Pakistan's Political Will "wavering" In Pakistan
- Thread starter S-2
- Start date
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Hi Webby,
This thread has gone out of control-----please take care of it.
Thanks.
This thread has gone out of control-----please take care of it.
Thanks.
.
.
Pakistan's A-Bomb will destroy Dajjal's forces and they'll be buried in the ground. No other Muslim country has this capability.
You'll see the Drama kids...
You need serious help, go get some!
Bye bye!
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
unfortunately there are plenty more from where that yahoo comes from - the product of our illiterate maulvis uncontrolled by the govt.
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
No army withdrawal from Swat in present situation: Hoti 
By Daud Khattak
November 02, 2008
PESHAWAR: Rejecting the Talibans demand that the government withdraw the army from Swat before starting dialogue, NWFP Chief Minister Ameer Haider Hoti said on Saturday that the armys withdrawal from the region was not possible in the present circumstances.
The chief minister was talking to reporters during his visit to the Lady Reading Hospital to inquire after the people injured in Fridays suicide attack on police in Mardan.
Hoti said the situation in Swat did not allow the government to pull out troops, adding the government and security forces were trying to ensure peace in the area.
Regarding the offer of talks from some Taliban, the chief minister said the government was ready for dialogue with all those who were prepared to lay down arms.
Hoti said the negotiation process could be adversely affected by suicide attacks like the one in Mardan.
He said the Awami National Party (ANP) government had not deviated from its policy of non-violence. However, challenges to the writ of the government would not be tolerated, he added.
Earlier, the chief minister talked to the patients and assured them the government would provide them with every possible treatment.
By Daud Khattak
November 02, 2008
PESHAWAR: Rejecting the Talibans demand that the government withdraw the army from Swat before starting dialogue, NWFP Chief Minister Ameer Haider Hoti said on Saturday that the armys withdrawal from the region was not possible in the present circumstances.
The chief minister was talking to reporters during his visit to the Lady Reading Hospital to inquire after the people injured in Fridays suicide attack on police in Mardan.
Hoti said the situation in Swat did not allow the government to pull out troops, adding the government and security forces were trying to ensure peace in the area.
Regarding the offer of talks from some Taliban, the chief minister said the government was ready for dialogue with all those who were prepared to lay down arms.
Hoti said the negotiation process could be adversely affected by suicide attacks like the one in Mardan.
He said the Awami National Party (ANP) government had not deviated from its policy of non-violence. However, challenges to the writ of the government would not be tolerated, he added.
Earlier, the chief minister talked to the patients and assured them the government would provide them with every possible treatment.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Achilles heel and Trojan horse
Munir Attaullah
Inertia is not only a property of mass but also of the human thought process. We are not given to changing our minds easily. Why?
Blame that on our genetic inheritance. And here is yet another example of how a parsimonious Nature seems besotted with what physicists fondly refer to as ‘the principle of least action’.
For, the development, structure, and workings of our brain are all a consequence of the neo-Darwinian process best described as ‘Natural Selection by Differential Reproduction’. And here, very often, it is ‘functional adequacy’ rather than ‘perfection’ that suffices as a ‘survival value’ driving the process.
Now, keeping that in mind, combine the fact that brains have evolved to operate largely through conditioned learning, with the reality of the jungle that quick decision making (rather than what could be a fatal, time consuming, weighing-up of multiple possibilities) has greater ‘survival value’. What will be the likely evolutionary result? It will be a brain naturally predisposed to applying a sort of fuzzy human logic to whatever those limited but adequate set of possibilities it has been pre-conditioned to. No wonder brainwashing — especially in infancy and youth — is so difficult to counter.
Is this going to be a scientific column, you ask? No. The Achilles heel of the title refers to our northwest border; and the Trojan horse is our madrassa system, now much abused to often serve political and economic ambitions. My problem today was one of presentation: how to discuss subjects that were they not so central to our future well being, I would shy away from, so boringly often have I and others written about them.
But why bother revisiting familiar territory? It is to record, and give impetus to, some welcome shifts of emphasis that I sense, not only in official policy and actions but also in recent media discussions. For example, I think I detect an increased awareness that that old simplistic way of looking at our problems on the western border — is it ‘our’ war or is it ‘America’s’ war? — is deliberately obfuscating. And the Army has intensified its efforts.
For, we must think in terms of two distinct challenges, even though they may be inter-related: one is a sensible Afghan policy; the other is the wholly internal matter of a challenge to the writ of the state by an assortment of criminal and drug mafias, and religious zealots.
Without making this critical distinction, we are unlikely to successfully meet either challenge. For the problems resulting from an unstable Afghanistan are likely to — whether western forces stay or withdraw — bedevil us for decades to come, whatever our policy. The internal challenge however can be successfully met.
So, how should one revisit the hackneyed without being boring? My personal solution is to keep readers engaged by searching for ways to be interestingly oblique — and even digress a little — without being irrelevant.
And so, I start by giving you three quotations that I propose to use as background themes around which I will build my narrative of today.
The first is an observation of Max Planck, one of the founding fathers of modern Quantum Theory: “a new scientific truth does not, in general, prevail because its opponents declare themselves to be persuaded or convinced; it prevails because its opponents gradually die out and the new generation is made familiar with the truth from the start.”
The second is taken from SJ Gould, the distinguished palaeontologist, whose wonderfully written books on Natural History are an endless source of joy and wonder: “objectivity is not the absence of bias; rather, objectivity is recognising your preferences and then subjecting them to particularly harsh scrutiny — and the willingness to modify or abandon your theories when such tests fail (as they usually do).”
Finally, there is this typically succinct, no-nonsense, matter-of-fact Keynesian admission: “when the facts change, I change my mind.”
The troubled history of Afghanistan-Pakistan relations since 1947 is well known. But the fall-out from the proxy cold war struggle following the Soviet intervention transformed an otherwise possibly manageable problem into an impossibly complex one. For, suddenly, we were provided — and misguidedly embraced — the option to control Afghanistan through surrogates. That might have worked, except that history took another unexpected turn with 9/11.
Bowing to the new realities, we did as Keynes recommended and ostensibly abandoned our surrogates to their fate. But there was no change of heart. Planck was vindicated because the same generation of men wedded to the surrogate solution remained in charge of policy making, planning for the day the Americans would leave the arena.
The mess got worse. The Americans were ever only interested in Al Qaeda, not in the Taliban, or who rules Afghanistan and how. In a country racked with civil war between rival warlords for decades, the gradual re-emergence of well-financed, well armed, and ruthless criminal and drug mafias was only a matter of time. A sensible and workable Afghan policy is now a nightmare of a challenge for us.
But similar mafias and warlords on our side of the border can be dealt with. Were the suicide bombings those ‘changed facts’ Keynes referred to, that crucially helped produce a change of mind in us?
But is the preferred solution of most Pakistanis — persuasion, ‘inducements’ and muzakirat — workable? I think of Gould when I say let us not delude ourselves that such groups are amenable to an otherwise such an eminently sensible approach.
The only real solution will involve pain, and much loss of life, even of innocents. And that will have to be reluctantly and stoically accepted before a pacified area can effectively be put on the path of development. Even if you buy that romantic myth about ‘unconquerable’ Pashtuns, it is not so much a matter of subjugating them wholesale as it is of weeding out certain types.
But even such slowly changing perceptions, though welcome, still leave me worried. For, no one seems overly concerned with the really deadly societal problem we have gradually accumulated for ourselves through exaggerated deference and obeisance to our powerful religious lobbies.
For, every year, we continue to churn out from our madrassas tens of thousands of radicalised, religiously motivated youngsters, the majority of who are ill-equipped for even a half-decent job in the pressure cooker of modern society. Is it any surprise that many end up as cannon fodder in the ranks of those ruthless and unscrupulous elements that use religion as the primary tool to advance their political and other ambitions?
Go back to that Planck quote. It is time to “make the new generation familiar with the truth from the start”.
The writer is a businessman. A selection of his columns is now available in book form. Visit munirattaullah.com
Please do write to Mr. Attaullah, let him know what you think of his work that you read.
Munir Attaullah
Inertia is not only a property of mass but also of the human thought process. We are not given to changing our minds easily. Why?
Blame that on our genetic inheritance. And here is yet another example of how a parsimonious Nature seems besotted with what physicists fondly refer to as ‘the principle of least action’.
For, the development, structure, and workings of our brain are all a consequence of the neo-Darwinian process best described as ‘Natural Selection by Differential Reproduction’. And here, very often, it is ‘functional adequacy’ rather than ‘perfection’ that suffices as a ‘survival value’ driving the process.
Now, keeping that in mind, combine the fact that brains have evolved to operate largely through conditioned learning, with the reality of the jungle that quick decision making (rather than what could be a fatal, time consuming, weighing-up of multiple possibilities) has greater ‘survival value’. What will be the likely evolutionary result? It will be a brain naturally predisposed to applying a sort of fuzzy human logic to whatever those limited but adequate set of possibilities it has been pre-conditioned to. No wonder brainwashing — especially in infancy and youth — is so difficult to counter.
Is this going to be a scientific column, you ask? No. The Achilles heel of the title refers to our northwest border; and the Trojan horse is our madrassa system, now much abused to often serve political and economic ambitions. My problem today was one of presentation: how to discuss subjects that were they not so central to our future well being, I would shy away from, so boringly often have I and others written about them.
But why bother revisiting familiar territory? It is to record, and give impetus to, some welcome shifts of emphasis that I sense, not only in official policy and actions but also in recent media discussions. For example, I think I detect an increased awareness that that old simplistic way of looking at our problems on the western border — is it ‘our’ war or is it ‘America’s’ war? — is deliberately obfuscating. And the Army has intensified its efforts.
For, we must think in terms of two distinct challenges, even though they may be inter-related: one is a sensible Afghan policy; the other is the wholly internal matter of a challenge to the writ of the state by an assortment of criminal and drug mafias, and religious zealots.
Without making this critical distinction, we are unlikely to successfully meet either challenge. For the problems resulting from an unstable Afghanistan are likely to — whether western forces stay or withdraw — bedevil us for decades to come, whatever our policy. The internal challenge however can be successfully met.
So, how should one revisit the hackneyed without being boring? My personal solution is to keep readers engaged by searching for ways to be interestingly oblique — and even digress a little — without being irrelevant.
And so, I start by giving you three quotations that I propose to use as background themes around which I will build my narrative of today.
The first is an observation of Max Planck, one of the founding fathers of modern Quantum Theory: “a new scientific truth does not, in general, prevail because its opponents declare themselves to be persuaded or convinced; it prevails because its opponents gradually die out and the new generation is made familiar with the truth from the start.”
The second is taken from SJ Gould, the distinguished palaeontologist, whose wonderfully written books on Natural History are an endless source of joy and wonder: “objectivity is not the absence of bias; rather, objectivity is recognising your preferences and then subjecting them to particularly harsh scrutiny — and the willingness to modify or abandon your theories when such tests fail (as they usually do).”
Finally, there is this typically succinct, no-nonsense, matter-of-fact Keynesian admission: “when the facts change, I change my mind.”
The troubled history of Afghanistan-Pakistan relations since 1947 is well known. But the fall-out from the proxy cold war struggle following the Soviet intervention transformed an otherwise possibly manageable problem into an impossibly complex one. For, suddenly, we were provided — and misguidedly embraced — the option to control Afghanistan through surrogates. That might have worked, except that history took another unexpected turn with 9/11.
Bowing to the new realities, we did as Keynes recommended and ostensibly abandoned our surrogates to their fate. But there was no change of heart. Planck was vindicated because the same generation of men wedded to the surrogate solution remained in charge of policy making, planning for the day the Americans would leave the arena.
The mess got worse. The Americans were ever only interested in Al Qaeda, not in the Taliban, or who rules Afghanistan and how. In a country racked with civil war between rival warlords for decades, the gradual re-emergence of well-financed, well armed, and ruthless criminal and drug mafias was only a matter of time. A sensible and workable Afghan policy is now a nightmare of a challenge for us.
But similar mafias and warlords on our side of the border can be dealt with. Were the suicide bombings those ‘changed facts’ Keynes referred to, that crucially helped produce a change of mind in us?
But is the preferred solution of most Pakistanis — persuasion, ‘inducements’ and muzakirat — workable? I think of Gould when I say let us not delude ourselves that such groups are amenable to an otherwise such an eminently sensible approach.
The only real solution will involve pain, and much loss of life, even of innocents. And that will have to be reluctantly and stoically accepted before a pacified area can effectively be put on the path of development. Even if you buy that romantic myth about ‘unconquerable’ Pashtuns, it is not so much a matter of subjugating them wholesale as it is of weeding out certain types.
But even such slowly changing perceptions, though welcome, still leave me worried. For, no one seems overly concerned with the really deadly societal problem we have gradually accumulated for ourselves through exaggerated deference and obeisance to our powerful religious lobbies.
For, every year, we continue to churn out from our madrassas tens of thousands of radicalised, religiously motivated youngsters, the majority of who are ill-equipped for even a half-decent job in the pressure cooker of modern society. Is it any surprise that many end up as cannon fodder in the ranks of those ruthless and unscrupulous elements that use religion as the primary tool to advance their political and other ambitions?
Go back to that Planck quote. It is time to “make the new generation familiar with the truth from the start”.
The writer is a businessman. A selection of his columns is now available in book form. Visit munirattaullah.com
Please do write to Mr. Attaullah, let him know what you think of his work that you read.
Last edited:
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
An eloquent, fascinating, simply-put but easily understood essay.
First, we're ALL looking for a sensible Afghan policy.
Second, here's the straight truth-
"The only real solution will involve pain, and much loss of life, even of innocents. And that will have to be reluctantly and stoically accepted before a pacified area can effectively be put on the path of development. Even if you buy that romantic myth about unconquerable Pashtuns, it is not so much a matter of subjugating them wholesale as it is of weeding out certain types."
Undeniably harsh and still unacceptable to too many here who also seek the "surrogate" solution even at this late date.
Afghanistan will fester for years even should America or the combined efforts of NATO/ISAF finally take some coherant fruit. More likely, progress will be measured in irritatingly slow fits and starts.
That doesn't need to be true for Pakistan as well, though. Here Mr. Attaullah identifies the true culprits, the mythology and celebrated mystique surrounding the Pashtuns and the aborgation of education objectives into the hands of an irresponsible clergy.
Geez, that guy SOOOO gets it. Great read.
First, we're ALL looking for a sensible Afghan policy.
Second, here's the straight truth-
"The only real solution will involve pain, and much loss of life, even of innocents. And that will have to be reluctantly and stoically accepted before a pacified area can effectively be put on the path of development. Even if you buy that romantic myth about unconquerable Pashtuns, it is not so much a matter of subjugating them wholesale as it is of weeding out certain types."
Undeniably harsh and still unacceptable to too many here who also seek the "surrogate" solution even at this late date.
Afghanistan will fester for years even should America or the combined efforts of NATO/ISAF finally take some coherant fruit. More likely, progress will be measured in irritatingly slow fits and starts.
That doesn't need to be true for Pakistan as well, though. Here Mr. Attaullah identifies the true culprits, the mythology and celebrated mystique surrounding the Pashtuns and the aborgation of education objectives into the hands of an irresponsible clergy.
Geez, that guy SOOOO gets it. Great read.
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
In a country racked with civil war between rival warlords for decades, the gradual re-emergence of well-financed, well armed, and ruthless criminal and drug mafias was only a matter of time
great article muse but when najmuddin sheikh, the ex-foreign sectetary expounded on this, your first reaction was "what has this guy been smoking".!!!!
great article muse but when najmuddin sheikh, the ex-foreign sectetary expounded on this, your first reaction was "what has this guy been smoking".!!!!
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
There may be some confusion in your mind about the position I adopted - Mr. Shaikh did suggest that we review our Afghan policy, what I found objectionable is the substance of the policy he suggested.
We do not need navel gazing in Afghanistan, what we do need to to is to further integrate Afghanistan in to the Pakistani economy and to ensure that we reward friends and good behaviour and punish bad behaviour and "enemies".
I do not think that Pakistan policy in Afghanistan has been all bad, it has been practical and tactical and the strategic element has been defensive - Indian ambition in Afghanistan can be countered by integrating Afghanistan into the Pakistani economy, the Iranian and Indian operate on exactly this idea, however; we are more advantageously positioned to further this idea.
Mr. Shaikh's idea of assuring Afghan's of our benign attitude is, in my opinion, simply navel gazing - Afghans want and respect FIRM, FAIR and PROSPEROUS relations from Pakistan and we, Pakistan, should insist on this and ensure that this is exactly what we give and get.
Afghanistan's destiny is with Pakistan and with no other, Pakistan must respond favorably to this aspiration. However; realizing this aspiration requires that Pakistan begin by foirst integrating what is now "Tribal Areas" in to the larger economic and political fabric of Pakistan.
US and other stake holders have ZERO objection to this aspiration, however' they want to see responsible behaviour where in Pakistan actually behaves as if it's law and government and it's "semtiment" regarding soveregnty is framed in action against those who challenge these.
We have paid attention to a excellent series of posts between S2 and AM, What is the bone of contention in these posts? Sovereignty, some in Pakistan think, ought only be defended against the US, can such a notion be unassailable? Obviously not.
Ought the US be allowed to succeed in Afghanistan? Depends on what it hopes to accomplish and how these fit into the longer term interests of Pakistan and her allies - Should the perception continue that the US has not only no regard for the interests of Pakistan but is seeking to further those of her adversaries, the success of US efforts in Afghanistan will be a existential threat to Pakistan and must not be allowed to come to fruition, however; so long as Pakistan refuses to integrate the so called "tribal areas" and extend it's complete sovereignty to all of Pakistan, the US will remain unconvinced that it will have a serious, credible partner in Pakistan and Pakistan will continue to have difficulty in realizing what is the aspiration of both Pakistan and realistic people in Afghanistan.
Compare what Mr. Attaullah is saying about what it wil take and what Mr. Shaihk has omitted -- Blood and lots of it, has to be shed -- now that's truth, but then again, only if Pakistan are serious about this so called sovereignty business and it's genuine interests.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Just to clarify, my bone of contention with S-2 resides primarily over 'time lines', in the context of expanding the conflict in FATA. If the 'time line' is too long, I have argued there are several policies the US can implement to lessen the impact on Pakistan of dramatically expanding the battlefield, and in fact helping with the existing battlefield.
There is no argument over extending Pakistani sovereignty over all of FATA, nor is there any argument over the fact that ALL Taliban factions must lay down their arms, nor over the point that some major social restructuring, starting perhaps from the education system, specifically the informal madrassa one, is required.
I completely agree with Muse's arguments on the path we must pursue in developing our relationship with Afghanistan.
There is no argument over extending Pakistani sovereignty over all of FATA, nor is there any argument over the fact that ALL Taliban factions must lay down their arms, nor over the point that some major social restructuring, starting perhaps from the education system, specifically the informal madrassa one, is required.
I completely agree with Muse's arguments on the path we must pursue in developing our relationship with Afghanistan.
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
Great post though I've bones of contention.
Can't buy into Afghanistan's future umbilically-linked to Pakistan solely. It's value as a nation (if any) stems from it's geo-political positioning within central asia. It's a true cross-roads so get used to the Afghani gov't seeking close relations with the likes of CAR, Iran, Turkey, China, and India. That doesn't include the 41 nations there now with NATO/ISAF. They'll continue to play a role and, increasingly, one that's mercantile in nature.
Needs to be more inclusive but I would concur that Pakistan's role is considerably greater among an ostensible host of equals for geographic, cultural, social, and economic/trade reasons.
Perceptions are interesting. Who's and with what accuracy comes to mind? If those here, are those perceptions shared by Pakistan's leadership? On India, it seems that your leader has spoken and your praetorian didn't object. Did I miss something or is Mr. Attaullah's notion of surrogates still in play with Islamabad? Judging by Gilani's comment India is seen as no adversary in comparison to the threat from the west. Kiyani certainly raised no objection. That matters, no?
Our objectives for Afghanistan, however poorly executed (again) are, I believe, quite transparent and benign. Improving their lot in life such that rejection of political movements like talibanism and, thus, avoiding a repeat of all this unpleasantness suffered by the people of NYC is the clear choice that must be firm in all afghanis minds.
Getting there is the trick. What offers the best path for an enduring and uniformly palatable accord that can be a reasonable platform to launch a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic tribal society with some modest prospects of equally modest success? Oh, and what vehicle(s) can eventually erode these same barriers of tribe, ethnicity, religion, and culture? The idea is that one man, one vote seeks to employ this tool to achieve his own aspirations-independant from the group-think so prevalent now.
Achieving these goals should contribute handily to regional accord and doesn't strike me as impossible nor an objective which threatens Pakistan. It does absolutely appear a near-interminable task. Patience by all concerned coupled with a steadfast hand is necessary as a positive outcome of this nature can only benefit Pakistan's own security and economic livlihood.
Thus, if Gilani is correct and, simultaneously, success is slowly achieved in Afghanistan, the only remaining external threat to Pakistan's well-being shall come from those evil faux-commies up in Beijing.
...and maybe us (sheesssssh! Don't tell anybody. O.K?)
Can't buy into Afghanistan's future umbilically-linked to Pakistan solely. It's value as a nation (if any) stems from it's geo-political positioning within central asia. It's a true cross-roads so get used to the Afghani gov't seeking close relations with the likes of CAR, Iran, Turkey, China, and India. That doesn't include the 41 nations there now with NATO/ISAF. They'll continue to play a role and, increasingly, one that's mercantile in nature.
Needs to be more inclusive but I would concur that Pakistan's role is considerably greater among an ostensible host of equals for geographic, cultural, social, and economic/trade reasons.
Perceptions are interesting. Who's and with what accuracy comes to mind? If those here, are those perceptions shared by Pakistan's leadership? On India, it seems that your leader has spoken and your praetorian didn't object. Did I miss something or is Mr. Attaullah's notion of surrogates still in play with Islamabad? Judging by Gilani's comment India is seen as no adversary in comparison to the threat from the west. Kiyani certainly raised no objection. That matters, no?
Our objectives for Afghanistan, however poorly executed (again) are, I believe, quite transparent and benign. Improving their lot in life such that rejection of political movements like talibanism and, thus, avoiding a repeat of all this unpleasantness suffered by the people of NYC is the clear choice that must be firm in all afghanis minds.
Getting there is the trick. What offers the best path for an enduring and uniformly palatable accord that can be a reasonable platform to launch a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic tribal society with some modest prospects of equally modest success? Oh, and what vehicle(s) can eventually erode these same barriers of tribe, ethnicity, religion, and culture? The idea is that one man, one vote seeks to employ this tool to achieve his own aspirations-independant from the group-think so prevalent now.
Achieving these goals should contribute handily to regional accord and doesn't strike me as impossible nor an objective which threatens Pakistan. It does absolutely appear a near-interminable task. Patience by all concerned coupled with a steadfast hand is necessary as a positive outcome of this nature can only benefit Pakistan's own security and economic livlihood.
Thus, if Gilani is correct and, simultaneously, success is slowly achieved in Afghanistan, the only remaining external threat to Pakistan's well-being shall come from those evil faux-commies up in Beijing.
...and maybe us (sheesssssh! Don't tell anybody. O.K?)
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
.
Allow me to explain further: My point about seriously integrating the Afghan economy with that of Pakistan is based on first hand observation Pakistan is ideally situated to service the Afghan economy, as is Iran, India and China and CAR less so,(geography, cost of production and transport and culture). Iran cannot hope to be a cultural connection other than for a minority and even then its Shiah credentials are problematic.
The Coalition of the willing can of course play a economic role, but not in the kind of trade Pakistan can EU cannot be buying and selling daily commodities with the Afghan, unless it is very heavily subsidized indeed. For example, a plant to manufacture Cement or concrete, now the Indian, Iranian, Pakistani and Chinese manufacture such plants, such plants require parts and training and maintenance, it is my experience, that while Pakistan can provide these most economically, the Iranian (read German) will be preferred, so long as the coalition of the willing dominates in Afghanistan. Pakistan have for too long ignored the fact that its economy and business people can also function as tools of policy.
More than any other move, Pakistan must rediscover what the role of the state is. Readers will have noted that less than 1% of Pakistanis pay taxes, that Pakistan has the lowest tax to GDP ratio in the WORLD, that Pakistanis do not see taxes as obligations of citizenship but as punishment - as Mosharraf Zaidi notes (see Pak-US :Aid not Trade on the strategic board) :
Not only does Pakistan lack the basic capabilities that modern nation states must posses. It lacks them because it doesn't know why it should possess them. Pakistan's bureaucracy and parliament are crawling with LSE, Cambridge and Harvard graduates. This is not country that lacks generic capacity. It is a country that lacks a specific and overarching will. What use are the world's best classrooms, and most revered texts in the absence of a moral compulsion to use them? And how could they ever be used effectively in the absence of an institutional framework to regulate their use?
Most Pakistanis will tend to become defensive at the suggestion that in many respects Pakistan are a failed STATE but to these it must be asked what they make of a State in which less than 1% pay taxes? What would they call a state in which political parties and non-national individuals recruit, train and operate private armies and propaganda cells whose stated aim is to destroy the State? What would they call a state that refuses to see its duty towards its childrens right to a decent, modern education based on the values of science? The list is long, but reasonable people will have internalized the point being made.
Afghanistan geography is, at least in my experience, not well understood, even by Afghans the provinces are compartmentalized, some are unique climates and of course communication is a nightmare the suggestion that Afghanistans neighbors will have no role in Afghanistan, is not what I had in mind, quite the contrary, you will find that there is no objection to any Indian role there with the exception of security and this too may change, should Pakistan manage to rediscover what the role of a government actually ought to be and what the substance of sovereignty ought to be (Balouchistan and FATA, PATA).
I agree that Indian have not presented themselves, as yet, of the kind of threat they have helped create on the Western border, and even that is a function of their insecurity in occupied Kashmir now, some will suggest that this is rhetoric, fair enough, but I would point to events in Occupied Kashmir and the demonstration of public will and sentiment, for the objective, these will be instructive.
We have noted that the Indian has now positioned high performance Su30 aircraft at a base that has remained defunct for many years, they have also reopened a base for large transport aircraft traffic, they now prepare tunnel networks on the line of control, they (mis)use the Indus Water treaty and signal Pakistan that they control the head waters and deprive Pakistan of water - while Zardari and Gilani make noises in their self interest and Kiyani defers (what option is available to him?), it would be a misreading of the Pakistani establishment to imagine that these moves and others have gone unnoticed and their import unrealized.
I wanted to leave the objectives of the US for the last because this is a genuine bone of contention between not just establishment in both US and Pakistan but ordinary observers such as ourselves. I will grant you that by and large the US soldiers have got Haji hate out of their system and almost everyone I interacted with wanted the Afghan to have a better life, it was a human reaction and not one of ideology. However; I think you will have a difficult time convincing Pakistanis that US intentions and objectives are benign, because they most certainly do not appear to be benign The US is a partner of a particular side in a civil war, a liberal democracy in Afghanistan, really? Had you ever been to Afghanistan During the Communist years? The Afghan boasted to the provincial Pakistani how women in Kabul wear mini skirts, and they certainly did, outside Kabul, it was another world altogether even now, it is a replay of those years.
You will also have noted the Indian embassy attack in Kabul, It was not the Indian, but the US that sought to pin the blame for this attack on Pakistan and ISI in particular, It did not escape the attention of Pakistanis that the NYT was already being used and public opinion being prepared for viewing ISI and Mujahideen such as Haqqani as villans in what was otherwise a paradise of brotherly sentiment and behavior.
Now, I will grant you that we may not be privy to all the goings on and I will grant you that there are a multitude of players who will not object to seeing the US bleed there why exactly has US policy chosen to publicly identify Pakistan as one of those and not others is interesting and at least to Pakistanis, suggestive of US objectives that are benign and comforting to adversaries of Pakistan.
It is genuinely unfortunate that relations came to this, but it takes two to tango, Pakistans lack of capability and moral fortitude to save itself is definitely to be faulted, it remains to seen what the US evaluation of its policy and behavior will be.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
