May 2010?s B-Side
May’s B-side looks at a number of pressing Pakistani concerns and includes a focus on Kashmir, the power crisis and last but not least Pakistan-US relations. May 2010′s B-side contents include the following:
- Kashmir Solution: Imperative for Peace by KHURSHID MEHMOOD KASURI
- Power-less Pakistan by CHARLES K. EBINGER & KASHIF HASNIE
- Faisal Shehzad’s Anti-Americanism by PERVEZ HOODBHOY
Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri is the former Foreign Minister of Pakistan and the author of the first article. Mr Kasuri focuses on an issue close to my heart, Kashmir.
Kashmir Solution: Imperative for Peace by Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri
The biggest problem between Pakistan and India currently is the absence of trust. Anything that addresses this trust deficit is, therefore, helpful. For this reason I warmly welcome the initiative by The Times of India Group and the Jang Group of Pakistan to initiate the project ‘Aman Ki Asha’. Media can help remove suspicions about each other. This is all the more important because the existing suspicions and distrust about each other have been further exacerbated by irresponsible and distorted stories carried by sections of the media in both the countries in the first instance.
For this reason, this initiative is very important. I sincerely hope the other media groups will also play their role. It was precisely for this purpose that earlier on, I had convened a meeting of seven former Foreign Ministers of Pakistan and India in Lahore. Our Indian counterparts have promised to carry the process further by inviting us to Delhi later on during the year.
The Times of India has asked me to write an article on the need for resolving the Kashmir issue and as well as on the direction in which this process is headingí. Some people in both countries may well say that, after all, both Pakistan and India are important countries and could go their own way. It was for good reason that Prime Minister Vajpayee said that you can change history but not geography during a debate in the Lok Sabha.
Moreover, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh echoed similar sentiments also in a debate in the Lok Sabha, where he said as neighbours it is our obligation to keep our channels open. Unless we want to go to war with Pakistan dialogue is the only way forward. I was encouraged to note during the recent meeting of the Aman Ki Asha in Lahore that some distinguished Indian participants said that India felt the need to resolve the issue of Jammu & Kashmir inter alia for two reasons.
Firstly, that India being a democracy could not resort to force in Jammu & Kashmir for an indefinite period, and, secondly, that India could achieve its real potential and play a major role on the world stage only after resolving its disputes with Pakistan.
Speaking for myself I can say with confidence that as a politician all my life, belonging to a political family as I do, also as one who has been elected a member of parliament from a constituency in Central Punjab on the Indian border – and as former Foreign Minister for five years, I can say with confidence that peace with India is not only in the national interest of Pakistan but can also be sold to the people of Pakistan provided it is peace with honour.
History teaches us that only peace with honour can be lasting. India is a big country and may have extra regional ambitions. As far as Pakistan is concerned, our very doctrine is one of minimum credible deterrence aimed at protecting Pakistanís national security.
Another reason that gives me confidence is that every major political party of Pakistan supports a negotiated settlement. This implies that if India were to show flexibility, Pakistan would reciprocate similarly. In this connection it is correct that while the agreement was arrived at during our tenure in office, former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Atal Behari Vajpayee showed leadership and courage in restarting this process in February 1999 when Mr. Vajpayee undertook his famous bus journey on the invitation of the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
Similarly, Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto during both her tenures made concerted efforts to improve the relationship between the two countries. MQM, ANP and even Jamiat Ul Ulema Islam, under the leadership of Maulana Fazal Ur Rehman, have supported a negotiated settlement on Kashmir.
Perhaps one reason why there is such a strong need for a negotiated solution of Kashmir is the recognition in both countries that Pakistan and India have tried everything in their power to enforce their version of a Kashmir settlement. They had fought five wars including two minor ones in the Runn of Katch and in Kargil. There had been various mobilizations of troops, including the largest one since First World War (Operation Parakram), in which a million soldiers remained eye ball to eye ball for almost a year. After Nuclearization of South Asia, following tests by India and Pakistan, war between the two countries has become nearly impossible.
That being the case, it was equally clear that any solution we found would not be an ideal one from the perspective of the Kashmiris, Pakistanis and the Indians. It could be the best under the circumstances. It had to be one that the Kashmiris would accept, and one, that the leaderships of India and Pakistan could sell to their respective peoples whose perspectives were radically different. It would seem to many people that such a solution could just not be found.
It was precisely to find such a formula that the two leaderships directed their representatives involved in the backchannel to remain engaged. No wonder the non-papers went to and fro innumerable times. The backchannel negotiators met in different locations in many countries to preserve the secrecy of the process. They brought the drafts to the principals in both the countries, where changes were made and sent back to the other side and so on and so forth. It was after approximately three years of such pains taking work, which sometimes even involved changing punctuation in different drafts, that the two governments felt that they had agreed on the draft of an agreement towards the end of 2006 beginning 2007. They felt that on the basis of this draft they would be in a position to present an agreement to their respective constitutional authorities for their approval. It was felt that this draft would be acceptable to an overwhelming majority of Kashmiris, Indians and Pakistanis.
The major features of the draft Kashmir agreement involved, inter alia, a gradual demilitarization as the situation improved, self governance and a joint mechanism involving Kashmiris from both sides as well as presence of Pakistani and Indian representatives in this process. The purpose was to improve the comfort level of Kashmiris. The joint mechanism envisaged cooperation in various fields including exploitation of water resources and hydro-electric power.
Self governance also provided maximum possible powers to Kashmiris to manage their political, economic, financial and social matters and those pertaining to economic development as well as for enhanced travel and economic interaction on both sides of the LOC. For practical purposes, as for as the Kashmiris on both sides are concerned, the border would be made irrelevant for movement of goods and people. The agreement though not ideal, was the best possible under the circumstances.
The agreement provided for a review after 15 years. The Pakistani and Indian sides realized that in view of the history of the Jammu & Kashmir dispute, no solution that they could think of, would be an ideal one since it had to be made acceptable to all three. We were aware of the fact that there would be overwhelming support for this agreement; but, we also realized that there would be criticism from some sections in Kashmir, Pakistan and India.
In the very nature of things, it is impossible to produce a solution which will be equally acceptable to every one. It was for this reason that we decided that the arrangement that we had arrived at would need a review at the end of 15 years during which its implementation would be monitored with great care by all the parties concerned, and in the light of the experience, this arrangement could be further improved.
Another question that people sometimes ask me in hushed tones these days, now that President Musharraf is no longer in power, is whether the agreement that we have arrived at had the support of the Pakistan Army. Of course, it had the support of all the stakeholders. It is unthinkable that an issue of this nature could be negotiated without having all the stakeholders on board. Besides the Foreign Office and the Presidency, the Military was appropriately represented.
Former President Musharraf in response to a question whether he took into confidence his Corps Commanders, is on record in saying on more than one occasion that he used to take everyone on board. Furthermore, Pakistan Army high command is highly disciplined and sophisticated and understands clearly that national security is a very broad concept and military preparedness is only one, albeit, a very important component of it.
The concept of national security includes economic and political stability and a settlement with India on honourable terms strengthens Pakistanis national security. It is also pertinent to mention here that while President Musharraf may not be on the scene presently, institutional thinking does not change so rapidly Ofcourse, for tactical reasons, adjustments are made keeping in view time and circumstance. I am aware of the current differences between Pakistan and India on Afghanistan following President Obamaís announcement regarding Americaís intentions in Afghanistan. If trust deficit between the two countries can be bridged, all differences between the two countries can be resolved.
Before I conclude, I would like to welcome the statement of Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani that efforts are being made through the backchannel to resolve all outstanding issues with India. It is important that negotiations be resumed soon because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government with which we negotiated the agreement is still in power, and, the BJP, the other major national party in India, had started the process during the tenure of former Prime Minister Vajpayee.
I welcome the statement of our Prime Minister, despite being in the opposition, because I believe that in matters of national interest one has to rise above the spirit of partisanship. I am sure Indian politicians would have a similar approach. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. A lot of detailed work has been done and we can start from where we left. This piece was commissioned for and published in the Times of India.
Published in The News
WASIM VIEW- Kasuri’s article is a must read for all Pakistanis as it details how the Kashmir dispute has been debated and discussed over recent years. As a Pakistani Kashmiri, I can comment on the issue and Kasuri’s proposals without fear and favour and I will do so.
Before I pass comment, its need to be stated at the outset that Kashmir is, was and will always be for me at least the jugular vein of Pakistan. That said it is also clear from the lessons of six decades that the geopolitical environment in South Asia is fashioned by hostile Pakistan-India relations, both of whom are opposed to the Kashmiri independence which many Kashmiris still aspire to. Therefore the most credible solution to the Kashmir dispute must be based on a compromise and with reference point, the much trumpeted solution to the Kashmir dispute needs to be read.
The so-called Kashmir agreement that Pakistan and India negotiated on the back channels is shared in Kasuri’s article. The Kasuri Kashmir solution included gradual demilitarization, self governance and a joint mechanism that involved Kashmiris from both sides as well as presence of Pakistani and Indian representatives in this process. The purpose was in Kasuri’s words to improve the comfort level of Kashmiris.
The joint mechanism envisaged cooperation in various fields including exploitation of water resources and hydro-electric power. Self governance also provided maximum possible powers to Kashmiris to manage their political, economic, financial and social matters and those pertaining to economic development as well as for enhanced travel and economic interaction on both sides of the LOC. For practical purposes, as for as the Kashmiris on both sides are concerned, the border would be made irrelevant for movement of goods and people. The agreement provided for a review after 15 years.
My views on the agreement is that there is no such agreement until it is signed and more importantly implemented, thus it is premature for a seasoned politician like Kasuri to argue otherwise. On the specifics I do agree with Kasuri albeit with a number of provisos ‘that the agreement though not ideal, was the best possible under the circumstances’. The provisos include the level of Kashmiri support for the agreement and how this is to be ascertained via referenda or other ways.
Demilitirazation is another concern given India has a smell for Kashmiri blood and how it will be achieved is a key make-or-break issue. Other questions include self-governance means what exactly and how bound are both Pakistan and India to the joint-mechanism given India has a history of breaking accords in Kashmir and in the region more widely a la the Indus Water Treaty.
All in all, Kasuri’s Kashmir solution has many questions that need answering before it can be fairly assessed. Nevertheless on the evidence before me, I believe it could be a step forward.
The second post looks at Pakistan’s power problems in detail within the broader vision of Pakistan-US relations.
Power-less Pakistan by Charles K. Ebinger & Kashif Hasnie
Pakistani leaders preoccupied with a Taliban insurgency and political infighting also face an explosive issue that could damage the credibility of governments for years to come: nationwide power outages. Attention was refocused on the energy crisis after recent high profile talks in Washington in which long-time allies, the United States and Pakistan, outlined steps to refurbish power stations in Pakistan.
Many Pakistanis, who face hours of crippling power cuts each day, doubt their government will take decisive action, despite a U.S. warning that the crisis threatens this nuclear armed nation’s economic and political stability.
The promised 4 Es – Employment, Education, Energy, Environment – of the current Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government are falling apart. Promises of tackling the recent energy crisis by building 8,000 Megawatts (MW) of new coal, solar, hydroelectric and wind electric generation plants have fallen through the cracks of the proverbial dilatory Pakistani political and bureaucratic elites.
Small towns and villages are experiencing power outages from 20 to 22 hours daily, whereas large cities such as Karachi, Lahore, Hyderabad, Faisalabad, Peshawar and Quetta are without power for at least half of every day as a result of shortages in power generation. An ageing transmission and distribution system, power theft, large commercial losses owing to poor billing and collection systems, and a power tariff scheme in desperate need of revision, are reasons for the current crisis.
With power demand at about 14,680 MW and current supply at 10,200 MW, the power supply shortage stands at 4,480 MW, which provides fertile ground for social and economic chaos. Nevertheless, despite these “apparent” dire power shortages there is a path forward if only Pakistan embarks on a vigorous action program where it produces energy to its full capacity while ending power theft, improving billings and collections while reducing its technical losses. After researching the gap between the demand and supply and total capacity (19,000 MW) of electricity, we came to the following reasons for the shortage:
1. Hydropower contributes 6,500 MW of energy in the total energy mix of Pakistan. Recent excessively dry seasons, mismanagement and trans-boundary water issues have restricted this capacity to only 1,500 MW. Resulting in a shortage of 4,000 MW.
2. Independent Power Plants (IPPs) produce 6,250 MW. Due to non-payment in the energy pyramid, a circular debt (currently around $1.3 billion) has been created, resulting in a shortage of 1,500 MW.
3. Government owned power generation plants are underutilized. Most of them working way far below their capacity, either because of lack of funds for maintenance or unavailability of spare parts.
4. Power infrastructure, especially in transmission and distribution is old and defective, causing heavy line losses of electricity.
5. Power theft. Public and private theft of power contributes to 32% of the ‘line losses.’
Keeping the above factors in mind, we know that the relevant Pakistani authorities are trying their best to gather foreign financial and technical assistance to address this crisis. A new $125 million USAID Energy Program will upgrade five major power stations, replace more than 11,000 tube wells producing water for agriculture, and boost Pakistan’s overall power production by 10 percent.
In mid-January, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke launched the first phase of these energy projects in Islamabad, announcing the United States will contribute up to $1 billion to the energy sector. Technical support from the U.S. also is being provided by the private sector, when GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt met President Asif Ali Zardari last year, resulting in signing a Memorandum of Understanding this year to help Pakistan in the energy, water and transportation sectors.
But the crisis cries out for far more help than that being offered. Pakistan’s energy crisis which has raged for more than 40 years is more due to ill planning, short sightedness of successive governments, including the current one, mismanagement and corruption. For the government of Pakistan and the international donor community wanting to help them, here is an agenda of actions that will begin to stabilize the country’s economic and political future.
1. Both, the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines and the Sui Southern Gas Company Limited should make it a priority to produce a 300-400 million cubic feet of gas which is well within their reach if gas tariffs are raised to economic levels. This will provide enough gas to fuel an additional 2,000 MW of electricity in the mix. The circular debt between every company in the electricity mix – PEPCO, WAPDA, IPPs, fuel suppliers and refineries – need to be settled to bring modern accounting practices into the sector. Until this is done there can be no real assessment of the future economic and financial needs of the sector.
2. The power infrastructure should be upgraded with a modern efficient grid. Without such an investment there will be little improvement even if major new generation facilities are built.
3. Accounts receivables from the public and private sector, including the military, for electricity should be recovered. Nothing is ‘free’ and electricity is no different.
4. The relationship of furnace oil and natural gas prices should be monitored closely. Since furnace oil is more expensive, its excessive use has contributed $571 million out of the current $1.3 billion of circular debt.
5. Energy prices throughout the economy must be rationalized and raised to the level required to pay for their full cost while returning a profit to the producers. Where subsidies are required for social reasons they should be targeted and paid for out of government revenues not by energy producers.
6. Government owned power generation companies should be technologically refurbished. This could close the demand and supply gap by 1,500 MW.
7. Finally, Pakistan needs to manage its water resources more efficiently. Historically, Pakistan has been a very ‘water conscious’ country. At independence, despite British efforts to steal its valuable water resources for India, Pakistan obtained access to the headwaters of the Indus and the rivers of the Punjab. The country has made great strides in dealing with water logging and salinity in the world’s largest contiguous irrigation system. During the 1960s, the Harvard Water Program worked closely with Pakistani experts to negotiate the classic Indus Water Treaty. During this time, Pakistani engineers built the giant Tarbela Dam, the largest reservoir in the world formed by an earthen dam. Today, Pakistan faces the “Malthusian-plus” challenge of dealing with rapidly growing water demands (for energy, agriculture and people) from a resource base that is likely to change substantially as the glaciers of the western Himalayas melt and monsoon patterns change under the onslaught of climate change.
We were compelled to write this article to highlight the fact that even if the Taliban and its Pakistani allies were to disappear tomorrow, Pakistan in the absence of a plan to deal with its energy crisis will remain in darkness – literally and figuratively.
If Pakistan is to emerge economically healthy and politically stable, the U.S. must realize, given the stakes involved and its own growing political and military involvement, that its commitment must be a sustained one. One that may need to last for decades not months or years!
With promises and prospects of a long term engagement, we believe that ‘smart American power’ projection lies in addressing issues such as energy and water. While short term aid and a few promises can start to mend a relationship, sustained partnerships as we have learned in Afghanistan, require a lot more.
Published by The Brookings Institution
WASIM VIEW- The power crisis in Pakistan is perhaps the most pressing live issue facing the Pakistani masses today. Ebinger & Hasnie’s article is nothing less than a masterpiece of an article for it details both the problem and the solution to Pakistan’s power crisis. Indeed the article sets the US in particular a challenge that can be institutionalised in the ongoing Pakistan-US strategic dialogue, namely how the US will help Pakistan tackle its power crisis.
The article needs to be considered in the background of the love-fest between Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Hillary Clinton during the recent Pakistan-US strategic dialogue which was high on style and offered little in substance to helping Pakistan. Mr Qureshi would do well to send this very article to Hillary Clinton from his desk in Pakistan’s Foreign Office adding these words ‘ Pakistan expects US action and support on all of the solutions put forward in the article as per the Pakistan-US strategic dialogue, its time to stop talking the talk, lets walk the walk, PS the $125m offered to Pakistan on energy is a pittance compared to the cost Pakistan has endured in financial terms alone of $35bn, so get moving Madame Secterary and fast!
As a critic of the way America has used and abused Pakistan since 9/11, I still am ready to give Uncle Sam a chance to redeem herself in the eyes of the ordinary Pakistani whom they kill via drones and much more. And so, let the one test of so-called Pakistan-US friendship be this, can the US deliver on projects that add many hundreds of megawatts of electricity by 2012, I for one suspect that the US will not rise to the challenge for security not solar-powered energy is all that America cares for vis a vis Pakistan.
The final article focuses on Pakistan-US relations and particularly so-called anti-Americanism and is written by the one and only, Pervez Hoodbhoy.
Faisal Shehzad’s Anti-Americanism by Pervez Hoobhoy
The man who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square was a Pakistani. Why is this unsurprising? Because when you hold a burning match to a gasoline tank, the laws of chemistry demand combustion.
As anti-US lava spews from the fiery volcanoes of Pakistan’s private television channels and newspapers, a collective psychosis grips the country’s youth. Murderous intent follows with the conviction that the US is responsible for all ills, both in Pakistan and the world of Islam.
Faisal Shahzad, with designer sunglasses and an MBA degree from the University of Bridgeport, acquired that murderous intent. Living his formative years in Pakistan, he typifies the young Pakistani who grew up in the shadow of Ziaul Haq’s hate-based education curriculum. The son of a retired air vice-marshal, life was easy as was getting US citizenship subsequently. But at some point the toxic schooling and media tutoring must have kicked in.
There was guilt as he saw pictures of Gaza’s dead children and related them to US support for Israel. Internet browsing or, perhaps, the local mosque steered him towards the idea of an Islamic caliphate. This solution to the world’s problems would require, of course, the US to be destroyed. Hence Shahzad’s self-confessed trip to Waziristan.
Ideas considered extreme a decade ago are now mainstream. A private survey carried out by a European embassy based in Islamabad found that only four per cent of Pakistanis polled speak well of America; 96 per cent against.
Although Pakistan and the US are formal allies, in the public perception the US has ousted India as Pakistan’s number one enemy. Remarkably, anti-US sentiment rises in proportion to aid received. Say a good word about the US, and you are labelled as its agent. From what TV anchors had to say about it, Kerry-Lugar’s $7.5bn may well have been money that the US wants to steal from Pakistan rather than give to it.
Pakistan is not the only country where America is unpopular. In pursuit of its self-interest, the US has waged illegal wars, bribed, bullied and overthrown governments, supported tyrants and undermined movements for progressive change. Paradoxically America is disliked more in Pakistan than in countries which have born the direct brunt of its attacks — Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Why?
Drone strikes are a common but false explanation. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi implicitly justifies the Times Square bombing as retaliation but this does not bear up. Drone attacks have killed some innocents but they have devastated militant operations in Waziristan while causing far less collateral damage than Pakistan Army operations.
On the other hand, the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong were carpet-bombed by B-52 bombers and Vietnam’s jungles were defoliated with Agent Orange. Yet, Vietnam never developed visceral feelings like those in Pakistan.
Finding truer reasons requires deeper digging. In part, Pakistan displays the resentment of a client state for its paymaster. US-Pakistan relations are transactional today but the master-client relationship is older. Indeed, Pakistan chose this path because confronting India over Kashmir demanded big defence budgets. In the 1960s, Pakistan entered into the Seato and Cento military pacts, and was proud to be called ‘America’s most allied ally’. The Pakistan Army became the most powerful, well-equipped and well-organised institution in the country. This also put Pakistan on the external dole.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, even as it brought in profits, deepened the dependence. Paid by the US to create the anti-Soviet jihadist apparatus, Pakistan is now being paid again to fight that war’s blowback. Pakistan then entered George W. Bush’s war on terror to enhance America’s security — a fact that further hurt its self-esteem. It is a separate matter that Pakistan fights that very war for its own survival and must call upon its army to protect the population from throat-slitting fanatics.
Passing the buck is equally fundamental to Pakistan’s anti-Americanism. It is in human nature to blame others for one’s own failures. Pakistan has long teetered between being a failed state and a failing state. The rich won’t pay taxes? Little electricity? Contaminated drinking water? Kashmir unsolved? Blame it on the Americans. This phenomenon exists elsewhere too. For example, one saw Hamid Karzai threatening to join the Taliban and lashing out against Americans because they (probably correctly) suggested he committed electoral fraud.
Tragically for Pakistan, anti-Americanism plays squarely into the hands of Islamic militants. They vigorously promote the notion of an Islam-West war when, in fact, they actually wage armed struggle to remake society. They will keep fighting this war even if America were to miraculously evaporate. Created by poverty, a war culture and the macabre manipulations of Pakistan’s intelligence services, they seek a total transformation of society. This means eliminating music, art, entertainment and all manifestations of modernity. Side goals include chasing away the few surviving native Christians, Sikhs and Hindus.
At a time when the country needs clarity of thought to successfully fight extremism, simple bipolar explanations are inadequate. The moralistic question ‘Is America good or bad?’ is futile.
There is little doubt that the US has committed acts of aggression, as in Iraq, and maintains the world’s largest military machine. We know that it will make a deal with the Taliban if perceived to be in its self-interest — even if that means abandoning the Afghans to bloodthirsty fanatics. Yet, it would be wrong to scorn the humanitarian impulse behind US assistance in times of desperation. Shall we write off massive US assistance to Pakistan at the time of the earthquake of 2005? Or to tsunami-affected countries in 2004?
In truth, the US is no more selfish or altruistic than any other country. And it treats its Muslim citizens infinitely better than we treat non-Muslims in Pakistan.
Instead of pronouncing moral judgments on everything and anything, we Pakistanis need to reaffirm what is truly important for our people: peace, economic justice, good governance, rule of law, accountability of rulers, women’s rights and rationality in human affairs. Washington must be resisted, but only when it seeks to drag Pakistan away from these goals. More frenzied anti-Americanism will produce more Faisal Shahzads.
Published in Dawn
WASIM VIEW- Hoodbhoy’s article could have been written by an American neo-con like Richard Perle for its content are full of pro-US drivel and a rejectionism of many US crimes against Pakistan and the wider world. Hoodbhoy is right to bemoan many ills of the Zia era and army rule, a price which Pakistanis pay for in blood on a daily basis in the form of a bigoted state as evidenced in Lahore in recent days.
However Hoodbhoy for the main part of the article is plainly lost at sea for he makes childish and elementary schoolboy-type points to support his views. The intellectual rigour and cogent arguments that are synonmous with supposed intellectuals of his stature go missing when he chooses to support drone attacks in Pakistan.
The best evidence of this is demonstated shown when he foolishly brackets Pakistan with Vietnam and asks why Pakistan has visceral feelings towards America due to the drone attacks when Vietnam does not. To quote Hoodbhoy ‘the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong were carpet-bombed by B-52 bombers and Vietnam’s jungles were defoliated with Agent Orange. Yet, Vietnam never developed visceral feelings like those in Pakistan’. The answer to his ludicrous point is this, that Vietnam was at war with America whilst Pakistan is supposedly an ally of America, Vietnam was a foe and treated accordingly and Pakistan is a friend and not treated accordingly, rather it is treated as a foe as the drone attacks prove and that is why Mr Hoodbhoy, Pakistanis have such visceral feelings against America, duh!
The rest of the Hoodbhoy article is an exercise in futility for all it does is reaffirm his liberal credentials and includes a cheap shot attack on the media for its supposed ‘media tutoring’ of Faisal Shehzad, which is an unproven allegation.
On the more substantive point, Hoodbhoy is right to bemoan Faisal Shahzad’s acts in New York which are undefendable. Indeed I will go further in my condemnation and say that many Pakistanis like me are disgusted by his actions which have sullied Pakistan’s name once again in the world and want to see him face a fair trial and face exemplary punishment if he is found guilty. The Faisal Shahzads of this world are the enemies of Pakistan, period. On that point at least, Wasim Arif and Pervez Hoodbhoy are on the same page.
