analysis: Civil-military equation —Iqbal Ahmad Khan

[fatman17]

analysis: Civil-military equation —Iqbal Ahmad Khan

The twin bacilli of strategic depth and jihadism have soured our ties with our neighbours, nay with the whole international community. Our body politic should be cleansed of this disease if the president’s vision is to see the light of day

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Information Secretary Fauzia Wahab’s reported revelation of differences between the president and the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) on the “threat perception” from India is disturbing. The India factor and overall civil-military relations have played crucial roles in determining the destiny of our benighted nation. This is evident from our history. ‘Operation Gibraltar’ in 1965 plunged the country into an all-out war with India, producing serious negative implications. Refusal by the Chief Martial Law Administrator (CMLA) in 1971 to transfer power to the elected representatives of the people led to the disintegration of Pakistan. The Kargil adventure by the then COAS caused political instability and an international furore, which ironically led to the overthrow of the democratically elected civilian government by the army. In all these cataclysmic events the India factor was paramount and the army leadership the principal decision maker. In all cases the outcome was an unmitigated disaster for Pakistan.

Did we learn any lessons from these self-inflicted wounds? Most regretfully not. In what has become the standard operating procedure of our security establishment, investigations were either not undertaken or where an enquiry commission was set up, its report kept confidential, citing national security concerns. As a consequence, the Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report was neither made public nor its recommendations implemented. As to how the top secret report surfaced nearly two decades later in the offices of an Indian magazine was never explained. To the best of my knowledge there were no adverse repercussions for Pakistan’s national security. Judging from the diagnosis of most Pakistanis of our East Pakistan debacle, it seems that the overwhelming majority of them are sublimely unaware of the report’s conclusions.

Ms Wahab has stated that it is the president’s vision to transform Pakistan’s ties with its neighbours by pursuing economic and commercial cooperation without being bogged down by security obsessions. No matter how offended an average Pakistani might be at the president’s position on the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry or the NRO or for having bunkered himself in the presidency while terrorist bombings take an increasingly high toll of innocent Pakistanis, one ought to give him credit for this vision. An important measure of the success of a country’s foreign policy lies in the nature of its ties with countries with which it shares common borders. At best Pakistan’s record is a mixed one — a tense relationship with India and mutually suspicious ones with Afghanistan and Iran. Pakistan’s relations with China have traditionally been problem-free. We do however need to be sensitive and swift in responding to Chinese concerns regarding the separatists in Xinjiang.

The twin bacilli of strategic depth and jihadism have soured our ties with our neighbours, nay with the whole international community. Our body politic should be cleansed of this disease if the president’s vision is to see the light of day. It is imperative that the civilian government not only devise a coherent policy, a sound strategy and an effective implementation mechanism, but also take overall command of the anti-insurgency operations. Presently, it appears that both policy and strategy are in the hands of the army. As for an anti-insurgency mechanism, none exists. This is the general perception and if this is correct then the president’s vision will remain a vision and nothing more. Neither will the vision have become a reality by 2013 when general elections are due nor will we be able to hold them in a terror-free environment.

Opposing viewpoints within the government are neither a novelty nor a matter of concern. They are important to the making of coherent and creative policies. That these should be voiced publicly, as in the case of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, is certainly a matter of concern. Public airing of differences among various organs of the government engender confusion among the people and transmit garbled messages to outside powers. It is important to bear in mind that in a democracy, people expect their representatives in government and parliament to deliver on policies and promises made during elections. The PPP manifesto promises enhanced economic and commercial cooperation within the South Asian regional framework. It seeks to replace the architecture of conflict in the region with an architecture of peace. At the heart of the new architecture lies a peaceful relationship with India. Therefore, while behind closed doors contrary opinions can and should be expressed, ultimately the decision of the elected head of government should prevail, in other words the will of the people. In October 1999, General Musharraf thwarted this will and violated the fundamental law of the land. This should not be allowed to happen again. The Constitution in the shape of Article 6 was meant to serve as a deterrent. It did not deter General Zia. It also did not deter General Musharraf. Had the former been made to face its wrath, the nation might have been saved the tyranny of the latter.

South Asia’s future cannot be its past. Nuclearisation and global trends dictate engagement and not estrangement. All our friends have repeatedly advised cooperation as opposed to confrontation. We have not heeded their advice in the past and paid a heavy price — disintegration and now terrorism. Its time reason and sanity prevailed over irrationality and bravado. It, however, takes two to tango. India would be well advised to eschew intransigence and its hegemonic designs and enter into a comprehensive dialogue on the basis of equality.

Iqbal Ahmad Khan is a former ambassador. He can be reached at ghazalakhan27@hotmail.com

 

[fatman17]

WASHINGTON DIARY: Civil-military relations —Dr Manzur Ejaz

Similarly, Zardari should have undone the 17th Amendment and transferred powers to the prime minister, who is elected by parliament. If he had done that, at least he could have the moral authority to effectively safeguard the elected government’s sovereignty

Every Eid many Pakistani newspapers reveal where the Army chief offered his prayers. Sometimes, the Corps Commanders get this publicity as well. I started looking for similar information about the US army chief, i.e. where he went for Christmas Mass. However, I could not find any mention of an army boss going for Christmas Mass in any newspaper. Thinking it may be an unfair comparison, I searched European, Indian and other newspapers and found that no one mentioned where military chiefs went for their religious services. Then why is General Kayani or his predecessors’ venue of Eid prayers newsworthy?

Obviously, Pakistan’s unique mix of a religious state and lengthy military rule has turned military commanders into public leaders. The media has become so used to it that it has become routine reporting for them. However, the perpetuation of this practice does indicate that the media mindset has not yet changed. Media symbolism shows that dealings between the military and the civilian government are just the way they were in the past.

It is not even certain that the military chiefs, specifically General Kayani, would be keen to see their religious or private activities publicised. Most probably, the ISPR — the military’s information division — passes out such announcements in short memos that the newspapers pick up and highlight. If we have to break with the past and travel on a new path, such symbolic media coverage of military generals should be stopped. Nor should the military pass on such information or the media publicise it.

It is true that civil-military relations in Pakistan are not going to be changed by mere abandoning of certain symbols. It is going to be a long, tedious and drawn out process because both civilian leaders and military personnel are set in their ways and both groups have mammoth competing interests. Presently, the situation is quite fuzzy despite the media pundits’ forecasts, speculations and cooked stories about who wants what in this so-called civil-military duel: There may not be any!

The situation is fuzzy because it appears that General Kayani is said to be pushing for the rehabilitation of an acceptable democratic order while the Zardari government is dragging its feet on every reform. For example, it was obvious that the deposed judiciary was reinstated with the military’s ‘help’, to say the least. The Zardari administration should not have opposed the restoration of the judiciary so vehemently to start with when it had become the people’s agenda. By resisting the popular will, it provided a golden opportunity for the military to fulfil a popular demand. Therefore the government created a situation where people cannot be faulted if they forget about the past and look to the military to have their demands met.

Similarly, Zardari should have undone the 17th Amendment and transferred powers to the prime minister, who is elected by parliament. If he had done that, at least he could have the moral authority to effectively safeguard the elected government’s sovereignty. Instead, it seems he is using every piece of transfer of power as some kind of a bargaining chip. It is hard to see what he has gained by such delaying tactics except raising animosity even within sympathetic circles. Sooner or later he has to come round and accept that a president is a figurehead in a parliamentary system. The sooner he accepts this the better it is for all involved.

If the media reports have some validity, the military is pushing the Zardari government to undertake overdue political reforms to rehabilitate the full sovereignty of the parliamentary system. There is a possibility that such characterisation of the military is misleading and representative of the disinformation that has been common in Pakistan. One can argue that the military is driving the politicians to maintain its supremacy. But what if the military is convinced that, in a changed world, its own stakes have increased in a well functioning parliamentary system? There are reasons to believe this, though they are beyond the scope of this column.

Furthermore, if the military is projecting or pretending to be pro-political reform, then why is the political government not making them irrelevant by taking a lead? The ruling party should appear to be keener than any other institution for the sovereignty of the parliamentary system. This is the only way it can regain the high moral ground. Otherwise, critics will always blame the Zardari government for accumulating powers in the presidency. The political government should set its house in order if we do not want our military chief’s Eid prayers publicised.

The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.com