Pakistan's Political Will "wavering" In Pakistan

[RabzonKhan]

Editorial: Interpreting the ‘national consensus’

October 24, 2008

After making public a variety of clashing views, all parties in the joint parliamentary session in Islamabad have produced a unanimous 14-point document of “national consensus” on the war on terror. This is an important moment in Pakistan’s history in so far as the politicians did not sabotage the session as they appeared to indicate earlier, but agreed to make an effort to arrive at a consensus over the crisis of terrorism in Pakistan. Needless to say, any “consensus” among people of differing points of view had to be abstract and broad, which is what the agreed document is. The corollary to that is that its interpretations will abound in the days to come.

For starters, the newspapers produced varying headlines on Thursday reflecting their separate understanding of what has been agreed to. Papers that were worried about the “dialogue” taking place with the terrorists blazoned the part that said there would be talks only with those who would lay down arms. The document actually says: “Dialogue will be encouraged with all those elements willing to abide by the Constitution of Pakistan and rule of law”. This is a most lucid pledge given by the joint session that negotiations will not be held with the militant violators of the law. One can say that this is where the PPP-led government has scored a victory.

The other headline claimed that “the army operations will cease” and that dialogue would be a first priority to meet the challenge of terrorism. “Army will not be used in FATA”, proclaimed another such headline. And one headline said: “No military operations; the army will be withdrawn”. This twist on the consensus document refers us to the section that says, “The challenge of militancy and extremism must be met through developing a consensus and dialogue with all genuine stakeholders”. And the suspension of military operations and withdrawal of the army is assumed from the section that says, “That the state shall establish its writ...(using customary means)...and that the military will be replaced as early as possible by civilian law-enforcement agencies...”.

There was even a headline that said, “Pakistan’s foreign policy will be changed”, meaning perhaps that Pakistan will get out of the international coalition against terrorism. However, an overhaul of the entire issue of militancy and insurgency in the Tribal Areas as well as in Balochistan is promised in the opening sentence of the consensus resolution: “We need an urgent review of our national security strategy and revisiting the methodology of combating terrorism in order to restore peace and stability to Pakistan and the region though an independent foreign policy”. But this remains subject to the interpretation of the government. The opposition, however, will hold it to the implied undertaking that it would change policy in consultation inside the parliament.

On the other hand, the government will steadily make reference to the section that says: “That Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity shall be safeguarded. The nation stands united against any incursions and invasions of the homeland, and calls upon the government to deal with it effectively”. Read it together with the pledge given in the sentence, “That Pakistan’s territory shall not be used for any kind of attacks on other countries and all foreign fighters, if found shall be expelled from our soil” and you have given the government the latitude to take on the Taliban of all varieties plus their overlord Al Qaeda because they are invading Afghanistan across the Durand Line.

The normal outcome of such a broad and “inclusive” consensus is that bickering starts over what it means, at two levels. First, there will be some altercation between the government and the opposition over how to go about implementing this consensus. And, second, there will be quarrels within the opposition parties whose leaders have signed the document and “betrayed the party cause”. This bickering is normally supposed to give space to the government to continue its policy based on objective conditions. The national issue remains politicised, producing some dissonance in a national environment that everybody thinks should be consensual.

The document is an achievement of the PPP government. Despite the negative jurisprudence of some signed inter-party documents of the past, it was able to persuade leaders of radically differing views to sign under the 14 points that did not all reflect their position. Will the army facing the terrorists in the Tribal Areas be reassured by the production of this document in the parliament? There is no doubt that it will be less put off now than before by a lack of national consensus, but it will still have to work under the familiar democratic ambiance of dissent in the media where the opposition is able to make a strong appearance.

The army will remain deployed because of the threat to Pakistan’s survival as a state. Islamabad will not allow the country to be isolated internationally simply because it needs outside help to survive economically. And it will cooperate with Afghanistan and India to explore ways and means to reduce the triangular conflict of interests. All this is for the good. *

 

[RabzonKhan]

Consensus resolution

October 24, 2008

THE MPs have finally come up with a consensus resolution and this in itself is an achievement. Beyond that, one would be hard put to discover substance in the 14-point resolution read out to parliament by the prime minister on Wednesday. Between the opposition and the government, which side has given more is a matter of opinion. Keen to get a parliamentary endorsement of its policies, the government seems to have conceded more than the opposition. There is no reference to the war against terrorism in the resolution hammered out after a 15-day in-camera session of the two houses. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have not been named; instead the MNAs and senators confine themselves to noting “with great concern” that “extremism, militancy and terrorism” pose a threat to Pakistan’s stability and integrity. How to combat this menace has not been spelled out in specific terms, even though the resolution calls for “an urgent review” of the national security strategy. While the demand for “an independent foreign policy” could be considered a dig at the Musharraf government’s take on events, the resolution does not recommend what aberrations in Pakistan’s external relations need to be removed.

The resolution places emphasis on dialogue and calls it the “principal instrument of conflict management”. To that extent it breaks no new ground, for the PPP-led government too stands pledged to talks — an idea that is gaining ground in American and European capitals as well. However, the PPP government says it will talk to those militants who lay down arms. The resolution only indirectly concedes the government’s right to use force by pleading that collateral damage be avoided when the security forces “intervene” to ensure the government’s writ. On the question of sovereignty, it has maintained a fine balance. While the resolution asks the government to “deal” with incursions into Pakistan, it says the country should not be allowed to be used for acts of terrorism against other states, and that foreign militants be expelled.

Let us count our blessings: at one stage it appeared the opposition would walk away. That it did not do so and that finally the MPs managed to hammer out a consensus resolution is a matter of thanksgiving. Apparently our boys are growing. For the first time since the unity shown at the time of Musharraf’s exit, all parties have once again come together, even if the diluted resolution disappoints the nation, which had expected something more concrete from the people’s representatives. Nawaz Sharif had spoken a lot and made no secret of his reservations about the government’s war on terror, but his party too finally went along. Perhaps the resolution is a first step towards evolving what eventually could become a forceful, result-oriented national consensus.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Entire nation in agreement with wiping out terrorism: Gen Kayani

Saturday, October 25, 2008

KAKUL: Pakistan Army Chief, General Ashfaque Pervaiz Kayani has said that Pakistan would join in the race for weapons, however the minimum deterrents would be retained.

Addressing the 118th Long Course Passing-out Parade here, he said that necessary measures in collaboration with the people would have to be taken for wiping out terrorism. Chief of the Army Staff said that the entire nation was united against extremists and the 14-point resolution passed in the parliament was a testimony to it. He further said that along with the foreign danger, terrorism within was also looming.

 

[fatman17]

do we know what the 14-points are. from what i have read the west (read US) is not happy with this resolution as it states that the top priority is to have a dialogue with the TTP/militants. have the politicians come up with terms and conditions for such talks/dialogue.
it seems that the heading of this thread is correct afterall!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

do we know what the 14-points are. from what i have read the west (read US) is not happy with this resolution as it states that the top priority is to have a dialogue with the TTP/militants. have the politicians come up with terms and conditions for such talks/dialogue.
it seems that the heading of this thread is correct afterall!

FM sahib,
Check Dr. Umer's post at the beginning of the thread for the text of the 14 point resolution:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/210845-post15.html

 

[DarkStar]

Religious parties never won more than 11% of total votes, majority of them coming from two western provinces and rural area's. This indicates the power and will of the moderates. Therefor Sharia Law can not and will not be implemented in Punjab or Sindh, specially in metropoles like Karachi or Lahore.

Thats true, but for a time in the late 60's and 70's jamate islami did get the most number of votes cast in their favour, although they didn't get that many seats due to the layout of the electoral wards. But that time will now never come back. As it is, even religious people do not vote for religious parties. I guess they know them better than most, hai na?

 

[DarkStar]

As for the comment about jui-f Molana Fazlur Rehman a.k.a. Diesel.

I believe (thought not being a religious supporter of his) that he is by far the most wily and astute politician that pakistan has.

If you can look at him while imagining his beard isn't there, the things he says, and the way he says them belies true political understanding and intuition. He's the guy who hugged Qazi Hussain ahmad, and neutered him in whilst in his embrace.

Who else could have done that to the "student leader" "dharna master" "long march wala" Qazi?

Get rid of zardari and put him in charge. I bet you won't see much sharia coming out of him either when he's at the helm.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

DS,

Completely agree on Mullah Diesel.

With his recent rhetoric on a 'ceasefire' he has also given himself some credibility with the Tribal leaders, and is possibly attempting a rapprochement with the more hardcore religious figures who separated from him, especially in and around Quetta, due to his alliance with Musharraf. Whether this was part of a 'carrot and stick' plan by Zardari, to ensure that some avenue of dialog was left open with the extremists, or Mullah Diesels own initiative, I am not sure, but it does leave him with options, and through him the GoP as well, though he will exact his pound of flesh if he is ever called upon.

I would also argue that if you take the verbal gaffes away from Zardari's performance this time around, he is playing a good second to Mullah Diesels wiliness. Musharraf gone with a whimper, Nawaz Sharif neutered for the time being, judges issue buried, despite one of his party stalwarts pushing for it non-stop, and the man with perhaps the shadiest reputation in Pakistan getting handily elected President.

Pretty impressive stuff. Now if he manages to turn the economy around and put a dent in the Taliban insurgency, while keeping the US at bay, I think he will have justified his return, and washed away most of his previous sins.

 

[Neo]

Unlike most muslim countries women in Pakistan enjoy a lot of freedom and protection, the empowerment has only increased since Benazir took the office and today 40% of the women use their electoral rights to vote.

This is one group that will never vote for islamic parties or support implementation of sharia law which is closely associated with talibanism.

 

[Logic note]

Time and Money Running Out for Pakistan - TIME

You wouldn't want to be the President of Pakistan: Even as the military finds itself embroiled in a war against militants that much of the country's elected leadership (and even more of the electorate) opposes, it's hard even to keep the lights on as the limits of the country's electricity supply mean daily blackouts in major cities. The economy, meanwhile, is in a perilous state, with inflation running rampant, the currency having lost a third of its value, and foreign currency reserves reduced to the point that they can finance no more than six weeks of imports. Pakistan, in fact, is in danger of defaulting on its substantial foreign debt if it can't get help either from its friends or from the IMF — and the price of such help will be politically unpopular: a stepped up effort against the Taliban and, perhaps, some tough domestic economic reforms.


Related
Stories
India, Pakistan Cross the 'Line'
The US vs. Pakistan: With Friends Like These
More Related
Pakistan: Negligent on Terror?
Pakistan’s Zardari Tries to Keep His Distance from US
A Shake-Up at the Top of Pakistan’s Powerful Spy Agency
No wonder, then, that the forthcoming U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Pakistan reportedly makes "bleak" reading. The NIE represents the consensus of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, and according to a McClatchy newspapers report, an official familiar with the contents of the document that will brief the next President says it warns that Pakistan has "no money, no energy, no government". Washington's primary concern remains al-Qaeda, which John Kringen, the CIA's director for intelligence, recently described as being "resurgent" and "well-settled" in Pakistan's tribal areas. But the presence of Bin Laden's group is enabled by an indigenous militant insurgency — the Pakistan Taliban — and Pakistani leaders remain divided over how to respond to this challenge.

President Asif Ali Zardari and his seven month-old civilian government have given priority to combating militancy, and having abandoned failed negotiations with the Pakistan Taliban, the army is currently fighting militants in the notorious arms manufacturing town of Darra Adam Khel, the scenic Swat Valley, and most visibly in the Bajaur tribal area. Although the U.S. NIE reportedly criticizes the Pakistan army for a "reluctance" to launch an all-out confrontation with the militants, military spokesmen point out that the Pakistan army has lost over 1,500 troops since it began confronting militants on its own soil. And they see the tide turning in their favor in the ten-week-old military operation in Bajaur, where they say the Taliban last week offered negotiations — a sign, say government officials, that the militants' resolve is weakening. "It was the first time that the government rejected an offer of peace," says Mehmood Shah, a former chief secretary for Pakistan's tribal areas.

Pakistani officials are also encouraged by the emergence of tribal militias who have turned on the Taliban. "We cleared them out of our area in a week," says Akhunzada Chettan, a lawmaker from a part of Bajaur, and there have been similar successes in Dir and, reportedly, Lakki Marwat. These developments are significant, officials say, because in the past the tribes had feared that the army would fail to protect them.

Although the current offensive in Bajaur and other areas has been applauded by Washington, Prime Minister Asif Zardari is having a harder time convincing his own people of the wisdom of waging war on the militants. While some had hoped that last month's horrific terror attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad would rally the nation to fight militancy, instead divisions have only deepened. Recent opinion polls still find a majority of Pakistanis opposed to their government's support for Washington's "war on terror" — despite their anger at the recent wave of suicide bombings, these Pakistanis believe the attacks are a consequence of Pakistan waging "America's war".

Zardari had hoped that holding a parliamentary debate on how to respond to militancy would help make the campaign "Pakistan's war" and give the military political support for its actions. But after more than two weeks of behind-closed-doors deliberations, parliament unanimously adopted a resolution urging a resumption of dialogue with the militants, and an end to military operations "as early as possible". Although the parliamentary debate reflected the power plays of a political culture in which parties rarely put the national interest above their own, it also reveals a profound difference in perspective even within the ruling coalition — Zardari's allies in the religious Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam party demanded an end to military operations against the militants.

"The military wants political back up, and the government is supporting them, but I do not expect all the parties to unite," says military analyst Hasan Askari-Rizvi. "The political leaders seem too interested in settling scores against each other."

The absence of a consensus on fighting the militants compounds Zardari's difficulties in tackling the economic crisis he inherited — a crisis that, in turn, threatens to deepen the militant challenge. Rising world oil and food prices have sent the inflation rate soaring to 25% (and as much as four times that on basic foodstuffs), while the political uncertainty over the past 18 months fueled extensive capital flight that has weakened the rupee and depleted forex reserves. A failure to increase the capacity of electricity production now plunges Pakistan's main cities into darkness for up to ten hours a day, with longer periods in rural areas. Industrial output has shrunk with employers now laying off employees they can no longer afford to keep. And Pakistanis have begun to take their anger to the streets. In parts of Lahore on Monday, scores of protesters laid siege to the local office of the electricity utility, ransacking the building and burning their electricity bills. The mounting economic crisis is likely to fuel social unrest — "The general mood is one of despair," says Yousuf Nazar, a leading economic commentator. And despair and anger among Pakistan's poor are likely to swell the ranks of the militants.

The bleak economic situation has prompted Pakistan to desperately seek aid from such long-term allies as Saudi Arabia, Britain, the U.S. and China. Despite Zardari flying to those countries in recent weeks to make his case, he has yet to secure the loans needed to avoid a default on Pakistan's debt. Pakistani officials insist that they have no intention of defaulting, and the Pakistani rupee rose this week amid signs that the International Monetary Fund might step in to rescue this frontline state in the war on terror. The IMF confirmed Wednesday that it would soon enter discussions with Pakistan over ways to assist its economy. But help from the international community will almost surely be conditional on a more robust effort against the militants — an option that raises political problems for Zardari — and also on economic reforms that might prove unpopular. There are clear and challenging downsides to any of the choices available to Pakistan's leadership right now. And playing for time may not be an option in the face of that dwindling pile of foreign exchange reserves.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^ The support for the WoT and the economic situaion is obviously linked. The capital and investment fLight has been prompted because of concerns of instability and deteriorating law and order due to the WoT.

As such, when Pakistanis face economic pressures and terrorism, the blame is placed on the US WoT. Domestic pressures will start declining once the GoP can get a handle on the economic situation.

 

[S-2]

"...if you want to blame pakistan any way..."

Batmannow,

Read the context of my reply. Blame? The United States was being blamed for the creation of the Taliban. That doesn't jibe in any way, shape, or form with events as they actually unfolded.

I simply stated the facts that the taliban are a Kandahar-based student movement which gained nat'l notoriety during the Afghan Civil War in 1994. They WERE recognized by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (UAE too?). We with-held judgement and, ultimately, decided NOT to support them. The United States, in point-of-fact, didn't have a clue who they were much less sponsor their inception and ascendancy.

Stay on topic. It's my thread and could be construed, if you wish, as "blaming" the Pakistani legislature of being a bunch of panty-waisted, self-serving puzzies...

That should sharpen the discussion a tad.

 

[batmannow]

"...if you want to blame pakistan any way..."

Batmannow,

Read the context of my reply. Blame? The United States was being blamed for the creation of the Taliban. That doesn't jibe in any way, shape, or form with events as they actually unfolded.

I simply stated the facts that the taliban are a Kandahar-based student movement which gained nat'l notoriety during the Afghan Civil War in 1994. They WERE recognized by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (UAE too?). We with-held judgement and, ultimately, decided NOT to support them. The United States, in point-of-fact, didn't have a clue who they were much less sponsor their inception and ascendancy.

Stay on topic. It's my thread and could be construed, if you wish, as "blaming" the Pakistani legislature of being a bunch of panty-waisted, self-serving puzzies...

That should sharpen the discussion a tad.

S-2,sir

no, way i wasnt trying to save Pakistani legislature's , i agree with you, but its the common man , who doesnt think the same way, how you guys ! think back in US!
but, as you noticed , just yesterday again a killing was done by terrorists in kabul (afghanistan) in which , the innocent workers of DHL was being targeted.
i guss, talibans started a new startegy,to target civilians ,who are running the daily life affairs in afghanistan.
for civilians comming to work in afghanistan , in near future would be very difficult to protect because , they wouldbe the beloved target of ,talibans backed resistance movement inside kabul.

its NATO, US, ISAF' s responsibilty to protect these civillians, its not pakistani army's responsibility to protect people's in kabul?

as you know ,i like fight, challenge, lol
so, i will be happy , if we can make this post a healthy discussion .

 

[muse]

Let's hope that the Pakistani legislature rapidly learns that it can't wish away the hard responsibilities of governance for which they've been entrusted by it's people and, further, learn themselves how to lead their own constituents by more than empty words

It's a structural problem - the role of the Majlis e Shura is misunderstood, misconstrued by members of the Majlis and while they are big on expressing "indignation" and "declarations", it's unfair to expect them to behave as "deputies" in the best interests of the nation. Members of Majlis have always been individuals who are less than scrupulous in their dedication to their self interests. Should they rise to persuad, they know Talib/AQ will not only target them but also their families and relatives and of course they will be forfieting their chance to feed from the treasury.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hello gentlemen,

It is good to see S-2 on the board and firing on all eight cylinders.

After the defeat of the russians in afghanistan, the u s needed more support from the mujahideen----but when iraq invaded kuwait and the mujahideen sided with the Saddam,the u s saw that it had no further role to play in the tribal conflict in afghanistan---.

It is a misconception that needs to be cleared from the minds of the pakistanis----u s had no intentions of getting so involved in afghanistan----it just happened the Zia Ul Haque tricked and coerced the u s to get right in the middle. U S understood very well that the russian influence would stay local. Pakistan was fortunate to get Charlie's ear on that issue. But what happened after the war----the infighting amongst the mujahid groups and them favouring Saddam during the invasion of kuwait, Charlie could not muster up any furtrher support from the u s congress.

Anyway, coming back to the issue of Taliban----Over the period of many years on this board, I have stated that the pakistani administration was playing with fire by not completing the job at hand----the half *** effort by the millitary and Musharraf's admin has created a monster whose tentacles have grown with every oppurtunity prsented to it---even though I was a big fan of Musharraf, I stated many atimes that there was an inherent weakness in implementing law and order situation in pakistan---either amongst its civilian society---through the police force----or at the border through its millitary---or in the capital city of islamabad in the case of RED MOSQUE fiasco.

I for a moment donot doubt the bravery of the millitary man known as Pervaiz Musharraf in the battlefield---but I do consider him a coward as a president and a millitary general, when the time came to provide justice to the victims of crimes in the civilian population and hundreds of incomplete millitary actions against the taliban on the border areas.

In the long run, poor planning stayed as his hallmark, incompetent advisors were his go to guys, for a milltary general a total lack of understanding in completing a mission in the shortest possible time.

Musharraf was not alone in that----his partners in incompetence---namely---the great Gen Tommy Franks, John Abizaid and the fourth general Sanchez or some one with the spanish name---they were all participants in this game of musical chairs----each one of them had became a total failure in the end for the the job that they were chosen to do---as the three american could be blamed for their ignorance, arrogance and being gungho--to the point of being NARCISSISTS----Musharraf on the other hand totally forgot his milltary background and training at the time of his final combat with the deadliest of the enemy.

When it was time for him to be precise in his decisions and ruthless in implementing his directives---there was a lack of focus in the way the the order was carried out.

I would go out on a limb and say that the pakistanis as a whole, right from top to the bottom, didnot understand and comprehend the gravity of the situation that was enforced upon them when that phone call from Collin Powell was made. It looked as though they could not decipher what lay beyond tomorrow----why they could not do that---possibly because the pakistanis lack in INDEPENDENT THINKING. They understood the word destruction---no doubt about it---they took the first few steps in the right direction---but then they lost their focus right in mid step.

Arrests were being made to show and please the tv audience and visiting dignitaries----in the later stages it got embarrassingly predictable what was going to happen.

The taliban were given so much leeway to get away and re-organize to fight another day, the newsmedia was free to show any and every terrorist activity, the sympathisers of taliban were given a free reign on the tv, newspapers and radio---cont: