• The Blasphemy Around Us by AYAZ AMIR
• How to End the War in Afghanistan by DAVID MILIBAND
• Afghanistan’s New Riches by HUMA YUSUF

The first article is written by one of my favourite columnists, the one and only Ayaz Amir.

The Blasphemy Around Us by Ayaz Amir

If Islam stands for anything, it is for a just society, free from want and oppression. There is, thus, in Islam no blasphemy greater than a child dying of hunger, a child begging for bread, a woman drowning herself and her children, as has frequently happened in the Islamic Republic, because the burden of life was too much for her, a man throwing himself before an onrushing train because of poverty.

We are moved by these things, but only up to a point. The holy fathers, the registered doctors of the faith, self-appointed arbiters of right and wrong in the Islamic Republic, can be counted upon to take out processions and raise their banners, not to speak of their voices, in defence of the faith, even when it is not quite clear what is imperilled or what is at stake. But when was the last time anyone heard of a procession, foaming at the mouth, taken out against hunger and deprivation?

All of Islam, the entire corpus of Islamic thought, as I have mentioned many a time, can be boiled down to that one cry of the Caliph Omar, that he, the Commander of the Faithful, would be called to account on the Day of Judgment if a dog is hungry by the banks of the Euphrates. Not, mark you, a child or a man hungry by the banks of the Euphrates, but a dog. This, and not the anger, the fire and brimstone pouring forth from over-pitched loudspeakers, is the Islamic ideal.

But who cares for the substance of Islam? We talk of subverting the Constitution. More than any constitution, it is our faith whose truth we have subverted. In no other Islamic country on earth, with the exception perhaps of Saudi Arabia, is more lip-service paid to Islam. We can do nothing without invoking the name of Islam, start nothing without reciting from the Quran. Yet, to look at our collective life–a byword for corruption and all the ills that the human mind can imagine–is to get the impression that no society is more committed to the vice of doublespeak than ours.

Hypocrisy as pervasive as this should lead to a measure of tolerance, some indulgence for the weaknesses of others and our own. But our hypocrisy is of a special kind, enclosed in a straitjacket of self-righteousness. We live not in a state of denial. That would be putting it mildly, because denial is an escape from reality. We have created a reality of our own. Oblivious of our iron begging bowl, oblivious of the fact that, but for the largesse of, if not infidels at least of non-Muslims, we would be a broke nation, we really subscribe to the fiction that we are a fortress of Islam.

Not only that, but that Pakistan was created for a special purpose, to fulfil a divine mission. I am not joking. Serious people subscribe to such uplifting thoughts. The army chief, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, whom one would otherwise take to be a rational person, in a sombre moment declared that Pakistan was a fortress of Islam.

If this is the sturdiest fortress Islam has then Islam, truly speaking, is in mortal peril. And the foam-at-the-mouth brigade, led by our assorted holy fathers, now scattered in more denominations and factions than a reasonably smart mind can figure out, are perhaps right to come out, in all their unsuppressed anger, in defence of the faith.

Our army, not all of NATO’s might, is the lynchpin of America’s war in Afghanistan. You might suppose this would give us some leverage. Yet it is a measure of our beleaguered circumstances that, although we try to put up a brave face, we end up succumbing to American pressure. The operations the army ends up launching are those which America wants.

Why is it that the US seems to have us on a leash? Something seriously wrong with the fortress of Islam and its army dedicated to jihad in the name of Allah –the battle slogan bestowed on the army by Gen Zia — should this really be the case?

Are standards of justice in the Islamic Republic the same for everyone? Pakistan exists at several levels: for the ultra-privileged, the privileged, the semi-privileged, and, through several other gradations, down to the very bottom of the social heap where life can be very tough. For a country that calls itself an Islamic Republic this is blasphemy. Different schools for different people is blasphemy. Inequality of all kinds is blasphemy. Why do we close our eyes to these things? Why is our anger so selective? Why isn’t it excited by the misery, wretchedness and squalor lying all around us?

True, we aren’t the only luckless nation or country on earth. Many others are in worse circumstances than us. There is also much we can be grateful for. But other countries, even the worst, do not call themselves fortresses of Islam or Christendom. They do not wear, in and out of season, the masks of self-righteous anger that we do. We have enough real grievances to redress. Our real problems are mounting, not dissolving. Why, then, must we go looking for grievances? Why must we be perpetually on a voyage of exploration looking for slights even when anything perceived as a slight was never intended as one?

Why can’t we be more assured of our faith and our beliefs? Why must we think that unless we are always ready with spear and fireball our faith will be under threat? This doesn’t say much for our self-confidence or the trust that we place in our beliefs.

Islam existed for 800 years in Hindustan and it was never in danger. We created a state in the name of Islam just 63 years ago and Islam has been in danger ever since. Why can’t we let go a bit? If Islam has been around for 1,400 years, it is not because of us or Osama bin Laden but because of its intrinsic strength. It is not a fragile vessel that we should always be rushing to its defence. In any event, the best defence of Islam is the creation of a just society, a society attuned to the understanding that the best homage to the All-knowing and the Almighty is the pursuit of knowledge and learning, and that the highest good is a level playing field.

Turkey (then the Ottoman Empire) was as Islamic in 1914 as it is now. But it was the Sick Man of Europe then and the very name Turk was an expression of abuse. Turkey speaks with a stronger voice today. Why? Because it has come of age and has done well by itself. Confidence is a gift of achievement and will come only when we turn from slaying imaginary dragons to getting down to solving our all-too-real problems.

Imagine the Lahore High Court directing the ministry of foreign affairs to move a resolution regarding defamation in the UN General Assembly. Are we living in the real world?

Every voyage of discovery, every attempt to clasp the moon in the Ninth Heaven and seize turtles deep down in the Five Seas, every path-breaking journey in the realm of knowledge has been undertaken by the human mind unfettered, the mind liberated of its chains, the mind unblocked by fear or superstition. That is the one prerequisite without which no advance is possible.

Religions are many, and more power to them. The light of knowledge is one and indivisible. Down the centuries its burning flame has passed from hand to hand, kept in trust, even if unknowingly, for all of humanity by different civilisations: Phoenician, Assyrian, Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, Muslim, Christian, and so on. Salvation in this world has come only to those whose paths have been illumined by this light.

But for us to be able to reach out for this torch requires a certain cast of mind, a certain temper of the soul. As our frequent rages all too vividly testify, we have yet to arrive at that stage. Will we ever be there? Will we even begin the journey? Our eternal preoccupation with chimeras of our own making suggests that we are still a long way off from the starting point.

Published in The News

WASIM VIEW-Ayaz Amir’s article is pure class. In it Amir reminds Pakistanis and Muslims more widely of the glorious Islamic traditions and heritage which we have as individuals and as a collective betrayed. Amir is right in declaring that all of Islam can be summarised in the example of Hazrat Umar (RA) and I must quote Amir entirely:

‘All of Islam, the entire corpus of Islamic thought, as I have mentioned many a time, can be boiled down to that one cry of the Caliph Omar, that he, the Commander of the Faithful, would be called to account on the Day of Judgment if a dog is hungry by the banks of the Euphrates. Not, mark you, a child or a man hungry by the banks of the Euphrates, but a dog. This, and not the anger, the fire and brimstone pouring forth from over-pitched loudspeakers, is the Islamic ideal’

On blasphemy, Amir has drawn attention to the real and daily blasphemy we see each day in Pakistan in the poverty of the masses and the pilferage of the ruling elite. The Ahmadi issue is small talk compared to the big picture of a Pakistan, that has betrayed its Islamic foundations and thus is at unease with itself and her people. 

Amir’s other points in the article are the regular rants of the left against Pakistan as an fortress of Islam and are cheap shot points made easier given the hijacking of Pakistan as an Islamic state by the mullahs who opposed its very creation. The sad truth is that the liberal or moderate Pakistani fears the Islamic state owing to Zia’s so-called Islam while the rest of Pakistan dreams of a true Islamic state.

Both sleep uneasy bemoaning their today and tomorrow forgetting the yesterday of Hazrat Umar (RA) was our yesterday too, indeed it was that yesterday that Allama Iqbal and the Quaid-e-Azam wanted to replicate in Pakistan, and that dream lives on.

The second article is the first of two that focuses on Afghanistan. The article is an open letter written by David Miliband the former British Foreign Secterary written to General David Petreus,  and in it Miliband looks at Afghanistan’s endgame.

How to End the War in Afghanistan by David Miliband

Dear David Petraeus,

You and I both know the Afghan mission is at a decisive moment. Stanley McChrystal was a remarkable commander who had the fierce loyalty of the men and women under his command. He brought rigour and drive as well as compassion to the mission in Afghanistan. President Obama’s decisive action to put you in charge shows the urgency and importance that the President rightly attaches to this mission. There is now a race against time to persuade the Afghan people that the correct strategy is in place and show our own people it can succeed.

The first time we met, you told me there is no way to kill your way to victory in a counter insurgency. As we have discussed, the purpose of military effort and civilian improvement is to create the conditions for political settlement. The battle for power is fought in the minds of the local population, insurgents and western publics.

Better Afghan Security Forces are necessary but not enough. Better schooling and economic opportunities are vital for the loyalty of the Afghan people. But none of them are durable or possible without a political settlement. We need the tribes inside the system, al qaeda outside, and the neighbours onside. The process required is therefore two-pronged – national and regional.

First, include the excluded. Within Afghanistan, a political settlement needs arrangements, whether formal or informal, to ensure that the legitimate tribal, ethnic, and other groups that feel excluded from the post-Bonn political settlement are given a real stake in the political process and are able to compete for political representation. A peace settlement must include the vanquished as well as the victors. All of this would encourage Afghans to play a part in building stability and security so that and this is a key objective of many of the insurgents the international forces will be able to withdraw from combat, initially into a training and support role, and then altogether.

Second, go local. The provincial and district governors and their associated assemblies of elders should be given new governing powers, so they have the confidence, competence, and capacity to govern in the best interests of those they represent. Recruiting the right people for these jobs is essential and in view of the challenges of upholding justice and the rule of law, the police chief and local magistrates are equally important.

Third, a new legislative process should be established not necessarily involving constitutional change between President and parliament, in order to give parliamentarians a real stake in the success of the political settlement.

Fourth, underpinning all this must be a more concerted effort to prevent and reduce the corruption that corrodes trust. President Karzai’s promises to tackle the culture of impunity and to establish a new anti-corruption unit are only a start.

Regionally, all of Afghanistan’s neighbors and the key regional powers must recognise two simple facts: no country in the region, let alone the international community, will again allow Afghanistan to be dominated, or used as a strategic asset, by a neighboring state; and the status quo in Afghanistan is damaging to all. Crime, drugs, terrorism, and refugees spill across its borders when Afghanistan’s great mineral wealth and agricultural land should instead be of benefit to the region.

There will be no settlement in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s involvement, but India, Russia, Turkey, and China are also key. Moreover, the Iranian regime whose nuclear policies have flouted the UN and that has a record of attempting to destabilize its neighbors must acknowledge that the best way to protect its investments or promote the interests of Afghans that share its Shia faith is to work to promote peace, not undermine it.

I know there is an argument over when the time is right to go down the political track, but in truth it has already begun. It is shaped and reshaped every day in the minds of the people. The job of the Afghan government, with our strong support, should be to define a political endgame that creates a stake for all those willing to live within the Afghan constitution – and then march towards it.

You have said yourself that 70 to 80 per cent of the insurgency are not ideologically linked to al-Qaeda. Engagement with those who have been involved in attacks is difficult. But allowing space for discussion to bring people from the insurgency into Afghan society, removing the violence, is not appeasement. It is exactly what we want to achieve: the end of the war, with the sustainable capacity in the country to prevent its restart.

Now is a time for determination but also clarity. We are counting on you.

Yours,

David

Published in The Telegraph

WASIM VIEW- David Miliband’s open letter is the first signal that Britian and the West more widely are moving towards some form of an endgame in Afghanistan. Miliband is of course right in calling for the ‘inclusion of the excluded’ which obviously is a codeword for bringing to the table of peace the Taliban, the Haqqani group and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.  

Miliband is right too in supporting Pakistan’s central role in bringing peace to Afghanistan and the wider region, however he overstates the role of India, China, Turkey and Iran all of whom cannot make or break Afghanistan like Pakistan can and has in the past as we have found to our collective cost a la Pakistan’s strategic depth scorched earth policy.

David Miliband is right in asking for a political settlement with the Taliban and other excluded but indigenous groups given they control most of the country and has openly called for an endgame in Afghanistan, I support him in that endeavour, the Afghanistan endgame must end, and the sooner the better.

The final article too looks at Afghanistan in particular its vast mineral reserves. the focus is not on an endgame but rather the continuing ’great game’.

Afghanistan’s New Riches by Huma Yusuf

Nine hundred and eight billion dollars. That is the price tag a report issued by the Pentagon and US Geological Survey put on Afghanistan’s untapped mineral wealth some days ago.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s spokesman described the valuation as “the best news we have had over many years”. But for Pakistan, the presence of vast reserves of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium across the Durand Line may only spell more trouble.

Historically, the discovery of mineral wealth leads to greater political instability. Writing in Bloomberg’s Businessweek, Amity Shlaes points to Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Russia and Sierra Leone as examples of places where the unexpected discovery of oil or minerals led to rampant corruption, gang violence, military takeovers and worse. The only way for such resources to lead to posterity, argues Shlaes, is for nations to have clear, protected property rights. These, however, will be hard to come by in Afghanistan, where basic governance remains a pipe dream.

In this context, the dollar value assigned to Afghanistan’s mineral resources could prove to be a curse, rather than a blessing. Analysts expect the Taliban to put up a stronger fight to retain control of areas believed to be mineral-rich. Moreover, Afghan tribes, the government in Kabul and foreign mining companies will also be vying for their share of the minerals. A consequent increase in turf wars, violence and political instability will inevitably prolong Pakistan’s security problems.

More fighting in Afghanistan means Pakistan’s ‘jihadi factory’ — training camps, recruitment centres, financing through kidnapping and other crime — will have renewed impetus. Rhetoric that calls for protecting ‘Muslim’ wealth from western colonisers will no doubt spur recruitment. Unemployed young men on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border will also readily fight on behalf of different camps in the hope of getting rich quick by procuring some of the promised wealth.

Moreover, the US Geological Survey’s findings show that mineral deposits are present along the border with Pakistan. This will raise the question of whether the resources extend into Fata and other areas, including Balochistan. Even without the benefit of an international survey, one can imagine Baloch nationalist groups and Fata-based tribes stepping up their resistance to state incursions in an attempt to control the wealth their lands might yield. Given Pakistan’s terrible record of distributing revenue from natural resources fairly, such resistance would not be uncalled for; it would, however, further weaken the state.

In the short term, the announcement of mineral wealth in Afghanistan will fuel conspiracy theories about US plans for the region, thereby further destabilising Pakistan’s political infrastructure, which currently runs on aid dollars. The fact is, the initial geological survey of Afghanistan was completed by the US in 2007, but its findings were not publicised then.

This delay has led to theories that the media’s celebration of Afghanistan’s newfound mineral wealth is a way for Washington to justify ongoing troop presence in the region. Vast mineral wealth is being seen as the ‘war booty’ that has driven US involvement in Afghanistan for almost a decade now. If taken up by the religious rightwing in Pakistan, this conspiracy theory would fan anti-US feelings.

In the longer term, the increased confidence of an economically sound Afghanistan would make the Pakistan Army more rigid in its dependence on ‘strategic assets’ to ensure security. Here’s why: many Afghans are fed up of Pakistan meddling in their country’s affairs and allegedly propping up the Taliban. They are impatient with Karzai, who has shown a willingness to engage with Pakistan in preparing for a post-US-withdrawal Afghanistan. The recent resignations of the Afghan interior minister and intelligence chief indicate that frustration with Islamabad and mistrust of its goals are prevalent at even the highest levels.

An Afghanistan that is enjoying a minerals-driven economic boom, however, would be more assertive in demanding national and political sovereignty. There would be less tolerance for the Pakistan Army’s need to keep a handle on developments in Kabul as a way to ensure strategic depth. Indeed, Islamabad could quickly find itself sidelined.

A mining boom in Afghanistan could also make the Pakistan Army’s concerns about encirclement seem more real. Interestingly, the new Afghan minister for mines was in India, soliciting bids for the auction of an iron deposit estimated to be worth $5bn, when the Pentagon report hit international headlines. Days later, CNBC reported that Afghanistan had invited Indian companies to prospect for and extract minerals. The Indian mines minister has also announced that Afghan geologists would visit India in July for training and to establish avenues for Indo-Afghan cooperation in this field.

Kabul’s desire for Indian involvement in its mineral industry is primarily a way to offset Chinese control of Afghan resources. Ever since China signed a $3bn deal to mine copper in Logar province, Kabul and Washington have worried that Beijing could dominate investments in Afghanistan’s mineral wealth. But the Pakistan Army will not entertain the dynamics of this great game, and instead see Indian investments in Afghanistan as a way to undermine Pakistan’s involvement in that country.

In such a scenario, the army would certainly redouble its efforts to maintain ‘strategic assets’ that could be deployed against India as well as a hostile Afghanistan. In other words, Afghanistan’s future economic prosperity could reiterate Pakistan’s reputation for state-sponsored terrorism and ‘double games’, an outcome that would irreparably damage Pakistan’s economic and diplomatic prospects on the world stage.

What one should hope for instead is an economically viable, and thus stable, Afghanistan which has prospered thanks to Indian investment in mining and Pakistani investment in overall infrastructure (roads, railroads, buildings). Such regional economic cooperation is the key to long-term political stability and security.

Published in Dawn

WASIM VIEW- Forever the bearer of bad news, Afghanistan is for once  at the centre of some good news owing to the discovery of its vast mineral resources. Yusuf’s tiemly article looks at this good news within a wider political and geopolitical context and many of her observations deserve comment.  On the political field, it is obvious as the night follows day that the Afghan power elites will  be motivated by the $1 trillion dollar prize that awaits them should they use the mineral resources correctly.

The $1 trillion dollar prize however will be contested by the present leadership led by Karzai who will have to take on the Taliban who already control most of Afghanistan including many areas where the mineral resources are speculated to lay. Afghanistan’s numerous and notorious druglords and warlords sadly cannot be forgotten for they too will claim a share in the booty,  and so history will repeat itself so expect more blood and tears from Kabul to Kandahar with an Afghanistan facing yet more internal strife as one and all compete to secure the prize of $1 trillion dollars.

Yusuf is rignt to warn of the dawn of a new ‘great game’ in the region and is right in highlighting the geopolitical impact of the mineral find in terms of Pakistan-India tensions given India’s desire to help Afghanistan secure its mineral resources. Pakistan is unlikely to stand idle in this new great game especially given the fact that the mineral riches have been found near the Pakistan border and could also be found located in FATA and Balochistan.

For Pakistan, a prosperous and stable Afghanistan remains a pipe dream irrespective of the mineral riches given Pakistan’s history with the Afghan state and its psyche. Turmoil seems to be never far away in Afghanistan and thus I fear that the mineral riches will serve as a new incentive for the spilling of blood and guts in Afghanistan and the wider region. The colonial policy of divide and rule is continuing no doubt given that Afghanistan’s mineral resources were found not in recent weeks as reported but were located in a US Geological Survey in 2007.

One is left to marvel at the US government who have used what is old but good news to motivate NATO to stay the course and so share the Afghan booty just as NATO is gettting a hammering. At the same time the mineral resources booty will serve to motivate many Afghans to a ruthless pursuit of profit pitting Afghan versus Afghan and is remniscient is it not of a divide and rule policy brought to the region by the colonialists many decades ago. 

The killing fields of Pakistan that have so far drenched FATA and NWFP and Pakistani cities like Lahore, Islamabad and Rawalpindi including the devastating  mosque attack of today are full alreadywith the blood of innocents.  The tragedy is that my beloved Balochistan province will be in the eye of the storm as US action in Afghanistan is sure to send the Taliban on the run to the border regions around Balochistan. Consequently a new front will be forced on a weak Pakistan to tacke the Taliban  and the lie of a ‘Quetta Shoora’ in Balochistan with the more than occassional drone attack from Uncle Sam.

Crucially such drone attacks will be the first attack by our so-called partner and the very first on mainland Pakistan, it is another US policy folly more like designed to degrade and destabilise Pakistan from within. However I remain confident that the Pakistani nation will rise to the challege of protecting our state interests as the nation is united in defeating both the evil of the Taliban and the US who seek to challenge the writ of the Pakistani state, the latter by guns and the former by grants paid in the weakened US dollar. The Obama folly, sorry full speech can be seen below:

August’s B-side contents are:

• The Woman Who Will Not be Silenced: MALALAI JOYA
• NATO Speech in Brussels by DAVID MILIBAND
• Pakistan’s Power Politics by MUSTAFA QADRI

The real Afghanistan comes to the fore in the story of Malalai Joya, her story is both inspiring and a must read for policymakers and joe public too.

The Woman Who Will Not be Silenced: Malalai Joya

The story of Joya is the story of another Afghanistan – the one behind the burka, and behind the propaganda

I am not sure how many more days I will be alive,” Malalai Joya says quietly. The warlords who make up the new “democratic” government in Afghanistan have been sending bullets and bombs to kill this tiny 30-year-old from the refugee camps for years – and they seem to be getting closer with every attempt. Her enemies call her a “dead woman walking”. “But I don’t fear death, I fear remaining silent in the face of injustice,” she says plainly. “I am young and I want to live. But I say to those who would eliminate my voice: ‘I am ready, wherever and whenever you might strike. You can cut down the flower, but nothing can stop the coming of the spring.’”

The story of Malalai Joya turns everything we have been told about Afghanistan inside out. In the official rhetoric, she is what we have been fighting for. Here is a young Afghan woman who set up a secret underground school for girls under the Taliban and – when they were toppled – cast off the burka, ran for parliament, and took on the religious fundamentalists.

But she says: “Dust has been thrown into the eyes of the world by your governments. You have not been told the truth. The situation now is as catastrophic as it was under the Taliban for women. Your governments have replaced the fundamentalist rule of the Taliban with another fundamentalist regime of warlords. That is what your soldiers are dying for.” Instead of being liberated, she is on the brink of being killed.

We are our sisters’ keepers

I meet Joya in a London apartment where she is staying with a supporter for a week, to talk about her memoir – but even here, her movements have to be kept secret, as she flits from one safe house to another. I am told not to mention her location to anyone. She is standing in the corridor, small and slim, with her hair flowing freely, and she greets me with a solid handshake. But, when our photographer snaps her, she begins to giggle girlishly: the grief etched on to her sallow face melts away, and she laughs in joyous little squeaks. “I can never get used to this!” she says.

Then, as I sit her down to talk through her life-story, the pain soaks into her face once more. Her body tightens into a tense coil, and her fists close. Joya was four days old when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. On that day, her father dropped out of his studies to fight the invading Communist army, and vanished into the mountains. She says: “Since then, all we have known is war.”

Her earliest memory is of clinging to her mother’s legs while policemen ransacked their house looking for evidence of where her father was hiding. Her illiterate mother tried to keep her family of 10 children alive as best she could. When the police became too aggressive, she took her kids to refugee camps across the border in Iran. In these filthy tent-cities lying on the old Silk Road, Afghans huddled together and were treated as second-class citizens by the Iranian regime. At night, wild animals could wander into the tents and attack children. There, word reached the family that Joya’s father had been blown up by a landmine – but he was alive, after losing a leg.

There were no schools in the Iranian camps, and Joya’s mother was determined her daughters would receive the education she never had. So they fled again, to camps in western Pakistan. There, Joya began to read – and was transformed. “Tell me what you read and I shall tell you what you are,” she says. Starting in her early teens, she inhaled all the literature she could – from Persian poetry to the plays of Bertolt Brecht to the speeches of Martin Luther King. She began to teach her new-found literacy to the older women in the camps, including her own mother.

She soon discovered that she loved to teach – and, when she turned 16, a charity called the Organisation for Promoting Afghan Women’s Capabilities (OPAWC) made a bold suggestion: go to Afghanistan, and set up a secret school for girls, under the noses of the Taliban tyranny.

So she gathered her few clothes and books and was smuggled across the border – and “the best days of my life” began. She loathed being forced to wear a burka, being harassed on the streets by the omnipresent “vice and virtue” police, and being under constant threat of being discovered and executed. But she says it was worth it for the little girls. “Every time a new girl joined the class, it was a triumph,” she says, beaming. “There is no better feeling.”

She only just avoided being caught, again and again. One time she was teaching a class of girls in a family’s basement when the mother of the house yelled down suddenly: “Taliban! Taliban!” Joya says: “I told my students to lie down on the floor and stay totally silent. We heard footsteps above us and waited a long time.” On many occasions, ordinary men and women – anonymous strangers – helped her out by sending the police charging off in the wrong direction. She adds: “Every day in Afghanistan, even now, hundreds if not thousands of ordinary women act out these small gestures of solidarity with each other. We are our sisters’ keepers.”

The charity was so impressed with her they appointed her their director. Joya decided to set up a clinic for poor women just before the 9/11 attacks. When the American invasion began, the Taliban fled her province, but the bombs kept falling. “Many lives were needlessly lost, just like during the September 11 tragedy,” she says. “The noise was terrifying, and children covered their ears and screamed and cried. Smoke and dust rose and lingered in the air with every bomb dropped.”

As soon as the Taliban retreated, they were replaced – by the warlords who had ruled Afghanistan immediately before. Joya says that, at this point, “I realised women’s rights had been sold out completely… Most people in the West have been led to believe that the intolerance and brutality towards women in Afghanistan began with the Taliban regime. But this is a lie. Many of the worst atrocities were committed by the fundamentalist mujahedin during the civil war between 1992 and 1996. They introduced the laws oppressing women followed by the Taliban – and now they were marching back to power, backed by the United States. They immediately went back to their old habit of using rape to punish their enemies and reward their fighters.”

The warlords “have ruled Afghanistan ever since,” she adds. While a “showcase parliament has been created for the benefit of the US in Kabul”, the real power “is with these fundamentalists who rule everywhere outside Kabul”. As an example, she names the former governor of Herat, Ismail Khan. He set up his own “vice and virtue” squads which terrorised women and smashed up video and music cassettes. He had his own “private militias, private jails”. The constitution of Afghanistan is irrelevant in these private fiefdoms.

Joya discovered just what this meant when she started to set up the clinic – and a local warlord announced that it would not be allowed, since she was a woman, and a critic of fundamentalism. She did it anyway, and decided to fight this fundamentalist by running in the election for the Loya jirga (“meeting of the elders”) to draw up the new Afghan constitution. There was a great swelling of support for this girl who wanted to build a clinic – and she was elected. “It turned out my mission,” she says, “would be to expose the true nature of the jirga from within.”

I would never again be safe

As she stepped past the world’s television cameras into the Loya jirga, the first thing Joya saw was “a long row with some of the worst abusers of human rights that our country had ever known – warlords and war criminals and fascists”.

She could see the men who invited Osama bin Laden into the country, the men who introduced the misogynist laws later followed by the Taliban, the men who had massacred Afghan civilians. Some had got there by intimidating the electorate, others by vote-rigging, and yet more were simply appointed by Hamid Karzai, the former oilman installed by the US army to run the country. She thought of an old Afghan saying: “It’s the same donkey, with a new saddle.”

For a moment, as these old killers started to give long speeches congratulating themselves on the transition to democracy, Joya felt nervous. But then, she says, “I remembered the oppression we face as women in my country, and my nervousness evaporated, replaced by anger.” When her turn came, she stood, looked around at the blood-soaked warlords on every side, and began to speak. “Why are we allowing criminals to be present here? They are responsible for our situation now… It is they who turned our country into the centre of national and international wars. They are the most anti-women elements in our society who have brought our country to this state and they intend to do the same again… They should instead be prosecuted in the national and international courts.”

These warlords – who brag about being hard men – could not cope with a slender young woman speaking the truth. They began to shriek and howl, calling her a “prostitute” and “infidel”, and throwing bottles at her. One man tried to punch her in the face. Her microphone was cut off and the jirga descended into a riot. “From that moment on,” Joya says, “I would never again be safe… For fundamentalists, a woman is half a human, meant only to fulfil a man’s every wish and lust, and to produce children and toil in the home. They could not believe that a young woman was tearing off their masks in front of the eyes of the Afghan people.”

A fundamentalist mob turned up a few hours later at her accommodation, announcing they had come to rape and lynch her. She had to be placed under immediate armed guard – but she refused to be protected by American troops, insisting on Afghan officers. Her speech was broadcast all over the world – and cheered in Afghanistan. She was flooded with support from the people of her country, delighted that somebody had finally spoken out. One dirt-poor village pooled its cash to send a delegate hundreds of miles across the country to explain how pleased they were.

An extremely old woman was brought to her in a rickety wheelbarrow, and she explained she had lost two sons – one to the Soviets, one to the fundamentalists. She told Joya: “I am almost 100 years old, and I am dying. When I heard about you and what you said, I knew that I had to meet you. God must protect you, my dear.” She handed over her gold ring, her only valuable possession, and said: “You must take it! I have suffered so much in my life, and my last wish is that you accept this gift from me.”

But the US and Nato occupiers instructed Joya that she must show “politeness and respect” for the other delegates. When Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador, said this, she replied: “If these criminals raped your mother or your daughter or your grandmother, or killed seven of your sons, let alone destroyed all the moral and material treasure of your country, what words would you use against such criminals that will be inside the framework of politeness and respect?”

She leans forward and quotes Brecht: “He says, ‘He who does not know the truth is only a fool. He who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal.’” The attempts to murder her began then with a sniper – and have not stopped since. But she says plainly, with her fist clenched: “I wanted the warlords to know I was not afraid of them.” So she ran for parliament – and won in a landslide. “I would return again to face those who had ruined my country,” she explains, “and I was determined that I would stand straight and never bow again to their threats.”

In every corner is a killer

Joya looked out across the new Afghan parliament on her first day and thought: “In every corner is a killer, a puppet, a criminal, a drug lord, a fascist. This is not democracy. I am one of the very few people here who has been genuinely elected.” She started her maiden speech by saying: “My condolences to the people of Afghanistan…”

Before she could continue, the warlords began to shout that they would rape and kill her. One warlord, Abdul Sayyaf, yelled a threat at her. Joya looked him straight in the eye and said: “We are not in [the area he rules by force] here, so control yourself.”

I ask if she was frightened, and she shakes her head. “I am never frightened when I tell the truth.” She is speaking fast now: “I am truly honoured to have been vilified and threatened by the savage men who condemned our country to such misery. I feel proud that even though I have no private army, no money, and no world powers behind me, these brutal despots are afraid of me and scheme to eliminate me.”

She says there is no difference for ordinary Afghans between the Taliban and the equally fundamentalist warlords. “Which groups are labelled ‘terrorist’ or ‘fundamentalist’ depends on how useful they are to the goals of the US,” she says. “You have two sides who terrorise women, but the anti-American side are ‘terrorists’ and the pro-American side are ‘heroes’.”

Karzai rules only with the permission of the warlords. He is “a shameless puppet” who will win next month’s presidential elections because “he hasn’t yet stopped working for his masters, the US and the warlords… At this point in our history, the only people who get to serve as president are those selected by the US government and the mafia that holds power in our country.”

Whenever she would despair in parliament, she would meet yet more ordinary Afghan women – and get back in the fight. She tells me about a 16-year-old constituent of hers, Rahella, who ran away to an orphanage Joya had helped to set up in her constituency. “Her uncle had decided to marry her off to his son, who was a drug addict. She was terrified. So of course we took her in, educated her, helped her.” One day, her uncle turned up and apologised, saying he had learnt the error of his ways. He asked if she could come home for a weekend to visit her family. Joya agreed – and when she got back to her village, Rahella was forced into marriage and spirited away to another part of Afghanistan. They heard six months later that she had doused herself in petrol and burned herself alive.

There has been an epidemic of self-immolation by women across the “new” Afghanistan in the past five years. “The hundreds of Afghan women who set themselves ablaze are not only committing suicide to escape their misery,” she says, “they are crying out for justice.”

But she was not allowed to raise these issues in the supposedly democratic parliament. The fundamentalist warlords who couldn’t beat Joya at the ballot box or kill her chanced upon a new way to silence her. The more she spoke, the angrier they got. She called for secularism in Afghanistan, saying: “Religion is a private issue, unrelated to political issues and the government… Real Muslims do not require political leaders to guide them to Islam.” She condemned the new law that declared an amnesty for all war crimes committed in Afghanistan over the past 30 years, saying “You criminals are simply giving yourselves a get-out-of-jail free card.” So the MPs simply voted to kick her out of parliament. It was illegal and undemocratic – but the President, Hamid Karzai, supported the ban. “Now the warlord criminals are unchallenged in parliament,” she says. “Is that democracy?”

We in the West have been fed “a pack of lies” about what Afghanistan looks like today. “The media are ‘free’ only if they do not try to criticise warlords and officials,” she says in her book, Raising My Voice. As an example, she names a specific warlord: “If you write anything about him, the next day you will be tortured or killed by the Northern Alliance warlords.” It is “a myth” to say girls can now go to school outside Kabul. “Only five per cent of girls, according to the UN, can follow their education to the 12th grade.”

And it is “false” to say Afghan culture is inherently misogynistic. “By the 1950s, there was a growing women’s movement in Afghanistan, demonstrating and fighting for their rights,” she says. “I have a story here” – she rifles through her notes – “from The New York Times in 1959. Here! The headline is ‘Afghanistan’s women lift the veil’. We were developing an open culture for women – and then the foreign wars and invasions crushed it all. If we can regain our independence, we can start this struggle again.”

Many of her friends urge her to leave the country, before one of her wannabe-assassins gets lucky. But, she says, “I can never leave when all the poor people that I love are living in danger and poverty. I am not going to search for a better and safer place, and leave them in a burning hell.” Apologising for her English – which is, in fact, excellent – she quotes Brecht again: “Those who do struggle often fail, but those who do not struggle have already failed.”

Today, she fights for democracy outside parliament. But, she says, any Afghan democrat today is “trapped between two enemies. There are the occupation forces from the sky, dropping cluster bombs and depleted uranium, and on the ground there are the fundamentalist warlords and the Taliban, with their own guns.” She wants to help the swelling movement of ordinary Afghans in between, who are opposed to both. “With the withdrawal of one enemy, the occupation forces, it [will be] easier to fight against these internal fundamentalist enemies.”

If she were president of Afghanistan, she would begin by referring all the country’s war criminals to the International Court of Justice at the Hague. “Anybody who has murdered my sisters and brothers should be punished,” she says, “from the Taliban, to the warlords, to George W Bush.” Then she would ask all foreign troops to leave immediately. She says that it is wrong to say Afghanistan will simply collapse into civil war if that happens. “What about the civil war now? Today, people are being killed – many, many war crimes. The longer the foreign troops stay in Afghanistan doing what they are doing, the worse the eventual civil war will be for the Afghan people.”

The Afghan public, she adds, are on her side, pointing to a recent opinion poll showing 60 per cent of Afghans want an immediate Nato withdrawal. Many people in Afghanistan were hopeful, she says, about Barack Obama – “but he is actually intensifying the policy of George Bush… I know his election has great symbolic value in terms of the struggle of African-Americans for equal rights, and this struggle is one I admire and respect. But what is important for the world is not whether the President is black or white, but his actions. You can’t eat symbolism.”

US policy is driven by geopolitics, she says, not personalities. “Afghanistan is in the heart of Asia, so it’s a very important place to have military bases – so they can control trade very easily with other Asian powers such as China, Russia, Iran and so on.

“But it can be changed by Americans,” she adds. She is passionate now, her voice rising. “I say to Obama – in my area, 150 people were blown up by US troops in one incident this year. If your family had been there, would you send even more troops and even more bombs? Your government is spending $18m (£11m) to make another Guantanamo jail in Bagram. If your daughter might be detained there, would you be building it? I say to Obama – change course, or otherwise tomorrow people will call you another Bush.”

It’s hard to be strong all the time

“It’s not good to show my enemies any weakness, [but] it’s hard to be strong all the time,” Joya says with a sigh, as she runs her hands through her hair. She has been speaking so insistently – with such preternatural courage– that it’s easy to forget she was just a girl when she was thrust into fighting fundamentalism. She was never allowed an adolescence. The fierce concentration on her face melts away, and she looks a little lost. “Yes, my mother is proud of me,” she says, “but you know how mothers are – they worry. Whenever I speak to her on the phone, the first sentence and the last sentence are always ‘Take care’.”

Two years ago, she got married in secret. She can’t name her husband publicly, because he would be killed. Her wedding flowers had to be checked for bombs. She will only say that they met at a press conference, “and he supports everything I do”. She has not seen him “for two months”, she says. “We meet in the safe houses of supporters. I cannot sleep in the same house two nights running. It is a different home every evening.”

Where does this courage come from? She acts as if the answer is obvious – anyone would do it, she claims. But they don’t. Perhaps it comes from her belief that the struggle is long and our individual lives are short, so we can only advance our chosen cause by inches, knowing others will pick up our baton. “When I die, others will come. I am sure of that,” she says.

She certainly has a strong sense of belonging to a long history of Afghans who fought for freedom. “My parents chose my first name after Malalai of Maiwand. She was a young woman who, in 1880, went to the front line of the second Anglo-Afghan war to tend the wounded. When the fighters were close to collapse, she picked up the Afghan flag and led the men into battle herself. She was struck down – but the British suffered a landmark defeat, and, in the end, they were driven out.”

When she ran for office, she had to choose a surname for herself, to protect her family’s identity. “I named myself after Sarwar Joya, the Afghan poet and constitutionalist. He spent 24 years in jails, and was finally killed because he wouldn’t compromise his democratic principles… In Afghanistan we have a saying: the truth is like the sun. When it comes up, nobody can block it out or hide it.”

Malalai Joya knows she could be killed any day now, in our newly liberated Warlord-istan. She hugs me goodbye and says, “We must keep in touch.” But I find myself bleakly wondering if we will ever meet again. Perhaps she senses this, because she suddenly urges me to look again at the last paragraph of her memoir, Raising My Voice. “It really is how I feel,” she says. It reads: “If I should die, and you should choose to carry on my work, you are welcome to visit my grave. Pour some water on it and shout three times. I want to hear your voice.” I look up into her face, and she is giving me the bravest smile I have ever seen.

‘Raising My Voice’ by Malalai Joya is published by Rider at £11.99. All profits will go to supporting the cause of women’s rights in Afghanistan. You can donate to her campaigns at malalaijoya.com/index1024.htm

Published in The Independent

WASIM VIEW- The news coming out of Afghanistan is almost always full of half-truths at best. The NATO lie takes centre stage on both print and electronic media. However the real truth and the real Afghanistan is a very different story and it is a story told by Malalai Joya and her struggle.

Malalai Joya is a breath of fresh air and a great hope for Afghanistan. Her story is one that inspires one and all and lays bare the NATO lie proving that Afghanistan has if anything deteriorated further after NATO’s occupation. Malalai’s story is a must read for all especially the West whose casus belli for invading Afghanistan included the grand notion of ridding the Taliban to provide human rights for women amongst others .

The fact that a woman like Malalai Joya is in hiding in London a key NATO capital thanks to death threats from warlords who rule most of the country is a slap in the face for NATO and the Afghan government. The slap hurts more given that the bastion of might that is NATO and the mayor of Kabul one Hamid Karzai are impotent to act against any of the warlords who rule Afghanistan with an iron fist, how the mighty have fallen!

Malalai Joya stands tall in her commitment to improving Afghanistan, her story is one that must be told and shared for it is one of hope, of a better tomorrow for Afghanistan.

The second article is in fact the speech verbatim of David Miliband the British Foreign Secretary and is included to give the NATO view on their now infamous and failing Afghanistan mission.

Afghanistan Speech to NATO Members by David Miliband

It is a pleasure to be with you here at NATO today, an organisation that for 60 years has worked for our shared security. NATO has always been an alliance of defence not aggression. It is also an alliance of values. In each era, it has adapted to new threats with ingenuity and resolve. After centuries of bloody conflict, NATO helped build peace across Europe. Following the end of the Cold War, NATO helped unite a divided continent. Then six years ago, with the Alliance’s collective security threatened by terrorists beyond its borders, NATO launched its first operation outside Europe. It is telling that the only time in 60 years when NATO has invoked Article 5 was on 12 September 2001.

The NATO operation in Afghanistan is part of a wider UN-mandated effort by the international community. It was sparked by a single overriding concern: in the words of the British Prime Minister in December 2007, “denying Al Qaida a base from which to launch attacks on the world.” It required, first, the removal of the Taliban regime that had provided shelter for Al Qaida, and second that we help the Afghan government build the strength to keep them out permanently.

Today, while people in our countries accept the need to fight the Taliban to avoid the return of Al Qaida to Afghanistan, they want to know whether and how we will succeed. That is what I want to set out today.

First, I pay tribute to the servicemen and women from 42 countries who have served in Afghanistan. On behalf of the British government I honour all those – international and Afghan – who have given their lives or been injured. Their bravery, their commitment and their sacrifice has been remarkable. Over 1000 service personnel have been lost in ISAF or Operation Enduring Freedom. 189 members of the British armed forces have died in Afghanistan. We owe them all a huge debt. Their bravery and courage, alongside the injured, will not be forgotten.

Today, the Ministry of Defence in London will give operational details on the progress of Operation Panther’s Claw in Helmand. This mission has taken a heavy toll. But it has also achieved significant gains, above all for the 80,000 Afghan people who now, for the first time in years, are under the jurisdiction of the legitimate Afghan authorities.

In recent weeks in Britain the debate about Afghanistan has centered on military tactics and resources. People in Britain know why we all committed to this mission. They want to know that all of the members of our Alliance are ready to give it the priority and commitment it deserves. Burden sharing is a founding principle of the Alliance. It needs to be honoured in practice as well as in theory.

I am a Foreign Minister, not a General or a Defence Minister, and I have come to talk not about military operations and military strategy but about politics. Because in Afghanistan we are fighting an insurgency. And the heart of NATO doctrine is that military force alone is never enough to achieve lasting success in counter-insurgency. Whether military breakthroughs are translated into strategic success will depend on the political strategy that is pursued and on the political coalition that is built – by the Afghan Government, by NATO and the UN, and by Afghanistan’s neighbours. That is my focus today.

The nature of the insurgency

It is vital that we understand the nature of the enemy. It is easy to brand the insurgency under a single label: ‘The Taliban’. The reality is more complex. And it requires our countries to work with Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.

There is no single authoritative leadership of the insurgency in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. Instead there are a range of different insurgent groups. They operate with varying degrees of autonomy in their own particular areas. Cooperation between them is opportunistic and tactical rather than strategic.

In Afghanistan the southern insurgency is led by members of the former Taliban government. It has the largest number of fighters and the most hierarchical and well organised leadership under Mullah Omar. It is these people against whom British and American forces have been conducting major operations in the last few weeks.

In the east of the country, by contrast, a variety of other factions operate, including the Haqqani network, Hizb-e Islami and a range of smaller groups.

In Pakistan’s tribal belt leaders of the Afghan Taliban are focused on gaining power west of the border. Within Waziristan, the three leaders of the main insurgency – Baitullah Mehsud, Gul Bahadur, and Maulvi Nazir – belong to different tribes and have different motivations. Each has links both to Al Qaida, and to the Haqqani network.

People are drawn into the insurgency for different reasons, primarily pragmatic rather than ideological. So there are the foot soldiers whom the Taliban pay $10 a day – more than a local policeman. There are poppy farmers who support the insurgents because they offer protection against eradication efforts. There are narco-traffickers who rely on them for safe passage of drugs. There are warlords and aspirant power-brokers who believe that the Taliban will win, and so position themselves for their own political advantage. And then – perhaps most crucially – there are the ordinary Afghans, who, despite dreading the Taliban’s return, doubt the capacity of the state to protect them, so hedge their bets. They may not give active support. But they acquiesce or turn a blind eye.

The nature of the insurgency gives it some advantages. The different groups can feed off and support each other – providing suicide bombers, training or equipment. The autonomy of local commanders makes their groups resilient, even when their superiors are killed or captured. And strong bonds of local and tribal loyalty make it easier for them to rally people against outsiders.

But the insurgents’ vulnerabilities are also clear.

The insurgency is a wide but shallow coalition of convenience: an amalgam of groups with different motivations and power centres. So they are divided.

The Taliban are the largest element of the insurgency but, because they exploit predominantly Pashtun communities and sentiment, their support base is limited to the Pashtun districts of the south and west, and to the Pashtun pockets in the north and east.

The insurgency remains deeply unpopular with ordinary Afghans, including in the south and east. Polling across Afghanistan shows that over 90% of the population do not want the Taliban back in power.

The Taliban can terrorise, but their military, technological and organisational inferiority to conventional forces means they cannot take and hold territory and power on a lasting basis. And when they do hold sway, and do put their values into practice, they appal the local population. This is what has happened in Pakistan in recent months, with a large swing in support to the government in revulsion at what the Taliban stand for.

Political Strategy

In the face of this enemy, our ultimate objective in 2001 holds true for 2009: to protect our citizens from terrorist attacks by preventing Al Qaida having a safe haven in the tribal belt -in either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

The role of military operations is to deny insurgents the space to operate. That is: to clear and hold towns and villages under insurgent control, so allowing Afghans to build basic governance and justice, to deliver welfare and dispense development assistance.

I have seen for myself how this can work in different parts of the country. It is now being tested in real time in Helmand. British, Danish, Estonian and Afghan troops have pushed the Taliban of out of Babaji. This has extended the writ of Afghan government, linking the provincial capital Lashkar Gar with the economic centre of Gereshk and bringing tens of thousands of people under Afghan government control. US troops have ventured far down south along the Helmand River valley, driving the Taliban out of Khan Neshin and restoring government control.

As international troops go in, it is essential they are followed by the Afghan National Army and Police. It is they who must guard key facilities, man checkpoints and protect the population from Taliban intimidation.

The test of success is therefore clear. As General McChrystal has said “The measure of effectiveness will not be enemy killed; it will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence”.

That shield today comes in military form from a partnership of international and Afghan military forces. Over time, the military shield must be provided increasingly by Afghan combat troops.

But the shield must also be delivered by a clear political strategy, because strategic progress relies on undermining the insurgency through politics. Three political challenges – that address the causes not the symptoms of the insurgency – will shape the future of Afghanistan.

First, a political strategy for dealing with the insurgency through reintegration and reconciliation. That means in the long term an inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan, which draws away conservative Pashtun nationalists – separating those who want Islamic rule locally from those committed to violent jihad globally – and gives them a sufficient role in local politics that they leave the path of confrontation with the government.

Second, a political strategy for the wider population, through reassurance about their future. NATO must show the Afghan people that we will not abandon them to Taliban retribution; that our forces will stay until Afghan communities can protect themselves, but no longer than we are needed. And, as we transfer responsibility to Afghans and withdraw our troops from combat, the international community will continue to help Afghanistan – one of the poorest countries of earth – with aid and training.

Both of these tasks depend on credible, clean local government at provincial and district level that works with the grain of tribal Afghan society.

Third, a political strategy towards the neighbours in the region – including Pakistan and Iran – to ensure that they accept that Afghanistan’s future is not as a client of any, but as a secure country in its own right. Once again it should be the commercial and cultural crossroads of South West Asia. A country in which each of the neighbours and near neighbours has an open and responsible stake.

Let me address each in turn.

Reintegrating and Reconciling Insurgents

As President Obama said at the end of March, “in a country with extreme poverty that’s been at war for decades, there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies…There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who’ve taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course.”

With counter insurgency efforts being stepped up on either side of the Durand Line, Taliban commanders and foot soldiers face an increasingly debilitating struggle. From this position, we need to help the Afghan government exploit the opportunity, with a more coherent effort to fragment the various elements of the insurgency, and turn those who can be reconciled to live within the Afghan Constitution.

The basis for both reintegration and reconciliation is a starker choice: bigger incentives to switch sides and stay out of trouble, alongside tougher action against those who refuse.

The Afghan government needs effective grass-roots initiatives to offer an alternative to fight or flight for the foot soldiers of the insurgency. Essentially this means a clear route for former insurgents to return to their villages and go back to farming the land, or a role for some of them within the legitimate Afghan security forces. Military pressure has an important role to play – these people must see the danger of remaining insurgents, but also believe that they will be protected from their former allies if they lay down their arms.

For higher-level commanders and their networks, we need to work with the Afghan government to separate the hard-line ideologues, who are essentially irreconcilable and violent and who must be pursued relentlessly, from those who can be drawn into domestic political processes.

Afghan history sets a precedent here. Blood enemies from the Soviet period and the civil war now work together in government. Former Talibs already sit in the Parliament. And Mullah Salam left the Taliban in late 2007 to become the district governor of Musa Qaleh. So there is no reason that many members of the current insurgency can not follow – if they are prepared to be part of a peaceful future and accept the Afghan constitution. The next Afghan government must make this clear, and work to establish a reintegration process across the country.

Reassuring the Population and Maintaining Consent

It is only when the cooperation, passive and active, of ordinary Afghans is removed that the insurgency will be fatally undermined. The squeeze on the Taliban must come from within as well as without.

The three biggest barriers to this happening more widely are: first, that Afghans fear that international forces will leave prematurely, leaving a state unable to protect them from the Taliban; second, the absence of clean and consistent local governance; and third the lack of economic opportunity and consequent unemployment. So people hedge their bets, turning a blind eye when they see insurgents laying IEDs or refusing to inform on insurgent infiltrators in their midst.

The further development of the Afghan Security Forces is vital. By the end of 2011 we will have trained and equipped 134,000 members of the Afghan National Army, up from 90,000 today. Alongside them will be a 97,000-strong police force – up from 80,000 today – guarding key facilities and institutions, manning checkpoints and tackling civil unrest.

These capacity-building efforts must continue; indeed they should be accelerated.

But, alongside security forces, Afghans look for the basics of authority. That means effective governors in each of the country’s 34 provinces; and the appointment by them of credible leaders of the 364 districts. But also local governance that is credible, competent and clean, properly resourced and supported from Kabul, and works with the grain of tribal structures and history. It is not possible to overstate the importance of these appointments.

The National Solidarity Program has empowered over 20,000 development shuras across Afghanistan to decide for themselves how international assistance should be spent in their communities. We need to see district governors – the uluswals – once again empowered to govern, working with shuras of the local elders whom the Taliban have undermined and removed. Such shuras would be the focus of political decision-making, but also deal with security and development issues. This is what we are already doing in Helmand to provide a single platform for Afghan Social Outreach, Public Protection and National Solidarity Programmes.

The third part of the offer to local people is development. We are not in Afghanistan because girls were not allowed to go to school. But helping them do so is an important down-payment to Afghans desperate for a better future for their children. Ditto health care. And ditto jobs. That is why in Helmand, British, American, Danish and Estonian civilian and military staff are working to help build schools, provide clean water and electricity, surface roads and support agriculture. It is why the UK Department for International Development (DFID) is spending about half a billion pounds in development assistance over the next four years. It is why other allies and partners, working with UNAMA, are doing the same across the rest of Afghanistan. For instance the European Commission and EU member states are spending more than 900 million Euros a year.

Regional stability

The final challenge is Afghanistan’s relations with its neighbours.

The neighbour with the greatest influence on Afghanistan’s stability is of course Pakistan. Militants move with comparative ease across the 1600 mile Durand Line, and the insurgencies in the south and east of Afghanistan are directed partly from Quetta and Peshawar in Pakistan.

As I saw for myself a few weeks ago, we now have mutually reinforcing strategies on both sides of the border, with extra troops deployed in southern Afghanistan, across the border from the Pakistani military’s preparatory operations in Waziristan. The unity across political and military parts of the Pakistani state, and the support of the Pakistani population for the efforts in the North West Frontier, is striking.

The path to success on the Pakistani side of the insurgency requires a number of steps:

First, military operations need over time to address all militants who shelter Al Qaida, as well as those who threaten Pakistan itself.

Second, any future peace deals to reconcile militants should have clear red lines: they must be prepared to shut out Al Qaida, and not use violence against troops or citizens in Afghanistan.

Third, the areas that have already been subject to military operations – in Swat and the Malakand Division – need to be reconstructed quickly and internally displaced persons resettled, so that immediate military success does not give way to longer term civilian disaffection.

Fourth, the people of FATA need a clear roadmap towards proper inclusion in the Pakistani state, with the same rights – and responsibilities – as other citizens. The lack of governance and justice in FATA – and in parts of North West Frontier Province – created the vacuum which insurgents exploited. Once again, political problems require political solutions.

All of this needs international economic, political and security support. The new group Friends of Democratic Pakistan provides a basis to offer that.

History has taught, however, that Afghanistan’s stability does not depend just on its eastern neighbour. The country has long been a chessboard upon which the geopolitical struggles of others have been played out. In the nineteenth century the ‘Great Game’ saw Russian and British agents jockey for influence in the border region between two of the world’s great empires. Years later this struggle for power was repeated, as the dying days of the Cold War were played out between the Red Army and the Mujahadeen.

The reality is that in each case it is the Afghan people who have suffered. The country’s neighbours need to realise that it is in their interests for Afghanistan to be a stable, neutral state – a friend to all, and a client of none. Secretary Clinton’s initiative at The Hague Conference was an important signal of intent, and needs to be followed up.

Priorities over the Next Six Months

We are at an important point in Afghanistan’s history and NATO’s work there. The elections on 20 August need to be both credible and inclusive. These will be the first Afghan-led elections since the 1970s. We are doing all we can to help ensure that the process is as fair as possible: deploying additional troops so people can vote safely, and through the EU and OSCE despatching over 100 election observers to foster confidence in the overall process.

Ultimately, though, what will determine whether these elections mark a turning point is whether the candidates not just present clear manifestos but whether those are then implemented. We talk often about burden sharing between members of our alliance. But the biggest shift must now be towards the Afghan state taking more responsibility. Because it is only if the political will is there that a meaningful package of incentives and sanctions can be developed to support reconciliation and reintegration. It is only with political will that genuine progress will be made in rooting out corrupt and incompetent Ministers at all levels of government; and that district by district, province by province, the Afghan Security Forces will take on responsibility for security. And it is only with political will that the Afghan Government will succeed in deepening their cooperation with the Pakistani Authorities.

In Pakistan too, the international community needs to forge a new relationship. It must be characterised by clear principles: a partnership that is sustained and long-term, not stop-start. A partnership focused on backing civilian institutions and democratic government, not particular individuals. A partnership that covers the breadth of Pakistan’s interests – jobs, education, agriculture, security – not just our focus on Al Qaida and the Taliban. This breadth must be reflected in the investment we provide in civilian aid; and in a partnership based on a two-way dialogue about each other’s concerns and interests, rather than a transactional relationship about how Pakistan can serve our interests. The first EU/Pakistan summit was an important step in this direction.

Conclusion

NATO was born in the shadow of the Cold War, but we have all had to change our thinking as our troops confront insurgents rather than military machines like our own. The mental models of 20th century mass warfare are not fit for 21st century counter-insurgency.

That is why my argument today has been about the centrality of politics. People like quoting Clausewitz that warfare is the continuation of politics by other means. But in Afghanistan we need politics to become the continuation of warfare by other means.

We will not force the Taliban to surrender just through force of arms and overwhelming might. Nor will we convert them to our point of view through force of argument and ideological conviction. But by challenging the insurgency, by dividing the different groups, by convincing the Afghans that we will not desert them to Taliban retribution, and by building legitimate governance especially at local level with the grain of Afghan society, the Afghan government, with our support, can prevail.

We in NATO have a long, hard military campaign ahead of us. We explain to our public recent advances, though we know recent sacrifices will not be the last, and we also explain the seriousness of the security situation. Our enemies should never doubt our determination to accomplish this mission, because we know the very high cost of failure. Just as our friends should know that they can truly count on us, because we know that our own security depends on it.

For that, we need politics to succeed in Afghanistan. Today I have explained how it can do so.

Published in The New Statesman

WASIM VIEW- David Miliband’s speech is full of self-congratulation and much ado about nothing. Miliband’s contention that NATO is an alliance of defence and not aggression seems dubious given their Afghanistan occupation is certainly not a defensive act but moreover one of aggressive intent as the countless Afghan dead have testified in blood since 2001.

Miliband’s definition of the Taliban and its variants is indicative of where NATO has failed and indeed his speech is a charge sheet of NATO’s failings under his own personal watch too when he says of the Taliban: ‘So there are the foot soldiers whom the Taliban pay $10 a day – more than a local policeman. There are poppy farmers who support the insurgents because they offer protection against eradication efforts. There are narco-traffickers who rely on them for safe passage of drugs. There are warlords and aspirant power-brokers who believe that the Taliban will win, and so position themselves for their own political advantage. And then – perhaps most crucially – there are the ordinary Afghans, who, despite dreading the Taliban’s return, doubt the capacity of the state to protect them, so hedge their bets. They may not give active support. But they acquiesce or turn a blind eye’

The truth is that the Taliban’s continuing drug trade operations prove that they can outpay and outwit the military powerhouse that is NATO, including the sole superpower that is America. David Miliband is right in pointing out the vulnerabilities of the insurgents as an ‘a wide but shallow coalition of convenience: an amalgam of groups with different motivations and power centres. So they are divided’ Yet he is oblivious that much of the same can be said of NATO too which has occupied Afghanistan since 2001 and failed miserably with NATO allies also divided happy only to meet and attend photo calls but not burden share.

The rest of David Miliband’s speech on political strategy is nothing new and includes the new mantra of ‘talking to the Taliban’. However one can only be sceptical given results on the ground say a different story not least in the form of a massive increase in British soldiers killed in action recently. Afghanistan is not getting cold rather its getting hotter, indeed the Taliban who have ruled the country in the main except for a token NATO presence in Kabul, Helmand and other places are not likely to yield any time soon to the Mayor of Kabul and his NATO friends.

David Miliband is right in pointing out the important role Pakistan has to play in stabilising Afghanistan. Miliband is only too right in reminding his NATO friends that the current love affair must extend to a genuine partnership with Pakistan and not be a repeat of the on and off sordid relationships of the past. David Miliband’s test and indeed NATO’s test will be if they can translate their words into actions on the ground, as Pakistanis we will assess him and NATO on how they meet their own yardstick as intimated in his speech of creating a ‘partnership that covers the breadth of Pakistan’s interests – jobs, education, agriculture, security – not just our focus on Al Qaida and the Taliban. This breadth must be reflected in the investment we provide in civilian aid; and in a partnership based on a two-way dialogue about each other’s concerns and interests, rather than a transactional relationship about how Pakistan can serve our interests’. To be or not to be a partner, indeed that is the question!

The final article leaves Afghanistan and focuses effort on Pakistan’s energy woes as this is an area close to my heart and an area of focus for Other Pakistan’s think tank. An article by Mustafa Qadri details the as is situation.

Pakistan’s Power Politics by Mustafa Qadri

Few things are as oppressive in Pakistan as the summer heat. In colonial times, the British would shift their garrison headquarters from Rawalpindi to the cool peaks of Murree, just north of present day Islamabad. Today, the elite are more likely to skip the country entirely or barricade themselves in the air-conditioned comfort of their cars and homes.

On the streets of Pakistan’s vibrant cities, the industrious whir of countless generators is as ubiquitous as the hawkers desperately trying to make ends meet.

With its ever-growing population, Pakistan has always struggled to match energy supplies with demand. Those difficulties have turned violent recently. In Karachi and throughout the Punjab last week angry mobs went on a rampage and assailed power companies in frustration at the long daily power cuts that have brought modern life to a standstill.

The Gilani Research Foundation estimates (pdf) that 53% of Pakistan’s population goes without electricity for more than eight hours a day. In fact, the blackouts are even longer in rural and poor urban areas which also lack other basic infrastructure like roads and waste water drainage. The situation has led to a series of annual hikes in energy costs. In the poorest slums of Karachi, for instance, people are forced to clandestinely tap into the electrical grids of rich communities because the retail price is too prohibitive. Power theft in Karachi and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas alone is believed to cost the state £138m in lost revenues.

The government has been under pressure to increase tariffs and reduce subsidies across a broad spectrum of industries including energy ever since agreeing to an IMF loan package last year in desperation as the nation’s foreign reserves dwindled. The move has caused much consternation among consumers and local businesses, not just the angry mobs.

The power cuts occur with greater frequency during the long hot summer months. Every time they occur, modern life and business grinds to a halt. This, along with poor employment prospects, and education and health services – and not the Taliban – is the greatest concern for the average Pakistani.

“We have inherited these problems [from the Musharraf regime]. There was no planning done, there was no [energy] policy for the past 3-4 years,” Asim Hussain, national adviser for petroleum and natural resources, tells me during a break in a London conference on Pakistan’s oil and gas industry.

Just as a gaping hole divides the supply and demand for electricity in Pakistan, the country is heavily reliant on imported fossil fuels: local energy production accounts for only 15% of all usage. Oil and gas make up 80% of all of Pakistan’s energy consumption and with 62,000km of pipelines; it has one of the largest networks in the world.

Authorities say they hope to raise national power generation by 4000 megawatts by 2010 but there are concerns the target is unlikely to be met as political intrigues continue to plague the government. Similar intrigues have scuppered attempts at exploiting alternative and renewable energy sources such as hydroelectricity. Among the stalled initiatives is the contentious Kalabagh dam project that proponents say will deliver greater irrigation for agriculture and quench a thirsty nation’s energy needs by tapping into the Indus river. The project is opposed by all of Pakistan’s provincial governments except the dominant Punjab. Critics cite multiple reasons for opposing the dam’s construction including environmental degradation, mass displacement of regional communities, and domination of the project by the Punjab.

The failure to find local energy sources has compelled government and business to look abroad with mixed success. Pakistan recently signed a gas pipeline deal with Iran, but it will be some years before the taps will be turned on. Another proposal is to import LPG across the Persian Gulf from Qatar, but such an ambitious venture requires substantial infrastructure still lacking in Pakistan.

With that and the unending energy crisis in mind, the Pakistan government has been wooing multinationals at a series of oil and gas exploration conferences in London, Houston and Calgary last week. With its Petroleum Policy 2009, the current government says it will reinvigorate Pakistan’s troubled energy sector primarily through foreign investment.

Pakistan is not just a gateway to mineral resource wealth in Central Asia and the Middle East; it is rich in minerals and fossil fuels. According to government sources, there are believed to be reserves of 27bn barrels of oil and 280trn cubic feet of gas. Yet most of that wealth remains locked away: only 3.4% of oil and 19% of gas resources have been tapped thus far. “Pakistan has significant remaining exploration potential,” explains a British geologist at the London conference. That has much to do with the country’s “complex geology”, and the fact that many of the most promising sites lie in the unstable regions of Balochistan and North West Frontier Province, home to separatists, militants and bandits.

Those obstacles haven’t dissuaded some of the largest oil and gas companies – such as British Petroleum and ENI – from investing in large exploration licenses. “With great risks come great rewards,” explains one eager executive from another multinational. “We have had years of experience in Iraq,” another eager entrepreneur from a private security company assures me. The stakes are indeed high. “There is no doubt that we are dependent on foreign companies to exploit Pakistan’s natural resources,” senior petroleum ministry bureaucrat GA Sabri. Eighteen out of 20 companies operating ventures in Pakistan are foreign-owned.

For years indigenous and regional communities have complained that their ancestral lands have been damaged by prospecting resource companies, or that they haven’t been given a stake in the riches under their feet. In a glossy pamphlet, the state-controlled Pakistan Petroleum Limited claims to be committed to developing these very same communities.

As the government and multinationals divide the spoils, however, the question remains whether the average citizen will get a seat at the table.

Published in The Guardian

WASIM VIEW- Mustafa Qadri’s article is a good one in that it reminds us all of the sorry state of the nation that is Pakistan. It is that ordinary Pakistanis suffer the daily indignity of loadshedding due to energy shortages and that the masses are unlikely to benefit from Pakistan’s rich natural resources.

My own published article in the field Exploiting Thar Coal that can be read here is a good starting point in the discussion. Furthermore Qadri does well to summarise the situation and bemoans how Pakistan has failed to utilise her own natural resources for the benefit of the many and not the few. The abject failure of successive governments to utilise Pakistan’s resources is in effect a war crime against the ordinary Pakistani given the nation is suffering enormously whilst the solution to our power problems lie under our feet be it Thar coal or gas reserves.

That said as a principled opponent of the PPP government, I must state that the present PPP government is moving well to address the situation however its words are yet to match its actions on the ground in ensuring Pakistan’s exploits its vast natural resources. The nation waits to come out of the dark and into the light and it is hoped this can be a reality soon for the toiling masses of Pakistan.

April’s B-side contents are:

•    A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan by BARACK OBAMA
•    With Obama At the World’s Most Dangerous Place by Prof AKBAR AHMED
•    Munich Conference Speech by SHAH MEHMOOD QURESHI

I begin the debate with the celebrity President and from the horse’s mouth as it were with President Obama speech on America’s new policy and include too its transcript. It is a must watch and read, do especially read my views on the policy.

A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan by BARACK OBAMA

We begin the speech that is shown in two parts:

The second part of Barack Obama’s speech:

The full text of the Obama speech is shown below:

Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office. My Administration has heard from our military commanders and diplomats. We have consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments; with our partners and NATO allies; and with other donors and international organizations. And we have also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. Now, I’d like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people.

The situation is increasingly perilous. It has been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. Most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces.

Many people in the United States and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer.

So let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged ñ that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.

The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda’s leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe-haven to hide, train terrorists, communicate with followers, plot attacks, and send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.

But this is not simply an American problem far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it too is likely to have ties to al Qaedaís leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.

For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.

As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.

So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.

To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy. To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq. To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support. And to defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan which is why I’ve appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to serve as Special Representative for both countries, and to work closely with General David Petraeus to integrate our civilian and military efforts.

Let me start by addressing the way forward in Pakistan.

The United States has great respect for the Pakistani people. They have a rich history, and have struggled against long odds to sustain their democracy. The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want: an end to terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams, and the security that can only come with the rule of law. The single greatest threat to that future comes from al Qaeda and their extremist allies, and that is why we must stand together.

The terrorists within Pakistanís borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan ñ they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan. Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They have killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They have blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. Make no mistake: al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within.

It is important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after al Qaeda. This is no simple task. The tribal regions are vast, rugged, and often ungoverned. That is why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists. And after years of mixed results, we will not provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken one way or another when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.

The governmentís ability to destroy these safe-havens is tied to its own strength and security. To help Pakistan weather the economic crisis, we must continue to work with the IMF, the World Bank and other international partners. To lessen tensions between two nuclear-armed nations that too often teeter on the edge of escalation and confrontation, we must pursue constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan. To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistanís democratic institutions and the Pakistani people. And to demonstrate through deeds as well as words a commitment that is enduring, we must stand for lasting opportunity.

A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaeda offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something different. So today, I am calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistanís democracy. I’m also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Maria Cantwell, Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border region to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued by violence. And we will ask our friends and allies to do their part ñ including at the donors conference in Tokyo next month.

I do not ask for this support lightly. These are challenging times, and resources are stretched. But the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future ñ because the security of our two countries is shared. Pakistanís government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe-havens, and we must isolate al Qaeda from the Pakistani people.

These steps in Pakistan are also indispensable to our effort in Afghanistan, which will see no end to violence if insurgents move freely back and forth across the border.

Security demands a new sense of shared responsibility. That is why we will launch a standing, trilateral dialogue among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our nations will meet regularly, with Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates leading our effort. Together, we must enhance intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border, while addressing issues of common concern like trade, energy, and economic development.

This is just one part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al Qaeda safe-haven that it was before 9/11. To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban’s gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government.

Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals.

I have already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan Security Forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential election in August.

At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan Security Forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That is how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home.

For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. Those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change. The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity. Later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan Security Forces. For the first time, this will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan Army and Police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan Army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward.

This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, have seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty.

To advance security, opportunity, and justice not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces we need agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers. That is how we can help the Afghan government serve its people, and develop an economy that isnít dominated by illicit drugs. That is why I am ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. And that is why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in the Hague.

At a time of economic crisis, it is tempting to believe that we can short-change this civilian effort. But make no mistake: our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don’t invest in their future. That is why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run because it is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village or to help a farmer seed a crop, than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility.

As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction.

And I want to be clear: we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, and sets clear benchmarks for international assistance so that it is used to provide for the needs of the Afghan people.

In a country with extreme poverty that has been at war for decades, there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies. I have no illusions that this will be easy. In Iraq, we had success in reaching out to former adversaries to isolate and target al Qaeda. We must pursue a similar process in Afghanistan, while understanding that it is a very different country.

There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. That is why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans ñ including women and girls.

Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan Security Forces, and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistanís economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals.

None of the steps that I have outlined will be easy, and none should be taken by America alone. The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked. We have a shared responsibility to act ñ not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends upon it. And what’s at stake now is not just our own security it is the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security. That was the founding cause of NATO six decades ago. That must be our common purpose today.

My Administration is committed to strengthening international organizations and collective action, and that will be my message next week in Europe. As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part. From our partners and NATO allies, we seek not simply troops, but rather clearly defined capabilities: supporting the Afghan elections, training Afghan Security Forces, and a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people. For the United Nations, we seek greater progress for its mandate to coordinate international action and assistance, and to strengthen Afghan institutions.

And finally, together with the United Nations, we will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China. None of these nations benefit from a base for al Qaeda terrorists, and a region that descends into chaos. All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development.

That is true, above all, for the coalition that has fought together in Afghanistan, side by side with Afghans. The sacrifices have been enormous. Nearly 700 Americans have lost their lives. Troops from over twenty other countries have also paid the ultimate price. All Americans honor the service and cherish the friendship of those who have fought, and worked, and bled by our side. And all Americans are awed by the service of our own men and women in uniform, who have borne a burden as great as any other generations. They and their families embody the example of selfless sacrifice.

The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims, who al Qaeda has killed and maimed in far greater numbers than any other people. That is the future that al Qaeda is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan a future without opportunity or hope; a future without justice or peace.

The road ahead will be long. There will be difficult days. But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that serve the promise of a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more.

Thank you, God Bless You, and God Bless the United States of America.

Published in The News

WASIM VIEW- Before I analyse the new policy I must comment on a related aspect which is that I find the Obama Administration to be pernicious in referring to Afghanistan and Pakistan as AfPak. Such a cavalier regard to my country I find to be spiteful and proves that even after Bush, the fools rule.  It is within this context that the new policy needs to be viewed with an arrogant America belittling a nuclear Pakistan putting it on par with our failed state of a neighbour.

In terms of the policy, I find it to be more of the same with only cosmetic changes trumpeted as much more than that by the slick PR machine that is Obama. It is ‘do more’ again and is old wine in a new bottle and I can summarise it best as dollars for drones.

The military and civilian aid promised has pleased the Pakistani government but not the masses who see it as short change for services rendered with Pakistan as proxy for Uncle Sam’s tussle with Al-Qaeda. Indeed Pakistan’s Finance Ministry has stated that the war on terror has cost Pakistan financially alone a loss of $35bn so who is President Obama kidding with his much trumpeted aid to the people of Pakistan of £1.5bn a year, these are pennies or paisa and he can keep it I say.

I have chosen not to indulge in a nitpick exercise on the speech but I do wonder which planet President Obama and his fanclub are on. Is it not an admission of US failure  when President Obama says ‘ it has been more than seven years since the Taliban were removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Remember this has all happened on NATO’s watch supported of course by the sole superpower of Uncle Sam! 

President Obama’s monumental mistake in his new strategy is in continuing a transactional US-Pakistan relationship. Indeed when Barack ‘No Blank Check’ Obama warned Pakistan of Uncle Sam’s no blank check policy, it reaffirmed to Pakistan that the US under change-we-cant Obama continues to engage only on its terms wielding dollars to the political elite to co-opt its support as and when needed. Indeed the blank check jibe is indicative of the flawed strategy and smacks of a lack of trust and commitment to a nation that has given its all.

Choice words of praise ‘our allies have borne a heavy burden’ are not enough. Candidate Obama campaigned on the platform of ‘Change We Can Believe In’, however President Obama’s changed US policy is not change but more of the same. It is not change and Pakistan does not believe in it too.

The second article is analysis of the Obama speech by my mentor and hero Professor Akbar Ahmed. Its well worth a read:

With Obama At the World’s Most Dangerous Place by Akbar Ahmed

Seated a few yards in front of President Obama as his invited guest at the White House on Friday, March 27, I heard him describe the areas I had been in charge of including Waziristan as “the most dangerous place in the world.”

Obama was laying out what I suspect will become the signature foreign policy effort of his presidency. He had shifted the American focus of the last eight years from the Middle East to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ultimately he will be judged by the success or failure of the objectives he laid out in his speech.

As if to confirm the sentiment of Obama’s speech, at the same time as he delivered it, a suicide bomber in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan blew himself up and seventy other people in a mosque at Friday prayer. Around the same time, an Afghan soldier, trained by Americans, turned his gun on two American soldiers killing them and then shot himself. The stakes, therefore, could not be higher.

Obama laid out a persuasive argument, something that I had been doing for several years that in order to stabilize Afghanistan, its neighbor Pakistan had to be stabilized. Obama’s political insight was that Pakistan could not be stabilized without first calming and controlling the border areas that lie between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama rightly made a distinction between al-Qaeda who would be challenged and defeated and the general Taliban who were to be treated differently. There were those Taliban who could be talked to and eventually brought in, and those who were not redeemable.

Afghanistan will receive the attention it deserves but could not get because of the war in Iraq, and Pakistan will no longer be neglected. For Pakistan Obama committed $1.5 billion in aid annually for the next five years. While applauding Obama’s generosity, I would urge him to ensure that the rulers of Afghanistan and Pakistan account for the $16-17 billion in American aid already given since 9/11 before providing more funds for their Swiss bank accounts.

As a Pakistani, it was a pleasure to hear an American president speak with such respect of the people of Pakistan. Obama talked of the suffering of the Pakistanis at the hand of the terrorists after 9/11. He even mentioned the large numbers of Pakistani soldiers killed in action along Pakistan’s international border while attempting to bring law and order.

I was equally impressed as I am sure most Pakistanis were–that he was the first American president I have heard pronounce the name of the country correctly. It is difficult for the people of that country to take American commentators too seriously when they pronounce Iran as “I-ran”, Iraq as “I-rack”, or Qatar as “gutter.”

But, eloquence and diction will not get Obama very far in the rugged terrain that he has rightly called lethally dangerous for America and the world. If he fails to control the tribal areas, Obama will find his policy unraveling and the fears of American commentators that this may very well become “Obama’s Vietnam” may prove correct.

So as someone who was directly in charge of three divisions in Baluchistan and several of the Tribal Areas in the Frontier Province, let me offer my suggestions based on my experiences.

My first suggestion is that Obama stop the drone strikes. At the moment, the issue of the drone strikes in the Tribal Areas is a highly sensitive and inflammatory one. While some “bad guys” may be killed in the strikes, there is little doubt that too many “good guys” are lost in the process–and many of them are women and children. This causes widespread outrage and fuels the anti-Americanism which is already rampant.

There is talk of opening up a new chapter by ordering drone strikes in Baluchistan. Not a good idea. The colonial British assiduously prevented the Baluch tribe of Baluchistan and Pashtun tribes of Southern Afghanistan and Pakistani agencies like North and South Waziristan from ever teaming up against them. I can predict that with the first drone strike in Baluchistan, America will ensure that this occurs. As a result, the Taliban will gain new supporters and vast strategic depth.

And for those who may still have a cocky arrogance about dealing with these “tribal people,” I would suggest they take a look at the map and confront the reality that the Baluch share hundreds of miles of border with Iran which will undoubtedly provide covert aid to put further pressure on its American adversaries.

Secondly, Obama must encourage the Pakistani government to stabilize law and order at the district level, the basic unit of administration. This can be done by revamping the civilian administrative structure in the tribal areas and districts of Pakistan. The vast majority of Pakistanis are fed up with the anarchy in their country and want to focus their lives on food, employment, and education for their families. Above all, they want law and order, which the district administration once provided. The district structure has been marginalized to the point of irrelevance over the last decade, and in its vacuum feudal lords, corrupt policemen and army soldiers play havoc with ordinary Pakistanis. An independent, honest, and competent civil administration, backed by an independent judiciary, would provide immediate relief and justice at the district level.

In the Tribal Areas, the office of the political agent, along with the structure of tribal administration should be revived and strengthened, and the army used in aid of civil power and not to thwart it. It has been clearly shown that the army cannot deal effectively with the tribes.

Thirdly, in the tribal areas the council of elders, the jirgas that act as a tribal body providing justice and stability and the religious scholars advocating calm and stability should be strengthened. Some of these have become particular targets of the Taliban. But they are an effective inbuilt structural check to the Taliban.

Fourthly, the madrassas which form a vast, complex network of potential recruiting arenas for the Taliban need to be vigorously reformed. With the kind of money Pakistanis are receiving they should also be told that a large percentage should go to this reformation providing new syllabi, teachers training programs, and up to date equipment. This action will go a long way toward securing the next generation of Pakistanis.

Finally, follow up on the sensitivity shown by Obama in his approach to the Pakistani people and emphasize friendship and honor. I would suggest less bluster and more diplomacy on the part of those who are being sent out as part of Obama’s efforts in the field.

Back at the White House, as I sat sensing the charisma of Obama and the eloquence of his words, I could not help but feel that I was seated in the front row watching history unfold.

I wondered whether he or those whose task it was to implement the President’s vision were fully aware of the enormity of the challenge, as indeed I was.

Published in the Huffington Post

WASIM VIEW-Professor Akbar Ahmed is a personal hero of mine and a master of his trade. Prof Ahmed is spot on when he notes that the Obama Afghanistan and Pakistan policy will be the signature foreign policy effort of his presidency.

Prof Ahmed’s article is a cogent one with praise and criticism of the Obama policy. Prof Ahmed is right when he praises President  Obama for speaking directly to the Pakistani people. However I politely differ with him in deeming this as respect as I believe his actions sorry drones speak louder than his words and show his real respect for the Pakistani people. However I do echo Prof Ahmed’s praise of President Obama in being the first US President in prounouncing Pakistan correctly.

Prof Akbar Ahmed’s demolition of the US position on drones is just that, a demolition. In particular he speaks with clarity and authority as he has personally been in charge of Balochistan and the Tribal Areas and can call on his experience to support his arguments. I second Prof Ahmed’s support for the revival of the office of the political agent and the tribal administration.

Other suggestions such as madrassa reform and strengthening the jirga or council of elders make eminent sense too. All in all Prof Akbar Ahmed’s strategy by the way of his article is spot on and free advice, the Obama Administration would do well to heed it.

The third article is in fact a speech by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi delivered at the Munich Security Conference. It is  worth a read as it was made before the Obama strategy was announced and thus represents the Pakistani position on the issue. Please hear the speech too on the website link shown at the end of the article.

Munich Conference Speech by Shah Mehmood Qureshi

Your Excellency, Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of 45. Munich Security Conference, Excellencies, Distinguished participants, Ladies and Gentleman,

It is a matter of great privilege and honour for me to address the 45th Munich Security Conference, a premier forum for candid deliberations on global security issues.

I am grateful for this opportunity to share Pakistan’s views on NATO’s mission in Afghanistan and its future. This issue is of vital importance for peace and stability in our region. I wish to thank Abassador Wolfgang Ischinger for this timely and important initiative.

To us in Pakistan, Afghanistan holds a special significance. Peace and security of our two countries are interlinked. What afflicts one, invariably impacts the other. For the last three decades, Pakistan has suffered the gravest fallout of the conflict in Afghanistan- Our stakes in its peace and stability are therefore, high.

Regrettably, our region, has for far too long, been a victim of history and circumstance. Over time, the troubles of Afghanistan have gone through different phases, morphing into one of the gravest and most serious challenges of our times: the challenge of extremism, militancy and terrorism.

But let’s be very clear. The genesis of the problem goes back to the decade-long foreign occupation of Afghanistan and the deliberate expoitation of religion by the free world to defeat a super power. The legacy of this strategy is now threatening the whole world. We are all equally responsible for it.

Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, in 1989, should have been followed by a well thought-out and comprehensive plan, to rebuild the country, within a democratic, pluralistic framework. The international community should have assisted Afghanistan, in reconstructing its devastated physical, social and institutional infrastructure.

The international community should have provided opportunities for education and livelihood to the youth and the freedom fighters. A country-wide disarmament process should have been initiated. Instead, the hapless Afghans were all but abandoned. Flushed with weapons, fired with ideology, and forgotten as the last vestige of a war just won, Afghanistan was left in a crippling security and socio-political vacuum.

International neglect, widespread poverty, lack of governance and sustained internecine warfare provided further grounds to the insidious spread of extremism and extremist ideologies.

The rise of the Taliban has to be seen in this context. Subsequently, the Taliban were hijacked by Al Quaeda thus creating a dangerous nexus. What followed is history.

Pakistan, as a frontline State during the Afghan Jihad could not and did not remain immune to these trends and tragedies unfolding across its western border. The presence in our country of the largest human refugee population in contemporary times stands testimony to this reality.

While this dangerous affliction was spreading, silently gnawing at the fabric of our societies, the world looked the other way. Sadly, it took more than 3.000 lives, and a barbaric atrocity of the scale of 9/11 to awaken the world to the gravity of the situation.

The world`s response was prompt and massive. Since then the international community, including NATO has maintained a firm commitment to peace, stability and development of Afghanistan. Pakistan has been an integral and leading partner of this global endeavour.

Yet, seven years on, despite having made significant gains, the malady of extremism and terrorism continues to plague the region. It has roots in all countries of the region. The challenge confronting us today is big and complex.

A confluence of latent and conflicting interests, invisible hands, covert policies, free flow of arms, money and drugs and misplaced priorities have added to the complexity of the situation.

Popular perceptions of longstanding and festering disputes involving the Muslim populations, for example, in the Middle East, Iraq, Kashmir and more recently in Gaza, are further compounding factors.

It is time for dispassionate stock-taking. We need to honestly ask ourselves some basic questions:

One: Seven years on whether militancy and terrorism has been reigned in or is in fact spreading. What is the popular perception about the military strategy of the coalition in Afghanistan?

Two: What are the underlying causes and rallying points formenting extremism and terrorism? Are these beeing addressed in a meaningful and comprehensive manner?

Three: Has international assistance brought about a significant improvement in the lifes of the affected people? Is the international community truly following a broad-based and comprehensive approach to deal with this scourge?

After Afghanistan, perhaps no country has suffered more in human and material terms than Pakistan. We lost Benazir Bhuttoto to terrorists. Nearly 2,000 Pakistanis lost their lifes in more than 600 terror related incidents last year alone. Pakistan’s economy has suffered direct and indirect losses of more than $ 35 billion.

In October last year, the Parliament of Pakistan adopted a historic Resolution declaring the Pakistani nation’s unswerving commitment to stand against the threat of terrorism and to address its root causes. This Resolution provides a comprehensive framework for a multi-proged strategy to deal with this serious menace. It also sent a clear message that the territory of Pakistan will not be used for terrorist activities, while our sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected.

In line withe this resolution, we are pursuing a multiproged strategy with the support, cooperation and owership of local populations. Recent distractions at our eastern frontier notwithstanding, Pakistan is assiduously fulfilling its responsibilities along the western border.

The dawn of democracy in Pakistan has heralded a new era of understanding and cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan. With Afghanistan, our democratic government has made a new and promising beginning. This has resulted in restoring trust and confidence and bringing about a fundamental and qualitative transformation in bilateral ties with Afghanistan in all spheres.

We have joined hands to move towards our common vision of peace, prosperity and development for our people and the region. During President Asif Ali Zardari’s historic visit to Kabul last month, I had the pleasure of signing, together with Foreign Minister Spanta, a landmark Declaration on Future Directions of Bilateral Cooperation.

The Declaration looks beyond the present phase of terrorism, and provides a clear and comprehensive framework to take forward Pakistan-Afghanistan partnership to higher levels, in the political, economic, security and social fields. It is also a manifestation of the aspirations and determination of our people for a better, peaceful and prosperous tomorrow.

Creating an implementing projects such as the Turkmenistan -Afghanistan-Pakistan-India Gas Pipeline project would create a stake for people living all along the route. A stake, where peace would pay clear dividends.

The Jirgagai process, emanating from Kabul Peace Jirga, has been a great success in bringing the representative segments of the people of the two countries together. The Jirgagai meeting held in Islamabad in October last year, made important strides in achieving dual objective of promoting dialogue with the opposition and forging a common agenda for development and people-to-people exchanges. Since then two further meetings of Contact Group of Jirgagai have taken place, achieving positive results.

Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are resolved to pursuing the Jirgagai process as a useful means for promoting dialogue and development.

The Tripartite Military Commission mechanism has proven useful in enhancing coordination both at the strategic and tactical levels. However, we remain concerned about financing and arming of militants. Recent incursions in our territory by militants are a matter of serious concern. Pakistan wishes to see the tripartite mechanism further strengthened.

More than 3 million Afghan refugees who are still in Pakistan pose an additional security risk, often providing nurseries and sanctuaries to militants.

On the regional plane, Pakistan will be hosting the 3rd Regional Economic Cooperation Conference on Afghanistan (RECCA) on 1-2 April 2009. We are in close touch with Afghan authorities and our international partners to make this conference focused and result-oriented. This event, we hope, will prove to be a milestone in assisting Afghanistan in its developmental efforts and forging greater regional cooperation.

Critical situations demand critical appraisals. This is an opportune moment to readjust our strategy on the basis of lessons learnt. Our way forward must be grounded in strict adherence to principles enshrined in the UN Charter, observance of international law and respect for the free will and aspirations of sovereign States and their peoples.

It is our considered view that the future course of action to deal with this growing problem should incorporate the following essential elements:

One: The international community must adopt a regional approach in resolving this problem which is essentially regional in nature. Only those solutions enjoying the support of regional countries would be sustainable.

Two: This complex problem requires a multi-faceted, comprehensive and balanced approach. Over emphasis on military dimension has not proved fruitul. For lasting success of any endeavour, the people must assume ownership.

Three: In the battle for hearts and minds, the power of persuasion must be stronger than the effects of coercion. An inclusive process must include dialogue and reconciliation.

Four: A generous focus on reconstruction, development and social welfare with participation of all stakeholders. To attain durable security, the dynamic and logic of development must trump the dynamic and logic of force. The campaign against extremism will not be won in the battlefield but in classrooms and the mind of the people.

Five: Drug money is a major source of terror-funding. There is a need to address this issue in a comprehensive manner. Farmers growing opium will have to be provided alternate opportunities.

Six: There is need for better coordination of international efforts. All disconnects and fragmentations, including within the international coalition and NATO must be addressed.

Seven: An extensive sensitization campaign should be launched with the support of local communities to neutralize the impact and influence of militant ideologies and to correct negative perceptions that fuel extremism.

Eight: Any lasting and sustainable solution must respect local customs, traditions, values and religious beliefs.

We know that the difficulties are complex and daunting, and the road ahead winding, bumpy and long. Yet these obstacles are not insurmountable. Pakistan welcomes the international community’s unwavering resolve to remain meaningfully and effectively engaged to help root out the menace of extremism and terrorism.

Pakistan is a principal partner in this global compaign. Pakistan is determined to tide the difficulties with the support of its friends and allies. We will continue to strengthen our partnership with the international community. It is well within our capacity to harness our resources to defeat the common enemy. Together we can achieve lasting peace and stability and craft a better tomorrow for our coming generations. I thank you.

Published with speech in audio on the Munich Security Conference Website

WASIM VIEW- Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s speech surprised me for its strong projection of the Pakistani position. Moreover Pakistan’s Foreign Minister delivered the speech in front of an invited audience of so-called foreign policy experts such as Henry Kissinger and it was a good one indeed.

The Foreign Minister was only too right when he reminded his Western audience that the Afghanistan problem is decades old saying that ‘the genesis of the problem goes back to the decade-long foreign occupation of Afghanistan and the deliberate expoitation of religion by the free world to defeat a super power. The legacy of this strategy is now threatening the whole world. We are all equally responsible for it’.

Afghanistan was left to rot and abandoned by the West  after it tired of its  red fetish a la Communism. Worse still, Pakistan has paid for and continues to pay the price of that ill on  behalf of  an unappreciative West. Indeed as the West sleeps easy even now,  it is Pakistan that lives a daily nightmare.

Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s is right too when he  reminds his audience of the Pakistani effort that ‘as a frontline state during the Afghan Jihad Pakistan could not and did not remain immune to these trends and tragedies unfolding across its western border. The presence in our country of the largest human refugee population in contemporary times stands testimony to this reality’. Later in the article the Foreign Minister rightly puts the West in the dock with his ‘Qureshi Questions’ proving how the West has failed in Afghanistan and the evidence is damning I feel.

Pakistan has lost its brave citizens and soldiers, its soil and even sanity. In purely numerical terms Pakistan has incurred lost over 2000 citizens, incurred a loss of more than $35bn and houses 3mn Afghan refugees at Pakistan’s pleasure while the West rabbits on and on and on with ‘do more’.

President Obama would do well to listen and learn from the Pakistani position as championed by the Foreign Minister. The Obama Administration should embed Pakistan’s eight elements as contained in the speech not in words but in actions and this is not the case thus far with the US listening but not learning. Drone attacks must end, otherwise the situation will get worse. I said a while back that Afghanistan could prove to be Obama’s Vietnam, a Vietnam indeed for another President and in another American century.

Thus it will allow Other Pakistan to become a better forum of dialogue where a myriad of Pakistani futures can be formulated carrying comment from intellectuals, fellow bloggers and Pakistan’s joe public, all voiced with no fear or favour.

The B-side for December includes all of the following:

• Day 221 by AMITABH BACHCHAN
• Brown’s Al-Qaeda Game by TARIQ ALI
• US offers Viagra to win over Afghan Warlords (Daily Times)

An analysis of Amitabh Bachchan’s absurd views after the Mumbai attacks from his blog.

Day 221 by Amitabh Bachchan

The text messages pour in for reactions to press and media. Cynical and provocative text come in describing the ridiculous utterances of the system and those that run it. And actions to placate themselves of dire circumstances, prevail among ruling governance. Ha !!

But the hurt and anger persists. I will refrain and not submit to their requests.

I was to be in Hong Kong at the invitation of ex President Bill Clinton to partake in his Clinton Global Initiative and speak on a topic that would elevate the conditions of our universe.

I cancelled. I am NOT going to leave my country in this troubled hour to travel to a foreign land to lend cause to a foreign initiative, patronized and guided by a foreigner, for his benefit !! I need to see initiative here in my country.

I have also cancelled my participation in LIVE EARTH, the Al Gore initiative which I was to participate in on the 6th and 7th of December. I am NOT going to sing and dance at a time when my country and city bleeds, even though the funds collected were going to be for charity. They can keep their initiative to themselves!!

I have watched TV today and read the press and mingled with citizens. Never ever have I observed the extent of extreme anger in each and every individual of this country towards those that sit in the seat of authority and system and power. This is a determined and definite citizen. A citizen that has decided that everyone of them needs to become his own vigilante. For his sake and for the sake of his country.

I endorse that sentiment.

Amitabh Bachchan

Published on Amitabh Bachchan’s blog on 30 November 2008

WASIM VIEW - Amitabh Bachchan is known to the world as Big B,  and not the Baby B that I relegate him to after his childish yet dangerous rant favouring vigilantism after the Mumbai massacre. As I read the post I wondered whether this was the writing of a deluded delinquent caught up in the emotion or whether these were the words of one of India’s icons.

Amitabh Bachchan’s status as one of the finest actors of any time for all time is not the issue here and I say this as a mad fan of his work. However, I was left stunned at Amitabh Bachchan’s cheerleading of vigilante action in response to the Mumbai attacks, an act so dangerous as it provides for an open invitation for more blood and gore.

Indeed if acted upon it would have unleashed a monster bigger than the monster of Mumbai. Thus few can doubt that Amitabh Bachchan’s comments of that day leave him diminshed and degraded for they displayed a timidness in him unbefitting his large frame.

Furthermore Amitabh Bachchan’s decision to not attend Live Earth and the Clinton Global Initiative events can still be understood to some extent. However Bachchan’s rubbishing of both causes displayed a cry-baby childish response unbefitting a man of his stature.

It is time for baby B to grow up and not seek refuge in empty slogans and dangerous raw emotions which only selfishly satisfy his inner Indian. Instead Mr Bachchan can serve India and the wider world better by shining a light on the real issues in India such as the inferior treatment of Indian muslims and other minorities with a view to healing wounds and bringing harmony where there is discord.

An article by the legendary Tariq Ali, need I say more …

Brown’s Al-Qaida Blame Game by Tariq Ali

Gordon Brown is targeting Pakistan. His claim that 75% of UK terror plots originate there is now part of a common western stance that refuses to accept any responsibility for encouraging the growth of recruits to ­jihadi organisations.

Just as the events of Bloody Sunday helped IRA recruitment, the New Labour-supported wars in Iraq and Afghanistan play an important part in encouraging young Muslims to sacrifice their lives. The London bombings, which Brown mentioned in Pakistan, were the direct result of Labour’s foreign policy. There is near unanimity on this within the British intelligence community. Had Britain not participated in occupying two ­countries, there would have been no ­attacks and no training trips to Pakistan or elsewhere.

The US intelligence agencies are close to agreeing that the war in Afghanistan has become a disaster. Some of Obama’s advisers are recommending an exit strategy. Washington’s hawks (backed by Brown) argue that, while bad, the military situation is still salvageable. This may be technically accurate, but it would require the carpet-bombing of southern Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, the destruction of scores of villages and small towns, the killing of untold numbers of Pashtuns and the dispatch to the region of at least 200,000 more troops with all their equipment, air and logistical support.

The political consequences of such a course are so dire that even Dick Cheney, the closest thing to Dr Strangelove that Washington has produced, has been uncharacteristically cautious when it comes to suggesting a military solution to the conflict.

Al-Qaeda as the CIA recently made clear, is on the decline. It has never come close to repeating anything resembling the strikes of 9/11. Its principal leader Osama bin Laden may well be dead (he did not make his trademark video intervention in this year’s US presidential election) and his deputy has fallen back on threats and bravado.

Now Gordon Brown appears to have discovered the existence of the long-established Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (Soldiers of Medina). This is one of the more virulent jihadi groups created by the ISI, Pakistan’s security service, in the mid-90s. Its aim (as I pointed out in 2000) was to repeat the mujahideen’s successful war against the Russians in Afghanistan by opening a new front in Indian-held Kashmir. It could not exist without the patronage of the army. It had a membership of 50,000 militants, foot-soldiers trained in camps in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, bankrolled by the Saudis and the Pakistani government. Teenagers are recruited from poor families, while state payouts for martyrs help fund the organisation.

After 9/11 Pervez Musharraf sidelined them and funding was drastically reduced, but they were not disbanded. Were they involved in the assault on Mumbai? Possibly, but they could not have acted on their own. They needed help inside India, a fact the Indian elite and its western apologists shy away from. Why should it be such a surprise if some of the perpetrators are Indian Muslims? There has been much anger within the poorest sections of the Muslim community against the systematic discrimination and acts of violence carried out against them, of which the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat was only the most blatant.

Add to this the continuing sore of Kashmir, which has for decades been treated as a colony by Indian troops with random arrests, torture and rape an everyday occurrence. Conditions have been much worse than in Tibet, but have aroused little sympathy in the west. Being tough on terror but not on the causes of terror is, as we have seen since 9/11, a road to nowhere.

As published in The Guardian on 14 December 2008

WASIM VIEW - A fine op-ed by a more than fine commentator namely the legendary Tariq Ali. It is true that Gordon Brown is simply passing the buck. The issues concerning British foreign policy and its impact on British Muslims and non-Muslims alike have been swept under the carpet for too long.

Gordon Brown needs to open his eyes to the truth that British acts of ommission and commission worldwide such as the blind support for the Iraq War have an impact on people sometimes immediate and sometimes delayed. This does not excuse the evil of terrorism in Britain, far from it indeed it helps to find its roots in foreign policy decisions or unemployment and the like. The onus then is on British governments to address these issues comprehensively for the betterment of the British people and the world at large.

This third post will make you smile, I guarantee!!

US offers Viagra to win over Afghan Warlords (Daily Times)

CIA agents are offering the potency drug Viagra and other gifts to win over Afghan warlords in the US-led war against Taliban, the Washington Post reported on Friday. The aging chieftains often have up to four wives and are open to the Viagra pill as a way to ‘put them back in an authoritative position’, the report quoted a CIA official as saying.

Four Viagra pills transformed one influential 60-year-old warlord who had been wary of the United States, one official told the Post. “He came up to us beaming, and after that we could do whatever we wanted in his area,” he added. afp

WASIM VIEW - What can one say of the Viagra strategy other than it seems to be a masterstroke so far. It seems the Americans have finally found their weapon of mass  reproduction!!

- WRITTEN UNDER MARTIAL LAW (My thanks to cowards Tariq Pervez. Sabihuddin, Sardar Raza & Co for selling out)