate and the future threat of hunger facing the world, due to the expected food shortages. — (Nov 16)
Indo-US relations
Khaleej Times
WHEN US president-elect Barack Obama finally made that much-awaited telephone call to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday, there was a collective sigh of relief in Delhi….
Obama had spoken to over a dozen leaders around the world, including Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistan president….
Unmindful of India’s traditional sensitivity to the raising of the Kashmir issue outside the narrow Indo-Pak framework, candidate Obama did call for a quick resolution of the dispute to enable Pakistan to focus its attention on the war on terrorism along its western border…. He also suggested appointing … Bill Clinton as a special envoy for Kashmir, raising alarm bells in Delhi.
With Obama in the White House, the US can be expected to push ahead for the ratification of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty … a move opposed by India. The Democrats … are also keen on reversing the … outsourcing services to India….
However, India would not have to worry on many of these fronts as pre-election postures usually get diluted once a candidate moves into the White House.
India and the US have emerged as close allies in recent years…. These are unlikely to be strained in the face of a change in the administration. Relations between two mature democracies after all are not dependent on perceived slights or missed telephone calls. They are based on sterner stuff. — (Nov 15)
Obama’s likely approaches
THE skinny kid with the funny name has created history, confounding critics and exhilarating supporters. Obama’s victory has undoubtedly generated great hope, with some seeing it as the fulfilment of Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream’ speech.
Expectation abroad is even stronger, with many believing that he will transform America from a reckless, uncaring bully into an advocate of dialogue and engagement.
But this is a tall agenda for the leader of a country with a strict separation of powers and multiple centres of influence, and this at a time of unprecedented economic crisis. However, as citizens of a poor, mismanaged, conflict-ridden country, our primary interest is in Obama’s policy on issues that matter to us. These are the Palestinian issue, which is central to the deep-seated angst felt by Muslims towards the US, and the occupation of Iraq that has become a powerful impetus to those who preach violence against the West. Closer to home, the war on terror may have begun in Afghanistan, but now threatens to cause havoc in Pakistan. Finally, it is America’s relations with Pakistan, both bilaterally and in the context of regional politics, that interests us.
During the campaign, Obama was stridently pro-Israel, describing the Jewish state’s birth as a “miracle”. The recent appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff may have been done to cover his flanks at home, but it reinforces Arab worries about Obama.pset diisaf his supporters,ut others claim that this was meant to s how the US develops relations with India, Iran and The dynamics of Middle East politics, however, is changing, influencing even fervently pro-Israeli Americans to recognise the folly of pursuing a policy that fuels anti-US sentiments and discredits pro-American leaders in the region, without enhancing Israel’s interests.
This lends credence to concern in Israel that Obama may break away from traditional US deference to its interests, while peace advocates such as Uri Avnery are hopeful that unlike Bush Obama will not give Israel “a carte blanche for any violent adventure it desires” and instead recognise that “there is no chance for progress towards the Israeli-Palestinian peace without American pressure on the Israeli government.” Obama may therefore opt to forcefully build on understandings reached at the Annapolis conference.
On Iraq Obama’s position has been clear from the day he spoke out against the invasion. He favours an urgent policy review to determine the pace of US troop withdrawal from that country, after an early handing over of combat duties to the Iraqi National Army, while leaving behind only a small contingent of US troops to fulfil essential security needs.
It is however Obama’s position on Iran, Afghanistan, India and, of course, Pakistan that interests us primarily because they are interrelated and affect us in more ways than one. While Obama had spoken of engagement with Tehran, initiating a dialogue would be the easy part but reaching an understanding would involve protracted and contentious negotiations that would have to involve other stakeholders as well because their core interests may be mutually exclusive.
The advantages of a thaw between Washington and Tehran would however be immense and have a salutary effect on the region. Recent reports suggest that Obama may also want to engage Iran to reach out to ‘reconcilable elements’ within the Taliban to take advantage of the fact that neither Iran nor the US wants to see its interests damaged by the Taliban. This approach would mark a sharp departure from the Bush administration’s current focus on military operation to the exclusion of other options.
As regards relations with India Obama is likely to pursue his predecessor’s goal of establishing strategic relations as this enjoys bipartisan support in the US. Some Indian scholars are however worried about his opposition to proliferation, fearing that differences on nuclear-related issues could become a potentially debilitating factor. Obama had earlier informed Manmohan Singh that his administration would press for US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty while promoting a “verifiable, multilateral treaty” to end production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and urged India to “cooperate with the US in these multilateral efforts”.
India has also found fault with Obama’s public support for accelerated Indo-Pakistan normalisation, including renewed efforts for a resolution of the Kashmir issue, which he believes is essential to permit Pakistan to devote its resources and energies to the war on terror. Some Indians have also expressed the fear that this could lead to an even-handed policy towards the two South Asian rivals, resurrecting the zero-sum game and ending India’s special status in the American scheme of things. This however is unlikely.
Now, as regards Pakistan, Obama has repeatedly acknowledged that the war on terror cannot be won without its full support and commitment and therefore has called for meaningful engagement with the democratic government in Islamabad, including meeting its security concerns. According to The Washington Post, the new map of the Afghan battle space includes Pakistan’s tribal region, which the US military and intelligence leaders see as inextricably linked.
Incidentally, two scholars currently advising the Centcom chief on Afghanistan — the American Barnett Rubin and the Pakistani Ahmed Rashid — have advocated a comprehensive multi-state approach, which they call “a regional grand bargain”, pointing out that Afghanistan is “the scene of not only the war on terror, but also of long-standing Afghan-Pakistan disputes, the India-Pakistan conflict, US-Iranian antagonism, Russian concerns about Nato, Shia-Sunni rivalry, regional energy competition and even domestic turmoil in Pakistan”.
This basket of problems would be daunting for any single leadership, which has led them to recommend the establishment of a contact group for the region authorised by the UN Security Council to “promote dialogue between India and Pakistan not only to find a solution to the Kashmir dispute but also to resolve their differing interests in Afghanistan, as well as to promote a regional plan for economic development and integration”. This project does sound “audacious and naïve” as the authors admit but without such an initiative there is a little hope for the region.
But before such an initiative can be launched the US has to overhaul its Afghanistan strategy which should include engaging the Taliban to isolate and weaken Al Qaeda. As regards Pakistan the US has to give greater focus to strengthening its democratic institutions while recognising that peace and stability in Afghanistan cannot be achieved at the expense of Pakistan’s security interests.
Pakistan’s success is however dependent on what its own leadership does to ensure better governance and the rule of law and devise a more coherent policy for the tribal belt, including massive economic assistance and necessary social and administrative reforms. Most importantly it has to create a national consensus in favour of battling the militants while seeking to re-negotiate the terms of engagement with the US in order to generate genuine public support for this relationship.
It’s payback time
THIS is a good time for all those who resisted the “neoliberal” free market economic model of the past few decades, often as lone voices preaching in the wilderness. Politicians, experts and social activists must take advantage of the current financial crisis to bury this model once and for all, together with all forms of speculation.
“We must propose structural changes” to the international financial system, because ”such a serious crisis is the best time to demand them,” says French economist Bruno Jetin, a professor at the University of Paris North. All banks should be nationalised, but that is not enough: they must also be “democratised, and subjected to social oversight,” because many public banks, like the Bank of Brazil, “operate as if they were private concerns,” said Jetin.
Prof Rogerio Sobreira says that the conflict between a greater role for the state, and a free market, is of crucial importance. When the crisis became acute, everyone was in favour of strong state intervention, even the nationalisation of banks, in all sorts of countries, but this was “emergency action by the state as saviour,” and the continued presence of the state will be questioned by the economic liberals later on.
Some internal contradictions within governments, especially between Central Banks and finance ministries, are becoming more acute. In Brazil, the dominance of the monetary authority (the Central Bank) suffered a blow when emergency measures were needed to avoid a greater economic slowdown.
Panic, followed by recession in rich countries and its repercussions in the developing world, are fuelling a rapid expansion in unemployment, which is sure to provoke reactions from trade unions and social movements.
— IPS News