• I Cried for Jalib by MALIK SIRAJ AKBAR
• US Must Grow Up on Pakistan by MICHAEL SCHEUER
• Partisan Gridlock’s Long Reach by DAVID IGNATIUS

The first article covers an issue that is very close to my heart, Balochistan. The killing of Habib Jalib is a national tragedy and Malik Siraj Akbar’s article on that great man is a must read for all Pakistanis especially those who are both arrogant and ignorant of the fire that is burning in Balochistan.

I Cried for Jalib by Malik Siraj Akbar

Finally, I have no option but to delete 03003823908 from my cell phone. This was the phone number I often used to dial or get calls from. “late” Habib Jalib, secretary general of the Balochistan National Party who was killed here on Wednesday by unidentified assailants, used this number and humbly received phone calls after the second ring.

In the last couple of years, I have deleted several phone numbers from my cell phone after the contacts were target killed from time to time. I deleted the phone number of Ghulam Mohammad Baloch, the chairman of Baloch National Movement (BNM), even though he had promised to meet me “soon” in Quetta.

Every time 03003823908 rang, I would hear from the other side:

Han Siraj Kooo jaaa hey tho [Hey Siraj, where are you?]

I loved Jalib’s accent.

“Waja [sir],” I’d say jokingly, “You even speak Balochi in a Russian accent.”

He laughed. Straightened his long hair. Resumed talking.

Tho Harjoka hey, maan wathi gari hey sara kaheen. Tho bas sadak e sara bosth.

[Wherever you are. Stand on the road. I will come in my car (to pick you up).

Jalib had a wonderful sense of humor.

"You know what," he told me one day as we drove from Zarghoon Road to Prince Road, "Pakistanis do not value us. We have so much gas that if Dera Bugti was located in a Gulf country, all these Bugtis would have to add "Shiek" with their names," he said.

I agreed.

I was feeling inconvenient in my conversation due to the loud noise his kids, who were also in the car, made.

" waja thi gwando baaz kokar kanaan," I brazenly complained. [Sir, your kids make a lot of noise].

He laughed again, indicating that he would still not silence them.

” Let’s give them some democratic space. Let them say what please them,” he replied.

Jalib was man who staunchly believed in freedom of expression and democratic space.

Now that Jalib is no more, A Pakistani journalist based in Germany, who had met Jalib in Quetta while preparing a report on Balochistan, Facebooked me:

“OMG! He mentioned his small kid so many times when I went to see him last sept(ember).”

It took me several months to convince Jalib to write his memoirs. Finally, he agreed but insisted that I should write it for him as he did not find sufficient time to do the job. I reminded him that he was an extraordinary figure in the Baloch nationalist movement.

” Becha waja, Raziq Hancho shoth….hech he na liktha. Tho chosh makan. Thi yaad dashth baz alimi inth pa Baloch raja.”

[Sir, see Raziq (Bugti) died even without penning his memories. You should not do so. Your memoir is very important for the Baloch nation].

Jalib never got time to write his biography and I remained guilty of not visiting him more frequently.

Nargis Baloch, editor Daily Intekhab, is right: ” Balochs barely get time to do anything else except burying their dead bodies, mourning the disappearance of their beloved ones or nursing their wounds from a military operation.” Amid such circumstances, how would one get the peace of mind to sit and jot down one’s autobiography. Jalib’s autobiography would have been a wonderful addition to literature on Baloch nationalism. Perhaps both of us underestimated the enemy and overestimated the perpetuity of life.

Jalib never liked it when journalists added the word “Mengal” with BNP. He said calling his party BNP-Mengal was unfair because it was the real BNP. The rival faction, in his words, had the right to call itself “awami” or whatever but the BNP was simply BNP (not Mengal).

The best time for me to see Jalib very closely was a trip to Islamabad in which we spent several days together. I found him a very very humble, punctual and principled man. Jalib was an avid reader and one of the very few people who truly knew what Baloch nationalism was all about. As long as he was on the stage as a speaker, I remained convinced with my eyes closed that Balochitan’s case was being cogently pleaded. I envied his command over Baloch history, theory of nationalism, statistics on economic affairs and the maneuvering and penetration of the military in coastal areas of Balochistan. He was a marathon orator. He could speak for several hours without being repetitive at all.

Jalib was not a sardar, nor a Nawab’s son. He was a powerful man. A self-made man: Self-made from head to toe. Empowered by education. Like every middle class shining star, he was unacceptable to Balochistan’s tribal elite and the country’s military establishment. Tall trees cannot survive long in Balochistan. People with a tall stature get their heads chopped off. Educated people are a rare species in Balochistan. They come once in centuries. Jalib was one of them. They killed him because he was too brave to be ousted from Balochistan. He did not surrender in spite of being put into jail by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haq and Pervez Musharraf.

I cried. (Honestly, I had not cried for Nawab Bugti or Balach Marri).

I cried once.

I cried twice.

I cried again and again.

Jalib was among us: The middle class. The poors. The pedestrians. The dreamers.

This friend of mine whined that The Baloch Hal went overboard in covering Jalib’s assassination.

“Jalib wasn’t such a big guy to fill the whole of Baloch Hal with his news,” he grumbled.

I agreed with him. Jalib was not a big guy. He was not a landlord. He was not a feudal. He was not an intelligence tout. How could he then be a big guy?

The Pakistani media did not cover him the way he deserved to be reported. Except Samma TV and Duniay TV, rest of the TV channels put the news on number six to seven of their headlines’ list.

Was it that Jalib was not a big guy because Nawab Raisani or Nawab Magsi could not spare time to attend his funeral? No. Jalib was the big guy of the voiceless, educated middle class Baloch. Jalib was the hero of our times. He inspired our generation. He left a generation to adore his struggle. He captured the full page of the Baloch Hal and the front pages of several newspapers simply because he was Habib Jalib not the grandson of a great tribal chief who inherited large agricultural lands for collaborating with colonial masters to enslave the people of this land.

Those of us who knew comrade Jalib would surely testify Jalib’s love for Atta Shad’s couplet that I cite here to pay panagryic to him at the end of this rambling write-up. He never forgot to cite these lines in any speech he made.

Tao Pa Sarani Goddaga Zende Hayalaan Koshe

Pa Sendaga Daasht Kane Pulla`n Che Bo Taalanya

[Can you, by serving the heads

From the bodies,

Kill the living thoughts

And ideas?

Can you, by wrenching

The flowers from branches,

Stop their fragrance

From spreading]

Published in Baloch Hal

WASIM VIEW-Akbar’s article is more of a personal and heartfelt tribute to the work of Habib Jalib Baloch than a serious article.  That said, I wish to echo the words of praise and want to pay tribute to Habib Jalib Baloch for his service to Pakistan as a senator and as a leading lawyer

Much of the content in the article makes for difficult reading for me as it is loaded with negative concepts of the ‘Baloch nation’ and the like. That said, Balochistan is a burning fire today and has been burning for decades owing to Pakistan’s step-motherly treatment.

Habib Jalib Baloch was a man who stood for Baloch rights yet he wished to work within the Pakistani system and became a senator and  continued to believe in the federation of Pakistan.

It is this fact, that makes his death, a national tragedy for Pakistan, Habib Jalib Baloch  was loyal to the Balochi and Pakistani cause as evidenced by the recent full court reference in the Balochistan High Court in his honour.  The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said of the man that ‘Habib Jalib was a voice of reason, both inside and outside the parliament, for disempowered people, not only in Balochistan but across the country.”

Habib Jalib Baloch’s death will weaken the federation and  give succour to the voices of darkness. However those voices must fail if Pakistan is to succeed and it is in this context that Akbar’s article should be read as a wake-up call for Pakistan to continue a mission the Quaid began in 1947. The mission is a prosperous and autonomous Balochistan within the federation of Pakistan, when that is achieved, Habib Jalib Baloch can rest in peace.

The second article is written by Michael Scheuer and it is quite possibly the most honest article you will ever read on US-Pakistan relations.

US Must Grow Up on Pakistan by Michael Scheuer

Secretary of State Clinton’s visit to Islamabad last week demonstrated how far the US government has slipped into senility and how desperately it’s seeking an easy—some might say miraculous—way out of the Afghan war by getting others to do its fighting.

Clinton carried a Santa’s bag of $500 million in US taxpayer funds for Pakistan’s leaders and pledged that Washington will be a long-term ally in Pakistan’s economic and democratic development.Her hosts were gracious and naturally accepted the funds, but they know the money is a bribe and the only thing Clinton, the Obama administration and US generals want is for Pakistan’s army to keep shedding blood against America’s Islamist foes.

And Pakistan’s leaders know two other things: (a) their ability to do more of Washington’s dirty work is marginal because the destabilizing civil war caused by being a US ally is entering the Punjab region; and (b) the Islamists can only be beaten if the US military does its own killing and bleeding.

The Pakistanis also must have had quite a laugh when Clinton said she is aware that ‘some Pakistani official’ knows the location of Osama bin Laden and hoped that data would be given to Washington. Even if true, the Pakistanis must have wondered why they would give bin Laden to the Americans now, after Obama and NATO have said they’re leaving, and earn hatred from tens of millions of Muslims when they’re already faced with cleaning up the mess Western military failure will leave in Afghanistan.

How did Pakistan get into this state? Well the disaster is based on a mistaken judgment: former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf believed the US government was serious about destroying the Islamists who attacked it on 9/11. As a career military officer, Musharraf surely thought US political leaders and generals would react as he and his peers would have reacted; that is, by destroying the attackers. Based on this expectation and under intense US pressure, Musharraf provided more aid for the US war effort than any other US ally, NATO or otherwise.

After 9/11, Musharraf allowed US military and intelligence services to expand their presence in Pakistan, and provided much needed military airspace. His security services worked with US counterparts to seize multiple, senior al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan’s cities. He helped destroy the Taliban regime, even though Islamabad couldn’t have had an Afghan regime more compatible with Pakistan’s national interests. He also allowed part of Karachi harbor to become a naval and resupply base for US and NATO forces.

Most damagingly, though, Musharraf sent Pakistan’s conventional army into the Pashtun tribal lands along the border with Afghanistan for the first time since Pakistan was formed. Until Musharraf’s action, the tribes had tolerated the Islamabad regime only because the latter didn’t interfere in their affairs and provided various economic subsidies.

To date, the Army’s offensives in the tribal area have killed more than 3000 soldiers; killed and wounded several times that number of tribal fighters; displaced more than 500,000 people; and destroyed myriad villages and buildings. Even more disastrously, the Army’s operations have sparked a civil war between Islamabad and the tribesman. For several years this struggle was confined to the tribal lands, but since 2008 it has spread into Pakistan proper, bringing repeated bombings, ambushes, assassinations and commando-style raids to military and intelligence facilities, as well as to major cities like Lahore, Islamabad and Karachi.

The results of Musharraf’s understandable, if potentially fatal decision are wrecking Pakistan. And yet Chief of Army Staff Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani—whose term was just extended three years—and President Zidari heard Clinton ask (order?) them to do more US dirty work, apparently not realizing (or caring?) that Pakistan’s aid caused the civil war now threatening the country’s viability. Kayani and Zidari, as noted, accepted US aid and vowed to help. But both men—especially Kayani—know Pakistan’s string is played out.

With President Obama’s pledge to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan (the target date of 2011 is less important than his publicly pledged intent) Pakistan’s leaders know the United States isn’t serious about Afghanistan, that the Taliban-led insurgency will ultimately triumph and that they must look out for Pakistan’s interests, which can’t include the continued existence of the Karzai regime in Kabul.

As Afghan president, Hamid Karzai’s actions have created what can only be seen by Pakistan’s general officers as an existential threat to their country. With NATO’s acquiescence, Karzai has built strong ties to Iran and Russia—long Pakistan’s foes—and, more troubling, has been encouraged by Washington to permit an enormous expansion of India’s physical presence in Afghanistan.

The latter negates what Pakistan’s generals have always prized as their ‘strategic depth’ in case of war with India by putting an Indian presence on Pakistan’s western border that in essence puts the country in a vise that can be squeezed at New Delhi’s pleasure. (Nothing better shows the intellectual bankruptcy of US diplomacy than demanding Pakistan help against the Taliban while pushing the expansion of India’s presence in Afghanistan. Islamabad believes that Afghanistan-based Indians already are funding Baloch insurgents.)

While Kayani and his military and intelligence subordinates will keep providing data to facilitate U.S. drone strikes—which hurt but can’t beat the Taliban and al-Qaeda—they will act aggressively to begin re-stabilizing Pakistan. Among their actions will be:

—Major efforts to slow the growth of Islamist radicalism and violence in the country’s economic, agricultural and industrial heartland in the Sindh and Punjab. This will require a modus Vivendi with the tribes on the western border that encourages them—with subventions of (probably US) money, weaponry and other support—to stop attacking in Pakistan proper and begin aiding their Afghan brethren against Karzai.

—Pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI) will try to mend fences with Pashtuns on both sides of the border, and influence them to attack Karzai’s regime, NATO forces, and Indian targets, all in an effort to hurry NATO’s defeat and help the Islamists to retake power in Kabul. This is the only long-term result that meets Pakistan’s national security needs.

—The Army will reduce the lethality of its tribal-area operations as its contribution to ending the civil war Musharraf ignited. No doubt Kayani will keep the Army active in the tribal lands, but only with Potemkin operations meant to keep US aid flowing while not further alienating the Pashtuns. This tack also will start to ease the deep discontent in the Army over being tasked to kill Muslims for US infidels.

—Zidari and Kayani will seek promises from Riyadh to financially assist Pakistan if Washington cuts aid to Pakistan. Since Islamabad’s goal of replacing Karzai with a Taliban-like regime is compatible with Saudi and Gulf state foreign-policy goals—indeed, much of the Taliban’s funding is from the Gulf—such a pledge from Riyadh is likely. As a sweetener, the Pakistanis will help insert young Gulf jihadis returning from Iraq or graduating from so-called reeducation camps into Afghanistan to fight US-NATO forces.

For Kayani and Zidari, the time clearly has come to stop being a US proxy and to focus on halting Pakistan’s drift toward becoming a failed state. Because Washington has no clue that the services rendered it by Musharraf and Zidari caused the civil war now raging in Pakistan, Kayani and Zidari can expect nothing from Obama’s administration except demands for actions that would ultimately destroy Pakistan’s stability, with unforeseeable consequences for its nuclear arsenal. To do less than this—at least for Kayani and the Army—would breech not only their oath of allegiance, but of their self-interest.

Such Pakistani action might also have a bracing, reality-inducing impact on the US government. It might start to see what was obvious on 9/11—that is, annihilating al-Qaeda is Washington’s responsibility. To have help from NATO, Pakistan and others is nice, but not a substitute for depending on US military forces to extirpate as much of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their supporters as possible and then withdraw immediately. Since 9/11, this has been Washington’s only achievable Afghan task. By not accepting this reality, Bush and now Obama have fought a war that today leaves the United States farther from victory than in 2001 and which will require far more US money and blood to win than has been so far expended.

In one of the quirky opportunities history sometimes yields, there’s a chance the still- young Pakistani state, by looking to its own security, might breathe a fresh breath of adulthood into the now toothless, irresolute and increasingly adolescent 234-year-old US government and push it to the commonsense conclusion that—in the words of the Prophet Muhammad and Theodore Roosevelt—God helps only those who fear Him and take their own part.

Sadly, however, there’s little solid reason for anyone to bet on this godsend occurring.

Published in The Diplomat

WASIM VIEW-Scheuer’s article is a pure masterpiece and should be essential reading for every Pakistani and every American. For Pakistanis who are pro-US and wish to blindly ape America and worship its largesse, Scheuer’s article makes it clear that whatever Pakistan does can never be enough. And worse that by doing so Pakistan risks its very own survival as a functioning and sovereign state.

Scheuer’s article is just brulliant in bringing to the fore the folly of Musharraf in supporting Bush after 9/11, an evil act that has taken Pakistan to hell and back daily. The facts are simple, Uncle Sam has used, is using and wants to use Pakistan as its proxy mercenary force to kill its Al-Qaeda enemies. In acquiescing to this, both the political and military leadership of Pakistan have failed Pakistan from Musharraf to Zardari and not forgetting General Kayani.

The timdity shown by the Pakistani state to America and her games especially from our khaki kings a la drone attacks is a matter of national shame. Moreoover it is clear from Scheur’s article that such Pakistani weakness has provided India with the space to meddle in Pakistan’s affairs. Indeed Balochistan and FATA are lands suffering from Indian intrigue yet it is Pakistan who has to apologise for Mumbai profusely. In the meantime the Indians are free to create havoc by supporting the Pakistani Taliban and Balochi secessionists, and not even a word of condemnation is aired against India by America who knows exactly what RAW is doing in Afghanistan and Balochistan. 

That said, the wind is blowing in another direction of late thanks to the American end-game which has allowed the Pakistani power corridors to make up for their failure to protect the national interests. Scheuer’s article points towards this at the end, indeed it is hoped that the Pakistani power elites wake up and smell the coffee and chai too, that America will never be satisfied with Pakistan, end of.

The final article is written by another American and looks at US support for Pakistan, vis a vis some promised American support for the so-called badlands of FATA.

Partisan Gridlock’s Long Reach by David Ignatius

I am embarrassed when I think back to a conversation last October in Wana, South Waziristan — deep in the tribal areas — with Maj. Gen. Khalid Rabbani, the commander of Pakistani forces there. He was about to launch an offensive against Taliban fighters, but he worried that the “clear and hold” phase of the campaign would fail if Pakistan couldn’t also “build” through economic development.

Be patient, I told him. Congress is drafting a bill that will take a first step toward bringing more jobs to the region Now it’s nine months later, and Congress is still caught in a partisan gridlock over the plan to create Reconstruction Opportunity Zones in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA.

The House passed the bill in June 2009, but the Senate hasn’t voted on its version because Republicans oppose the labor-protection standards that were included the House measure. The GOP objects that the bill would set a precedent for similar pro-labor rules in future trade legislation.

It’s incredible — sickening is a better word, actually — that a parochial business-labor dispute is blocking a measure that is so obviously in America’s national security interest. Members seem to have forgotten that this plan would undercut al-Qaeda in its safe haven, at a time when U.S. soldiers are dying across the border in Afghanistan, and when Americans everywhere are threatened by terrorists based in the FATA.

The Obama administration has argued for the bill, but not very effectively. More than a year ago, Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, wrote to Congress: “We need ROZs now — economic opportunities must be expanded to quickly follow up military operations.”

Yet the administration hasn’t been able to broker a compromise — even though Democrats have strong majorities in both houses. That’s a sorry performance — and another illustration of how the Obama administration’s agenda has been hijacked by partisan feuding.

“This is a national security imperative, and we should be focused on it like a laser beam,” argues Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chief sponsor of the House measure. The bill would allow duty-free exports to the United States of some textiles and other products produced in or near the FATA. It isn’t a “miracle cure” for the tribal areas, but it’s a small step in the right direction.

A Senate bill (without the House’s strong labor protections) is sponsored by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. Every time a compromise seems near, she says, business or labor groups object because they don’t want to concede on the labor issue. The stalemate might be broken by White House intervention, but the administration so far hasn’t been willing to spend enough of its scarce political capital.

“It’s frustrating,” says Cantwell. “Somehow, the issue doesn’t rise to the level of importance it deserves.”

Powerful senators, prodded by the lobbyists, haven’t been willing to budge. Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, opposes Senate action unless the House promises to drop its labor provisions from any final bill; he argues that the House language is more restrictive than past trade agreements and could set a new precedent. On the pro-labor side, Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, has opposed any deal that doesn’t include the strong House standards.

Van Hollen argues that the Senate should pass the milder Cantwell bill, and then take the issue to conference where the two chambers can negotiate a compromise. He says the House side is “willing to make adjustments.” But Grassley doesn’t want to throw the issue to a House-Senate conference, so the impasse continues.

While the U.S. Congress dithers, al-Qaeda and its allies continue to plan deadly attacks from their haven in the FATA. The most savage bombings in recent months have been against Pakistani targets. The Pakistani public, which has been hearing promises from Washington for three years about the FATA opportunity zones, is doubtless wondering why the great superpower can’t get its act together. Pakistan’s leading business groups, which would be most affected by the labor standards, have already blessed the deal.

Recall the Pakistani general in Waziristan: He warned me that his military campaign would falter if, in a year, there wasn’t more economic opportunity in the FATA. There are still a few months left to reach a compromise on a measure that would provide a modest boost for the good guys. But for now, this legislative debacle offers one more sign of our dysfunctional political system.

Published at Realclearpolitics.com

WASIM VIEW- Ignatius’ article is the perfect proof if any was needed of how American words of financial support for Pakistan are not materialised into actions. I recall vividly that the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones were the brainchild of President Bush who announced it on arriving in Pakistan in 2006. Four years on, including one year of President walking-on-water Obama, it does not surprise me that the legislation has not been passed.

Four years on from the lofty promise of helping FATA and its people , Uncle Sam has done little except for its daily FATA drone attack adding only more murder and mayhem to its FATA death tally. For Pakistan, it is interesting to note how on one hand the Americans expect turbo-fast and prompt action from Pakistan daily in taking on the Taliban yet the power corridors from the President downwards in Washington enjoy the thrill of a slow pace when dealing with how to help Pakistan.

It is in this context that the Ignatius and Scheuer articles should be read together, both pointing towards a deliberate and deadly American betrayal of Pakistan in my opinion.

• Kashmir Solution: Imperative for Peace by KHURSHID MEHMOOD KASURI
• Power-less Pakistan by CHARLES K. EBINGER & KASHIF HASNIE
• Faisal Shehzad’s Anti-Americanism by PERVEZ HOODBHOY

Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri is the former Foreign Minister of Pakistan and the author of the first article. Mr Kasuri focuses on an issue close to my heart, Kashmir.

Kashmir Solution: Imperative for Peace by Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri

The biggest problem between Pakistan and India currently is the absence of trust. Anything that addresses this trust deficit is, therefore, helpful. For this reason I warmly welcome the initiative by The Times of India Group and the Jang Group of Pakistan to initiate the project ‘Aman Ki Asha’. Media can help remove suspicions about each other. This is all the more important because the existing suspicions and distrust about each other have been further exacerbated by irresponsible and distorted stories carried by sections of the media in both the countries in the first instance.

For this reason, this initiative is very important. I sincerely hope the other media groups will also play their role. It was precisely for this purpose that earlier on, I had convened a meeting of seven former Foreign Ministers of Pakistan and India in Lahore. Our Indian counterparts have promised to carry the process further by inviting us to Delhi later on during the year.

The Times of India has asked me to write an article on the need for resolving the Kashmir issue and as well as on the direction in which this process is headingí. Some people in both countries may well say that, after all, both Pakistan and India are important countries and could go their own way. It was for good reason that Prime Minister Vajpayee said that you can change history but not geography during a debate in the Lok Sabha.

Moreover, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh echoed similar sentiments also in a debate in the Lok Sabha, where he said as neighbours it is our obligation to keep our channels open. Unless we want to go to war with Pakistan dialogue is the only way forward. I was encouraged to note during the recent meeting of the Aman Ki Asha in Lahore that some distinguished Indian participants said that India felt the need to resolve the issue of Jammu & Kashmir inter alia for two reasons.

Firstly, that India being a democracy could not resort to force in Jammu & Kashmir for an indefinite period, and, secondly, that India could achieve its real potential and play a major role on the world stage only after resolving its disputes with Pakistan.

Speaking for myself I can say with confidence that as a politician all my life, belonging to a political family as I do, also as one who has been elected a member of parliament from a constituency in Central Punjab on the Indian border – and as former Foreign Minister for five years, I can say with confidence that peace with India is not only in the national interest of Pakistan but can also be sold to the people of Pakistan provided it is peace with honour.

History teaches us that only peace with honour can be lasting. India is a big country and may have extra regional ambitions. As far as Pakistan is concerned, our very doctrine is one of minimum credible deterrence aimed at protecting Pakistanís national security.

Another reason that gives me confidence is that every major political party of Pakistan supports a negotiated settlement. This implies that if India were to show flexibility, Pakistan would reciprocate similarly. In this connection it is correct that while the agreement was arrived at during our tenure in office, former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Atal Behari Vajpayee showed leadership and courage in restarting this process in February 1999 when Mr. Vajpayee undertook his famous bus journey on the invitation of the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Similarly, Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto during both her tenures made concerted efforts to improve the relationship between the two countries. MQM, ANP and even Jamiat Ul Ulema Islam, under the leadership of Maulana Fazal Ur Rehman, have supported a negotiated settlement on Kashmir.

Perhaps one reason why there is such a strong need for a negotiated solution of Kashmir is the recognition in both countries that Pakistan and India have tried everything in their power to enforce their version of a Kashmir settlement. They had fought five wars including two minor ones in the Runn of Katch and in Kargil. There had been various mobilizations of troops, including the largest one since First World War (Operation Parakram), in which a million soldiers remained eye ball to eye ball for almost a year. After Nuclearization of South Asia, following tests by India and Pakistan, war between the two countries has become nearly impossible.

That being the case, it was equally clear that any solution we found would not be an ideal one from the perspective of the Kashmiris, Pakistanis and the Indians. It could be the best under the circumstances. It had to be one that the Kashmiris would accept, and one, that the leaderships of India and Pakistan could sell to their respective peoples whose perspectives were radically different. It would seem to many people that such a solution could just not be found.

It was precisely to find such a formula that the two leaderships directed their representatives involved in the backchannel to remain engaged. No wonder the non-papers went to and fro innumerable times. The backchannel negotiators met in different locations in many countries to preserve the secrecy of the process. They brought the drafts to the principals in both the countries, where changes were made and sent back to the other side and so on and so forth. It was after approximately three years of such pains taking work, which sometimes even involved changing punctuation in different drafts, that the two governments felt that they had agreed on the draft of an agreement towards the end of 2006 beginning 2007. They felt that on the basis of this draft they would be in a position to present an agreement to their respective constitutional authorities for their approval. It was felt that this draft would be acceptable to an overwhelming majority of Kashmiris, Indians and Pakistanis.

The major features of the draft Kashmir agreement involved, inter alia, a gradual demilitarization as the situation improved, self governance and a joint mechanism involving Kashmiris from both sides as well as presence of Pakistani and Indian representatives in this process. The purpose was to improve the comfort level of Kashmiris. The joint mechanism envisaged cooperation in various fields including exploitation of water resources and hydro-electric power.

Self governance also provided maximum possible powers to Kashmiris to manage their political, economic, financial and social matters and those pertaining to economic development as well as for enhanced travel and economic interaction on both sides of the LOC. For practical purposes, as for as the Kashmiris on both sides are concerned, the border would be made irrelevant for movement of goods and people. The agreement though not ideal, was the best possible under the circumstances.

The agreement provided for a review after 15 years. The Pakistani and Indian sides realized that in view of the history of the Jammu & Kashmir dispute, no solution that they could think of, would be an ideal one since it had to be made acceptable to all three. We were aware of the fact that there would be overwhelming support for this agreement; but, we also realized that there would be criticism from some sections in Kashmir, Pakistan and India.

In the very nature of things, it is impossible to produce a solution which will be equally acceptable to every one. It was for this reason that we decided that the arrangement that we had arrived at would need a review at the end of 15 years during which its implementation would be monitored with great care by all the parties concerned, and in the light of the experience, this arrangement could be further improved.

Another question that people sometimes ask me in hushed tones these days, now that President Musharraf is no longer in power, is whether the agreement that we have arrived at had the support of the Pakistan Army. Of course, it had the support of all the stakeholders. It is unthinkable that an issue of this nature could be negotiated without having all the stakeholders on board. Besides the Foreign Office and the Presidency, the Military was appropriately represented.

Former President Musharraf in response to a question whether he took into confidence his Corps Commanders, is on record in saying on more than one occasion that he used to take everyone on board. Furthermore, Pakistan Army high command is highly disciplined and sophisticated and understands clearly that national security is a very broad concept and military preparedness is only one, albeit, a very important component of it.

The concept of national security includes economic and political stability and a settlement with India on honourable terms strengthens Pakistanis national security. It is also pertinent to mention here that while President Musharraf may not be on the scene presently, institutional thinking does not change so rapidly Ofcourse, for tactical reasons, adjustments are made keeping in view time and circumstance. I am aware of the current differences between Pakistan and India on Afghanistan following President Obamaís announcement regarding Americaís intentions in Afghanistan. If trust deficit between the two countries can be bridged, all differences between the two countries can be resolved.

Before I conclude, I would like to welcome the statement of Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani that efforts are being made through the backchannel to resolve all outstanding issues with India. It is important that negotiations be resumed soon because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government with which we negotiated the agreement is still in power, and, the BJP, the other major national party in India, had started the process during the tenure of former Prime Minister Vajpayee.

I welcome the statement of our Prime Minister, despite being in the opposition, because I believe that in matters of national interest one has to rise above the spirit of partisanship. I am sure Indian politicians would have a similar approach. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. A lot of detailed work has been done and we can start from where we left. This piece was commissioned for and published in the Times of India.

Published in The News

WASIM VIEW- Kasuri’s article is a must read for all Pakistanis as it details how the Kashmir dispute has been debated and discussed over recent years.  As a Pakistani Kashmiri, I can comment on the issue and Kasuri’s proposals without fear and favour and I will do so.

Before I pass comment, its need to be stated at the outset that Kashmir is, was and will always be for me at least the jugular vein of Pakistan. That said it is also clear from the lessons of six decades that the geopolitical environment in South Asia is fashioned by hostile Pakistan-India relations, both of whom are opposed to the Kashmiri independence which many Kashmiris still aspire to. Therefore the most credible solution to the Kashmir dispute must be based on a compromise and with reference point, the much trumpeted solution to the Kashmir dispute needs to be read.

The so-called Kashmir agreement that Pakistan and India negotiated on the back channels is shared in Kasuri’s article. The Kasuri Kashmir solution included gradual demilitarization, self governance and a joint mechanism that involved Kashmiris from both sides as well as presence of Pakistani and Indian representatives in this process. The purpose was in Kasuri’s words to improve the comfort level of Kashmiris.

The joint mechanism envisaged cooperation in various fields including exploitation of water resources and hydro-electric power. Self governance also provided maximum possible powers to Kashmiris to manage their political, economic, financial and social matters and those pertaining to economic development as well as for enhanced travel and economic interaction on both sides of the LOC. For practical purposes, as for as the Kashmiris on both sides are concerned, the border would be made irrelevant for movement of goods and people. The agreement provided for a review after 15 years.

My views on the agreement is that there is no such agreement until it is signed and  more importantly implemented, thus it is premature for a seasoned politician like Kasuri to argue otherwise. On the specifics I do agree with Kasuri albeit with a number of provisos ‘that the agreement though not ideal, was the best possible under the circumstances’. The provisos include the level of Kashmiri support for the agreement and how this is to be ascertained via referenda or other ways.

Demilitirazation is another concern given India has a smell for Kashmiri blood and how it will be achieved is a key make-or-break issue. Other questions include self-governance means what exactly and how bound are both Pakistan and India to the joint-mechanism given India has a history of breaking accords in Kashmir and in the region more widely a la the Indus Water Treaty.

All in all, Kasuri’s Kashmir solution has many questions that need answering before it can be fairly assessed. Nevertheless on the evidence before me, I believe it could be a step forward.

The second post looks at Pakistan’s power problems in detail within the broader vision of Pakistan-US relations.

Power-less Pakistan by Charles K. Ebinger & Kashif Hasnie

Pakistani leaders preoccupied with a Taliban insurgency and political infighting also face an explosive issue that could damage the credibility of governments for years to come: nationwide power outages. Attention was refocused on the energy crisis after recent high profile talks in Washington in which long-time allies, the United States and Pakistan, outlined steps to refurbish power stations in Pakistan.

Many Pakistanis, who face hours of crippling power cuts each day, doubt their government will take decisive action, despite a U.S. warning that the crisis threatens this nuclear armed nation’s economic and political stability.

The promised 4 Es – Employment, Education, Energy, Environment – of the current Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) government are falling apart. Promises of tackling the recent energy crisis by building 8,000 Megawatts (MW) of new coal, solar, hydroelectric and wind electric generation plants have fallen through the cracks of the proverbial dilatory Pakistani political and bureaucratic elites.

Small towns and villages are experiencing power outages from 20 to 22 hours daily, whereas large cities such as Karachi, Lahore, Hyderabad, Faisalabad, Peshawar and Quetta are without power for at least half of every day as a result of shortages in power generation. An ageing transmission and distribution system, power theft, large commercial losses owing to poor billing and collection systems, and a power tariff scheme in desperate need of revision, are reasons for the current crisis.

With power demand at about 14,680 MW and current supply at 10,200 MW, the power supply shortage stands at 4,480 MW, which provides fertile ground for social and economic chaos. Nevertheless, despite these “apparent” dire power shortages there is a path forward if only Pakistan embarks on a vigorous action program where it produces energy to its full capacity while ending power theft, improving billings and collections while reducing its technical losses. After researching the gap between the demand and supply and total capacity (19,000 MW) of electricity, we came to the following reasons for the shortage:

1. Hydropower contributes 6,500 MW of energy in the total energy mix of Pakistan. Recent excessively dry seasons, mismanagement and trans-boundary water issues have restricted this capacity to only 1,500 MW. Resulting in a shortage of 4,000 MW.

2. Independent Power Plants (IPPs) produce 6,250 MW. Due to non-payment in the energy pyramid, a circular debt (currently around $1.3 billion) has been created, resulting in a shortage of 1,500 MW.

3. Government owned power generation plants are underutilized. Most of them working way far below their capacity, either because of lack of funds for maintenance or unavailability of spare parts.

4. Power infrastructure, especially in transmission and distribution is old and defective, causing heavy line losses of electricity.

5. Power theft. Public and private theft of power contributes to 32% of the ‘line losses.’

Keeping the above factors in mind, we know that the relevant Pakistani authorities are trying their best to gather foreign financial and technical assistance to address this crisis. A new $125 million USAID Energy Program will upgrade five major power stations, replace more than 11,000 tube wells producing water for agriculture, and boost Pakistan’s overall power production by 10 percent.

In mid-January, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke launched the first phase of these energy projects in Islamabad, announcing the United States will contribute up to $1 billion to the energy sector. Technical support from the U.S. also is being provided by the private sector, when GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt met President Asif Ali Zardari last year, resulting in signing a Memorandum of Understanding this year to help Pakistan in the energy, water and transportation sectors.

But the crisis cries out for far more help than that being offered. Pakistan’s energy crisis which has raged for more than 40 years is more due to ill planning, short sightedness of successive governments, including the current one, mismanagement and corruption. For the government of Pakistan and the international donor community wanting to help them, here is an agenda of actions that will begin to stabilize the country’s economic and political future.

1. Both, the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines and the Sui Southern Gas Company Limited should make it a priority to produce a 300-400 million cubic feet of gas which is well within their reach if gas tariffs are raised to economic levels. This will provide enough gas to fuel an additional 2,000 MW of electricity in the mix. The circular debt between every company in the electricity mix – PEPCO, WAPDA, IPPs, fuel suppliers and refineries – need to be settled to bring modern accounting practices into the sector. Until this is done there can be no real assessment of the future economic and financial needs of the sector.

2. The power infrastructure should be upgraded with a modern efficient grid. Without such an investment there will be little improvement even if major new generation facilities are built.

3. Accounts receivables from the public and private sector, including the military, for electricity should be recovered. Nothing is ‘free’ and electricity is no different.

4. The relationship of furnace oil and natural gas prices should be monitored closely. Since furnace oil is more expensive, its excessive use has contributed $571 million out of the current $1.3 billion of circular debt.

5. Energy prices throughout the economy must be rationalized and raised to the level required to pay for their full cost while returning a profit to the producers. Where subsidies are required for social reasons they should be targeted and paid for out of government revenues not by energy producers.

6. Government owned power generation companies should be technologically refurbished. This could close the demand and supply gap by 1,500 MW.

7. Finally, Pakistan needs to manage its water resources more efficiently. Historically, Pakistan has been a very ‘water conscious’ country. At independence, despite British efforts to steal its valuable water resources for India, Pakistan obtained access to the headwaters of the Indus and the rivers of the Punjab. The country has made great strides in dealing with water logging and salinity in the world’s largest contiguous irrigation system. During the 1960s, the Harvard Water Program worked closely with Pakistani experts to negotiate the classic Indus Water Treaty. During this time, Pakistani engineers built the giant Tarbela Dam, the largest reservoir in the world formed by an earthen dam. Today, Pakistan faces the “Malthusian-plus” challenge of dealing with rapidly growing water demands (for energy, agriculture and people) from a resource base that is likely to change substantially as the glaciers of the western Himalayas melt and monsoon patterns change under the onslaught of climate change.

We were compelled to write this article to highlight the fact that even if the Taliban and its Pakistani allies were to disappear tomorrow, Pakistan in the absence of a plan to deal with its energy crisis will remain in darkness – literally and figuratively.

If Pakistan is to emerge economically healthy and politically stable, the U.S. must realize, given the stakes involved and its own growing political and military involvement, that its commitment must be a sustained one. One that may need to last for decades not months or years!

With promises and prospects of a long term engagement, we believe that ‘smart American power’ projection lies in addressing issues such as energy and water. While short term aid and a few promises can start to mend a relationship, sustained partnerships as we have learned in Afghanistan, require a lot more.

Published by The Brookings Institution

WASIM VIEW- The power crisis in Pakistan is perhaps the most pressing live issue facing the Pakistani masses today. Ebinger & Hasnie’s article is nothing less than a masterpiece of an article for it details both the problem and the solution to Pakistan’s power crisis. Indeed the article sets the US in particular a challenge that can be institutionalised in the ongoing Pakistan-US strategic dialogue, namely how the US will help Pakistan tackle its power crisis.

The article needs to be considered in the background of the love-fest between Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Hillary Clinton during the recent Pakistan-US strategic dialogue which was high on style and offered little in substance to helping Pakistan. Mr Qureshi would do well to send this very article to Hillary Clinton from his desk in Pakistan’s Foreign Office adding these words ‘ Pakistan expects US action and support on all of the solutions put forward in the article as per the Pakistan-US strategic dialogue, its time to stop talking the talk, lets walk the walk, PS the $125m offered to Pakistan on energy is a pittance compared to the cost Pakistan has endured in financial terms alone of $35bn, so get moving Madame Secterary and fast!

As a critic of the way America has used and abused Pakistan since 9/11, I still am ready to give Uncle Sam a chance to redeem herself in the eyes of the ordinary Pakistani whom they kill via drones and much more. And so, let the one test of so-called Pakistan-US friendship be this, can the US deliver on projects that add many hundreds of megawatts of electricity by 2012, I for one suspect that the US will not rise to the challenge for security not solar-powered energy is all that America cares for vis a vis Pakistan.

The final article focuses on Pakistan-US relations and particularly so-called anti-Americanism and is written by the one and only, Pervez Hoodbhoy.

Faisal Shehzad’s Anti-Americanism by Pervez Hoobhoy

The man who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square was a Pakistani. Why is this unsurprising? Because when you hold a burning match to a gasoline tank, the laws of chemistry demand combustion.

As anti-US lava spews from the fiery volcanoes of Pakistan’s private television channels and newspapers, a collective psychosis grips the country’s youth. Murderous intent follows with the conviction that the US is responsible for all ills, both in Pakistan and the world of Islam.

Faisal Shahzad, with designer sunglasses and an MBA degree from the University of Bridgeport, acquired that murderous intent. Living his formative years in Pakistan, he typifies the young Pakistani who grew up in the shadow of Ziaul Haq’s hate-based education curriculum. The son of a retired air vice-marshal, life was easy as was getting US citizenship subsequently. But at some point the toxic schooling and media tutoring must have kicked in.

There was guilt as he saw pictures of Gaza’s dead children and related them to US support for Israel. Internet browsing or, perhaps, the local mosque steered him towards the idea of an Islamic caliphate. This solution to the world’s problems would require, of course, the US to be destroyed. Hence Shahzad’s self-confessed trip to Waziristan.

Ideas considered extreme a decade ago are now mainstream. A private survey carried out by a European embassy based in Islamabad found that only four per cent of Pakistanis polled speak well of America; 96 per cent against.

Although Pakistan and the US are formal allies, in the public perception the US has ousted India as Pakistan’s number one enemy. Remarkably, anti-US sentiment rises in proportion to aid received. Say a good word about the US, and you are labelled as its agent. From what TV anchors had to say about it, Kerry-Lugar’s $7.5bn may well have been money that the US wants to steal from Pakistan rather than give to it.

Pakistan is not the only country where America is unpopular. In pursuit of its self-interest, the US has waged illegal wars, bribed, bullied and overthrown governments, supported tyrants and undermined movements for progressive change. Paradoxically America is disliked more in Pakistan than in countries which have born the direct brunt of its attacks — Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Why?

Drone strikes are a common but false explanation. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi implicitly justifies the Times Square bombing as retaliation but this does not bear up. Drone attacks have killed some innocents but they have devastated militant operations in Waziristan while causing far less collateral damage than Pakistan Army operations.

On the other hand, the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong were carpet-bombed by B-52 bombers and Vietnam’s jungles were defoliated with Agent Orange. Yet, Vietnam never developed visceral feelings like those in Pakistan.

Finding truer reasons requires deeper digging. In part, Pakistan displays the resentment of a client state for its paymaster. US-Pakistan relations are transactional today but the master-client relationship is older. Indeed, Pakistan chose this path because confronting India over Kashmir demanded big defence budgets. In the 1960s, Pakistan entered into the Seato and Cento military pacts, and was proud to be called ‘America’s most allied ally’. The Pakistan Army became the most powerful, well-equipped and well-organised institution in the country. This also put Pakistan on the external dole.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, even as it brought in profits, deepened the dependence. Paid by the US to create the anti-Soviet jihadist apparatus, Pakistan is now being paid again to fight that war’s blowback. Pakistan then entered George W. Bush’s war on terror to enhance America’s security — a fact that further hurt its self-esteem. It is a separate matter that Pakistan fights that very war for its own survival and must call upon its army to protect the population from throat-slitting fanatics.

Passing the buck is equally fundamental to Pakistan’s anti-Americanism. It is in human nature to blame others for one’s own failures. Pakistan has long teetered between being a failed state and a failing state. The rich won’t pay taxes? Little electricity? Contaminated drinking water? Kashmir unsolved? Blame it on the Americans. This phenomenon exists elsewhere too. For example, one saw Hamid Karzai threatening to join the Taliban and lashing out against Americans because they (probably correctly) suggested he committed electoral fraud.

Tragically for Pakistan, anti-Americanism plays squarely into the hands of Islamic militants. They vigorously promote the notion of an Islam-West war when, in fact, they actually wage armed struggle to remake society. They will keep fighting this war even if America were to miraculously evaporate. Created by poverty, a war culture and the macabre manipulations of Pakistan’s intelligence services, they seek a total transformation of society. This means eliminating music, art, entertainment and all manifestations of modernity. Side goals include chasing away the few surviving native Christians, Sikhs and Hindus.

At a time when the country needs clarity of thought to successfully fight extremism, simple bipolar explanations are inadequate. The moralistic question ‘Is America good or bad?’ is futile.

There is little doubt that the US has committed acts of aggression, as in Iraq, and maintains the world’s largest military machine. We know that it will make a deal with the Taliban if perceived to be in its self-interest — even if that means abandoning the Afghans to bloodthirsty fanatics. Yet, it would be wrong to scorn the humanitarian impulse behind US assistance in times of desperation. Shall we write off massive US assistance to Pakistan at the time of the earthquake of 2005? Or to tsunami-affected countries in 2004?

In truth, the US is no more selfish or altruistic than any other country. And it treats its Muslim citizens infinitely better than we treat non-Muslims in Pakistan.

Instead of pronouncing moral judgments on everything and anything, we Pakistanis need to reaffirm what is truly important for our people: peace, economic justice, good governance, rule of law, accountability of rulers, women’s rights and rationality in human affairs. Washington must be resisted, but only when it seeks to drag Pakistan away from these goals. More frenzied anti-Americanism will produce more Faisal Shahzads.

Published in Dawn

WASIM VIEW- Hoodbhoy’s  article could have been written by an American neo-con like Richard Perle for its content are full of pro-US drivel and a rejectionism of many US crimes against Pakistan and the wider world. Hoodbhoy is right to bemoan many ills of the Zia era and army rule, a price which Pakistanis pay for in blood on a daily basis in the form of a bigoted state as evidenced in Lahore in recent days.

However Hoodbhoy for the main part of the article is plainly lost at sea for he makes childish and elementary schoolboy-type points to support his views. The intellectual rigour and cogent arguments that are synonmous with supposed intellectuals of his stature go missing when he chooses to support drone attacks in Pakistan.

The best evidence of this is demonstated shown when he foolishly brackets Pakistan with Vietnam and asks why Pakistan has visceral feelings towards America due to the drone attacks when Vietnam does not. To quote Hoodbhoy ‘the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong were carpet-bombed by B-52 bombers and Vietnam’s jungles were defoliated with Agent Orange. Yet, Vietnam never developed visceral feelings like those in Pakistan’. The answer to his ludicrous point is this, that Vietnam was at war with America whilst Pakistan is supposedly an ally of America, Vietnam was a foe and treated accordingly and Pakistan is a friend and not treated accordingly, rather it is treated as a foe as the drone attacks prove and that is why Mr Hoodbhoy, Pakistanis have such visceral feelings against America, duh!

The rest of the Hoodbhoy article is an exercise in futility  for all it does is reaffirm his liberal credentials and includes a cheap shot attack on  the media for its supposed ‘media tutoring’ of Faisal Shehzad, which is an unproven allegation.

On the more substantive point, Hoodbhoy is right to bemoan Faisal Shahzad’s acts in New York which are undefendable. Indeed I will go further in my condemnation and say that many Pakistanis like me are disgusted by his actions which have sullied Pakistan’s name once again in the world and want to see him face a fair trial and face exemplary punishment if he is found guilty. The Faisal Shahzads of this world are the enemies of Pakistan, period. On that point at least, Wasim Arif and Pervez Hoodbhoy are on the same page.

More recently an interview with Matthew Hoh on Al Jazeera has become available and it is necessary viewing as it pinpoints the failure of the US and is criticism from no armchair analyst or armchair general. Rather they are the true words of a passionate American who has served in that arena that is called the graveyard of empires and deserve to be heard and heeded (are you listening Celebrity Obama?). The interview is shown below:

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:

As the X Files told the world ‘the truth is out there’, well Hillary has caught on and told the ‘Taliban Truth’ at a US  Committee hearing.  The truth that Uncle Sam created the monster that is the Taliban aka the then ‘mujahideen’ and that as usual having used and abused them and Pakistan Uncle Sam left. Enjoy the Taliban Truth below:

On the eve of President Zardari’s first meeting with President Obama, I am posting Obama’s newest diatribe on issues concerning Pakistan. The subtitle of the post in indicative as I have called Obama’s comments as Hussein’s  hissy fit by the artist still known in some circles as Hussein Obama.

Indeed the Pakistani media and the Muslim media at large delighted at the  Muslim heritage President Obama could natuarally claim and waxed eloquent that his presidency would be the panacea for the world’s  ills. The Pakistani media in particular went on an overdrive never tiring of using the till now middle name of Hussein whenever mentioning Barack Obama.

Today the Pakistani media is mute now after realising in only one hundred days that Hussein Obama is more vocal and not less vocal against Pakistan. Indeed the condescending tone with which Obama belittles Pakistani democracy after his beloved country  supported dictatorship and looked the other way when the democratic forces fought martial law is criminal.

Worse the fact that President Obama is the first US President to so publicly attack Pakistani efforts and its democratic government irrespective of its poor performance smacks of a total disregard for Pakistan and shows an inherent imperial outlook in a man who promised change. And change it is!

Even during the infamous Bush era, Pakistan was not disgraced in such a way and never ever by the office and the person of the President. And before it all boils over,  here is Hussein’s hissy fit (view from 0.43 to 3.45)

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.

Pakistan is a country fighting a battle for its very survival thanks to the frantic efforts of its ever-hostile Eastern neighbour, the ineptitude of Uncle Sam on the Western border and its constant drone attacks on Pakistani areas, and General Zia’s legacy – a generation of fanatical Mullahs hell bent on destroying everything that the founders of Pakistan lived and died for.

Hardly a day passes when some depressing sorry about Pakistan does not dominate the national and increasingly the international headlines. From the Taliban imposing their tyranny on the peace loving people of Swat Valley, to the daily bombings and acts of wanton violence that blight Pakistan’s name throughout the world; to the trouble in Balochistan. Pakistan seems increasingly like a lost cause, a failed state on the brink of imploding.

Yet we must not lose heart. We must at this dark hour seek solace in the words of the Quaid: ‘Musalman musebat main ghabraya nahin karta!’ “A Muslim does not panic when adversity strikes”. The words of the Quaid’s beloved master (saw) as found in the Holy Quran are even more inspiring for the sorry state we find ourselves in “Fear not, Allah is with us”.

Yet we must not delude ourselves that a horde of angels will descend from a golden cloud and fight our battles for us. The Lord helps those who help themselves. We must overcome this nightmare ourselves with full faith that Allah will reward our efforts and Pakistan will emerge stronger than ever inshallah.

I have thought long and hard about how we can deal with the multiple challenges we currently face. Here follow my suggestions for dealing with these complex problems, I welcome feedback from readers so we can further develop these ideas and send some sort of draft policy plan to the movers and shakers in Islamabad in the (perhaps, slightly naive) hope that some of these ideas might be heeded to:

1. Break ranks with the USA. Announce that Pakistan will not tolerate any further drone attacks or breaches of its sovereignty. Pakistan will in the first instance expel the US ambassador, then take the issue to the United Nations and finally strike down any planes or drones that fly into our territory. If this leads to an aggressive stance from the US, withdrawal of aide, sanctions and possible military strikes then so be it. Pakistan will eventually be the target of the American war machine, no matter how obedient we are. So better to keep our self-respect and fight to save Pakistan than to lose our dignity as well as our country and nuclear assets.
2. Pakistan should ask NATO to seek a speedy exit from Afghanistan and ask the various factions within that country to come to the table to work out a joint strategy to govern that country. This will obviously include the Afghani Taliban. If NATO bows before the US, we should consider blocking Pakistan’s supply routes to NATO troops in Afghanistan.
3. The Government, opposition and all other stakeholders should come together and with the ‘US attacks’ excuse stripped from the terrorists a Pakistani anti – terrorist strategy should be worked out based on dealing with Jirgas, isolating the terrorist leaders and reconciling the elements who came to arms as a result of the policies of Musharraf. The deals signed should be unequivocal and should brook no compromise with those who want to establish their own mini-states or implement their own brand of Sharia. The deals should be purely based on a renunciation of violence, the arrest and trial of the main leaders of the terrorist groups and plans to develop and reconstruct the affected areas. If use of force is required against small groups of hardcore terrorists than Pakistan should not shrink from the task and seek to enrol the support of tribal or local lashkars in these attempts. Any military actions should be a last resort and carried out with due concern for minimising harm to civilian infrastructure and ordinary people.
4. Convince misguided Jihadis that fighting a war against the state of Pakistan is creating fasaad in the earth – not Jihad- and those guilty of taking up arms against the government that exists according to the principle of shura (mutual consultation as demonstrated during elections) is a worse crime than any other, being a rebellion against the Sharia itself. They should be nudged to include this in capital letters in the syllabuses of Madrassahs. It should made clear to the would be islamists that Islam cannot be implemented by coercion, and they should carry out tabligh to convince the majority to support sharia rule. This is the only legitimate way to create the kind of state that they would like to see. Madrassahs associated with people like Javed Ghamidi and others willing to give this message should be set up across Pakistan and especially in the areas where extremism is strong.
5. The government should stem the tide of rising extremism and talibanisation by promising to bring the laws of Pakistan into conformity with the Sharia. The way to do this already exists in the constitution. The recommendations of the Islamic ideology council should be brought to Parliament and discussed and debated, and brought into force as soon as they are agreed. The media should be made to obey a code of conduct that restricts shamelessness and immoral behaviour on television, radio and the print media. Law-enforcing agencies should announce a Jihad against prostitution, drugs, alchohol and gambling carrying out raids and punishing perpetrators across the country. No new laws or Taliban style moral police should be created for this Jihad. The present law of the Islamic republic should be implemented in full. As for the other ‘Islamic’ laws that Taliban supporters would like to see (like banning music, films and forcing women to stay at home in veils or strict penal laws) the moderate ulema would be utilised to convince them that they should try to ‘educate’ Muslims about the need for these laws so that a majority votes for parties willing to carry out these changes. If they can’t they should simply try to reform individuals and groups rather than raise arms against the state. All these points can be made with reference to the Quran, Sunnah and opinions of the Imams and ulema whom they respect.

No doubt some of these things might be easier said than done, and others might open up a Pandora’s box of new problems. Yet I am certain we will find no solution to our problems by ignoring the danger posed by the extremists and pretending that all the terrorists are CIA or RAW agents. Nor can we close our eyes to the hatred generated by our docility before the American aggression and its role in motivating poor, illiterate and impressionable young people to fight against their own country.

If we remain true to our principles of unity (seeking reconciliation with all reconcilable Pakistanis not least the tribals) faith (seeking to implement the Islamic provisions of the constititution) and discipline (imposing the writ of the state from a position of strength) we can and we will inshallah, save Pakistan and begin the process of creating that ‘Other Pakistan’ the Quaid’s Pakistan.

So I urge all Pakistanis inside and outside of Pakistan especially those in the US to resist this calculated attempt by our friend Uncle Sam (foe more like!!!!) to further undermine our national sanctity and sanity. The passionate Shireen Mazari says it all in her news report which is reproduced in full below and can be seen here:

According to the US Department of Defence News Release of March 13, 2008, Major General Jay W. Hood has been posted as the Chief, Office of the Defence Representative, Pakistan.

General Hood is a former commanding general of Guantanamo Bay prison and according to US National Public Radio (NPR), General Hood’s tenure at Guantanamo was marred by a series of scandals and growing controversies relating to policies on detention and interrogation. While controversy has always surrounded Guantanamo, it reached new heights when Hood was there – especially in the aftermath of the scandal breaking out publicly on detentions in Iraq at Abu Ghraib. Interestingly, it was General Miller, Hood’s predecessor at Guantanamo, who was implicated in Iraq.

Hood came under intense criticism when he decided to force feed prisoners with the use of a restraining chair. The gruesome means of force feeding have compelled the US to censor a drawing by a Guantanamo Bay detainee where he depicted himself as a skeleton with his head double-strapped down, a tube in his nose, a black mask over his mouth, no eyes visible only giant cheekbones. The detainee, Sami Al Haj is a Sudanese cameraman who worked for Al Jazeera television and the self-sketch was to mark his 431st day on hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay.

It was also during Hood’s service at Guantanamo Bay that the Pentagon released details of five confirmed cases of US personnel abusing the holy Quran. In a story published in the Washington Post on 4 June 2005, the US military admitted that soldiers and interrogators had kicked the holy Quran, got copies wet and stood on the holy Book during an interrogation and also sprayed urine on another copy. This was well established by the Pentagon after General Hood, as Commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo completed an inquiry into these cases of abuse of the holy Quran. Yet Hood chose to describe these incidents as “largely inadvertent”.

The inquiry tried to cover up deliberate abuses of the holy Book that detainees had been reporting to their lawyers, including lawyer Tom Wilner who was representing 11 Kuwaiti detainees. He declared that the number and persistence of reports of the Quran abuse from detainees revealed a much broader problem than indicated by the Hood inquiry. Clearly Hood’s main intent was to cover up as much as could be done in the wake of increasing revelations on the issue of Quran abuse.

It is unfortunate that the US Army Chief of Staff has chosen to appoint such a controversial officer to Pakistan, especially given his record and linkage to abuse of prisoners and the Holy Quran at Guantanamo. Guantanamo Bay itself has become a symbol of injustice, torture and abuse of Islam and sending a commanding officer from there to Islamabad begs the question: What is the message coming out of the Pentagon for Pakistanis by this insensitive act?

Equally important, given that host governments always have a choice of refusing a nominee – and many Western countries have exercised that right in the diplomatic nominees of the Pakistan Government – why has the Pakistan government chosen to silently accept what the US military dishes out, with no thought to the sensitivities of its own people?

When asked, a US Embassy spokesperson said:

“Major General Hood was nominated by the US Army and approved through the highest levels of the Department of Defense. His assignment to Pakistan is not related to his previous assignment but rather is a reflection of his standing as a senior military officer.

He was chosen for the assignment to Pakistan because he is a highly qualified officer at the Major General level. Assigning an officer at this level to this position reflects the continued US goal of cooperation with the Armed Forces of Pakistan. He is the second consecutive Major General assigned as Chief of the Office of the Defense Representative Pakistan.”

My one demand is non-negotiable and is addressed to those in power that Satanic Hood must not arrive on our holy soil, period. If he does then rivers of blood will follow as Pakistan as a nation will not stand silent to such evil, me included.

-  Originally posted on 21st March 2008, 04:39 PK Time, written under MARTIAL LAW

The chaos and division that ensued from the debate regarding to decision to boycott the elections or not has left a bad taste in the mouth and coupled with the continued arrests of our leaders our noble struggle has been hit for a big six in recent weeks.

With election fever finally taking root and the media treading carefully with a capital C so as to remain on our boxes. It is becoming difficult to keep the valiant struggle to restore the pre-Nov 3 judiciary in the news, in order to keep the issue alive. Even the recent attacks by the police on innocent women protestors in Islamabad were not deemed headline or front page news with media outlets choosing to look the other way except for token reporting and nil analysis.

The worst culprit is none other than Uncle Sam.and her media who like their governments have chosen to delight in hearing that the emergency has been lifted and that the khaki king has shed his second skin. The message coming from them through their inactions is ‘rejoice for its all hunky dory now’. The trouble with their approach is that they are ignoring the real issues vital to democracy and the rule of law and assume that ‘normalcy’ has returned to Pakistan.

The reality is that martial law has not been lifted it has only been concealed. Like the tip of a proverbial iceberg, the ugly realities of dictatorship continue hidden below the surface.

I have numerous questions to ask Uncle Sam ( I mean President Bush and his fan club really!) in this regard and also of those other forces who support the conventional wisdom of the Western media and governments.

However I cannot better the questions put forward recently by our very own Aitzaz Ahsan and Congressman John F.Tierney in an article in the Washington Post that brilliantly exposes the fantastic flaws of the US position. The article and questions are as below:.

Questions for the Two Rulers of Pakistan and America By John F. Tierney and Aitzaz Ahsan

One of us chairs a House of Representatives subcommittee tasked with oversight of U.S. foreign policy and one of us languishes under illegal house arrest after transfer from a Pakistani jail for the “heinous” and “seditious” crime of representing, in legal proceedings, the illegally sacked Chief Justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court, Mr. Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

As members of the political opposition in our respective countries and as lawyers firmly committed to the rule of law, we have a few questions for our [tyrannical] heads of state:

1. How will you address the increasing anti-Americanism in Pakistan in light of the growing, and not unjustified, perception among Pakistan’s democratic moderates that the United States is not willing to stand with the people of Pakistan against an increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic government in Islamabad?
2. How will you respond to the inevitable international condemnation of a parliamentary “election” in which journalists are muzzled; political parties are prohibited from campaigning; Pakistani military and intelligence services visibly enforce an atmosphere of intimidation; and opposition leaders are unlawfully exiled, illegally jailed or placed under unlawful house arrest?
3. How do you expect to effectively compete against PMLQ-MQM ideology when U.S. education funding to Pakistan is one-fifteenth its military support and Pakistani funding for public education remains woefully inadequate? Thirteen million Pakistani children ages 5 to 9 — out of 27 million total — are not enrolled in school at all, leaving them exposed to extremist PMLQ-MQM mentors.
4. How do you expect to combat the PML-Q and MQM cancer spreading from Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) into the Northwest Frontier and Balochistan provinces of Pakistan when the Pakistani military is busy pointing its guns at judges, lawyers, journalists, political opponents and human rights advocates?
5. How do you expect to muster the political fortitude and legitimacy to fight extremist MQM and PML-Q forces when you have alienated the center-left and center-right — the more progressive components of Pakistani society?
6. The people of Pakistan and the people of the United States deserve honest answers to these vexing questions. They are long overdue.

John F. Tierney (D-MA) is a Member of the U.S. Congress. Barrister-at- Law Aitzaz Ahsan, Pakistan Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President and an eminent human rights Advocate, has represented Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as well as two former prime ministers of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto and Muhammad Nawaz Sharif.

The questions say it all and I am all ears Uncle Sam as I await your rejoinder with bated breath.

 - Originally written on 24th December 2007, 02:45 PK Time, written under MARTIAL LAW