Tunisia: How we got here and the task ahead

Hunger strikes were the last resort for Tunisian activists as they fought against a brutal and highly oppressive regime. Prior to the ousting of Zian al Abedin bin Ali by an unpresedented people`s uprising on January 14, there seemed to be no end in sight to the regime`s wide-ranging human rights violation.  Over time, these became a relegated segment of evening news across the Arab world. Even hunger strikes, shocking at first, became a routing event. 


Ramzy Baroud, an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of the Palestine Chronicle, has more on the issue as follows:


For Tunisians, unemployment, poverty and lack of civil liberties have long made life intolerable. Many were forced to flee the country, or dare challenge the authoritarian rule of Zain al-Abedin and his security apparatus, which grew in numbers to double or even triple the nation’s army. While Tunisia may not have appeared the most likely location for a successful popular rebellion, the country always had the potential of hosting one of the most active civil societies in the Arab Maghreb countries. This was what prompted the ruling regime to dedicate much time and energy into weakening and largely dismantling a once thriving, diverse and highly educated civil society. The society expressed itself through three main pillars: the Islamic movement, labor unions, and a strong student body throughout the country.

When Tunisia gained independence from France in 1957, the country was rife with hope and expectation. The anti-colonial fervor that gripped the country produced an active civil society who wished to move from a French sphere of influence into a nationalistic one. The national leader at the time, Habib Bourquiba dared not upset the growing mobilization of the country, and in fact succeeded in using and later co-opting and manipulating the mass movement to maintain his control over the country. This lasted for decades, until Zain al-Abedin bin Ali carried out his so-called "tranquil revolution" and ousted Bourquiba in 1987. But even authoritarianism has its own compelling logic. Bin Ali could do little to mobilize Tunisian society, and his early promises of greater political participation, equality and openness were never translated into real action.

Over time, he grew wary of everyone, including the elites, who are usually the bread and better of any authoritarian regime. He quickly began dismantling every component that gave civil society its import and vigor, destroying or restricting unions, and enacting draconian measures against political activities that opposed his ruling party, the Democratic Constitutional Rally. He also began bending the law and even the constitution to serve his own interests.

Bin Ali’s success in maintaining his regime for 23 years hinged on several major strategies. He ensured that the presidential palace was the ultimate center of power, thus denying anyone else the chance to gain popularity outside a closely-knit circle. A system of patronage existed, whereby those who played by the rules were granted tiny spaces to operate and benefit.

And what about those who refused to play by the rules? The Islamic an-Nahdha party and the Tunisian Community Workers’ Party are two such examples. The former Tunisian dictator utilized the second set of measurements to contain ‘unruly’ opposition- brutality, crackdowns and torture. The attempt to silence both parties was equally and decidedly brutal, but in 1991 an-Nahdha protest and call for change seemed to spread quickly in universities and working-class neighborhoods. The event signaled a repeat of the rise of the Islamic uprising in Algeria, and Bin Ali was determined to stifle any rise of Islamic opposition before the phenomenon became too popular.

Zain al-Abedin bin Ali’s violations of human rights - which grew rapidly since the early 1990s –received little chastisement from other governments. Various western powers that hailed bin Ali’s model of political suppression were, of course, fully aware of the bizarre ‘democracy’ underway in Tunisia. However, bin Ali’s ability to crush dissidents earned him high regard and constant accolades by these very powers, particularly Tunisia’s former colonizer France.

With major hurdles out of the way, the various branches of Tunisia’s security apparatus had little to do, save silencing the people. The mafia-like police used many means of control, leaving activists with no option but hunger strikes.

In a report issued weeks before the ‘Jasmine Revolution”, Amnesty International stated: "Worn down by years of harassment and with no remedy in sight, hunger strikes seem to have become the final recourse for journalists, political activists, government critics and human rights defenders, in order to draw attention to their legitimate demands to have their fundamental human rights respected." The Amnesty said: "Both inside and outside Tunisian prisons, the hunger strikers’ demands range from the release of prisoners of conscience to obtaining passports and medical care for former political prisoners."

Human Rights Watch published a report on the last October, when the situation in Tunisia seemed to be reaching intolerable levels. It decried the government’s relentless campaign against two of the main pillars in any civil society: labor and student unions.

No realm of civil society in Tunisia was safe from government interference, not even trade unions, if they were considered critical of the government. Using methods ranging from bureaucratic machinations to physical aggression, the Tunisian government was keeping Tunisia's unions under its thumb.
However, less than a week after Zain al-Abedin bin Ali was forced to leave the country, Arab League's Secretary General Amr Mousa warned Arab countries of the possibility of more Tunisia-style revolutions should their policies remained unchanged. Amr Mousa warned that: "The Arab soul is broken by poverty, unemployment and general recession. The political problems, the majority of which have not been fixed, have driven the Arab citizen to a state of unprecedented anger and frustration."

In Tunisia that 'unprecedented anger' has reaped unprecedented results, leaving Tunisia with the great task of rebuilding a civil society that was weakened, demoralized and purposely disjointed by a calculating and oppressive regime. The prospects for freedom are now greater than ever in Tunisia. Despite the many challenges ahead, this is a serious cause for celebration.

Tweet

Paradoxical US approach toward revolution in Egypt

The current developments in Tunisia and Egypt once more attracted the world attention to the fate of the US stooge regime in the world, in the Arab world in particular.

The US officials have made contradictory remarks vis-à-vis the ongoing massive demonstrations in these two Muslim countries; on one side they announced support for the dictator regime and on other side talked of support for the democracy-seeking movements.
US State Secretary Hillary Clinton said Hosni Mubarak should exert real reforms in the country. Even, some of the US media said that the White House had announced readiness to back transition of power in Egypt. This is while at the same time, Clinton said Washington will continue unsparing military aid to Cairo.
Contemplation on the US stand toward the uprisings and revolutions of the people in Iran, Indonesia, Tunisia and Egypt in the past three decades, we see a similar attitude each time. The US support for all dictatorial regimes in developing countries whether politically, economically, and in regard to security matters of concern and even kept mum when the ruling regimes followed shoot-to-kill strategy against the protesters. The US tried its last chances to suppress the oppositions who sought overthrow the client regimes. However, when the situation was going out of control, the White House followed kinds of criticism against the ruling regimes in these countries.
In all cases Mohammed Suharto, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Zain al-Abedin bin Ali, and now Hosni Mubarak lost support of the West as admitted by the deposed Shah of Iran who said at the time that they had been thrown away from the country like rotten rats.
Of course, this strategy should not be mistakenly taken as Washington's intent to amend wrong policies of the past. It is merely moving at the direction of the wind.
The US only sought its own vested interests in a way that it has each time refused to give refuge to the fleeing dictators in fear of being at the point of the people's wrath in those countries. After this period, the US tried to divert the revolution of the masses as it wished and in cased it managed to manipulate the new situation. In Egypt, the US is still following a policy of wait-and-see and it spares no efforts both in Egypt and Tunisia to help see the West-oriented in power. But this is the people who should keep vigilance against the US attempts.

Tweet

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal tops 100

Pakistan has doubled its nuclear weapons stockpile over the past several years, increasing its arsenal to more than 100 deployed weapons, a US daily The Washington Post reported late Sunday.
Citing US non-government analysts, the newspaper said that only four years ago, the Pakistani nuclear arsenal was estimated at 30 to 60 weapons.
"They have been expanding pretty rapidly," the report quoted David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, as saying. Based on recently accelerated production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium, Islamabad may now have an arsenal of up to 110 weapons, Albright said. As a result, Pakistan has now edged ahead of India, its nuclear-armed rival, The Post noted. India is estimated to have 60 to 100 weapons.

Tweet

First Tunisia, now Egypt?

Non-representative governments that deny political oppositions a chance to develop inevitably foster the rose of religious fundamentalism. The mosque becomes the centre of the only organised opposition and this stimulates growth of Islamist ideologues.
________________________________________________________

By Dr Syed Mansoor Hussain

Whenever I think of autocrats who style themselves as ‘presidents for life’, I am reminded of an old joke. Bad enough that half of all marriages end in divorce, but then the other half end in death! Something similar is probably true of dictators. After years of ‘mistreatment’, many are finally ‘divorced’ by their ‘subjects’ and the rest eventually die in office.

Looking at what happened in Tunisia and is now happening in Egypt, one thing stands out that Africa is home to some of the longest ruling autocrats and dictators. Ben Ali of Tunisia had been around for more than a quarter of a century and Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt for close to 30 years. There are of course the two that have been around almost forever, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. The latter came pretty close to being ousted after recent elections but is still clinging on to power and will probably die in office. As far as Gaddafi is concerned, Allah knows best.

It would seem to me that like medicines, leaders and dictators should also come with an expiry date and instructions saying ‘do not use after’ such and such time. Both Ben Ali of Tunisia and Mubarak of Egypt played an important role early on as rulers of their respective countries but eventually outlived their usefulness. In time all such autocrats develop a notion that only they can save their country from chaos and ruination. Sycophants that surround them and family members and supporters that feed at the trough of public largesse in their name encourage this exalted sense of self-importance.

If allowed to wield unlimited power, even the most devoted public ‘servant’ is eventually corrupted. Lord Acton’s famous observation that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” comes into play in almost all cases. More importantly, aging autocrats start depending upon political repression and development of a personality cult to perpetuate their rule and in doing so create a web of nepotism and corruption that makes them increasingly unpopular among ordinary citizens. Most of them also aggressively suppress all political opposition.

Continued repression of political opposition creates a political vacuum that is eventually filled after the ouster of the ruling autocrat by any relatively organised group that can swing things its way. In Pakistan the agitation against Ayub Khan in 1968 led to another martial law and the eventual dismemberment of the country. The agitation against Bhutto a decade later did not bring his political opponents to power but gave us the horrible years of Ziaul Haq. In Iran the revolution against the Shah was eventually hijacked by the mullahs.

In the age of the internet, opposition to dictators is now often generated through social networking sites populated by relatively anonymous citizens of the World Wide Web rather than by organised political parties. This creates a conundrum. At least when it is political parties, however weak and disorganised, that initiate opposition to an autocratic rule, the people have some idea of what to expect after the leader is finally ousted. But as the lessons of the past suggest, most spontaneous ‘revolutions’ starting with the French revolution onwards arguably end in something worse rather than something better.

Democracy, however much reviled in many developing countries, especially in the dictatorship-prone Muslim world, is the ultimate antidote to autocracy as well as chaos that results after the ouster of an autocrat who has been around too long. The internet has brought democracy to a new level. As long as a country and its citizens have access to the internet, autocrats are no longer able to manipulate public opinion as they could in the past. International electronic media also is now impossible to suppress. The role of TV, especially of a network like Al Jazeera, has proved particularly important in informing the Egyptian people about the progress of the popular movement against Mubarak.

Autocracies and personal dictatorship all over the world are now being shaken and sometimes toppled by restive populations that have access to the internet and the electronic media. In this there is an object lesson for the inherited monarchies as well as the last remaining dictatorships of the Middle East. As the people in these countries get educated and have greater access to modern communications and electronic media, the autocratic systems of government will be at increased risk. Benevolent dictatorships as well as benevolent monarchies are anachronisms and are unlikely to last for much longer.

One of the bugaboos always trotted out by Muslim autocrats and hereditary monarchs to defend their rule is that only they can hold ‘Islamism’ at bay and once they go the ‘extremists’ will take over. The truth is exactly the opposite. Non-representative governments that deny political oppositions a chance to develop inevitably foster the rise of religious fundamentalism. The mosque becomes the centre of the only organised opposition and this stimulates growth of Islamist ideologues. Moreover, the cynical support offered by many Muslim autocrats to Islamist parties at the expense of relatively secular opposition inevitably sets the stage for a theocratic resurgence.

As I watch what is happening in Egypt, I am once again convinced that indeed the ‘worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship’. Those of us in Pakistan who continuously moan and groan about our present democratic set-up are well advised to remember that we at least have the choice to ‘throw the bums out’ in a couple of years. And that also without having to come out into the streets and being forced to consume teargas and face baton charges, rubber bullets or water cannons.

I will take a constitutionally elected Zardari, warts and all, any time over the likes of Hosni Mubarak or Muammar Gaddafi. I know that Zardari must be re-elected in a couple of years or else he will be history and that sounds quite reassuring.

The writer has practised and taught medicine in the US. He can be reached at smhmbbs70@yahoo.com

Tweet

Power pyramid falling apart in Egypt

The continuation of anti-government protests has put the tottering regime of President Hosni Mubarak in a limbo. According to reports, Mubarak's two sons, including Jamal, who was being groomed to take over from his aging father, have fled Egypt for London, along with their mother Suzanne and their families. Mubarak has appointed Intelligence Chief, Omar Suleiman, as his deputy, the first time in 30 years that he has named a vice president. He also appointed as prime minister former Air Force Chief Ahmed Shafiq, who served as civil aviation minister in the dissolved cabinet, as part of desperate efforts to calm down the protests. The US-Zionist-supported state apparatus has also launched a media campaign against the protests by labeling them 'saboteurs.'
Meanwhile, police continued to arrest women in large numbers. This is noteworthy because young Egyptian women, many wearing the veils, are taking part in the demonstrations despite the violent crackdown by the police. The brutal measures of the police show how nervous the regime is. Egyptian cities look like battle scenes with scores of armored vehicles deployed around important buildings such as the TV and Radio headquarters overlooking the River Nile and several ministries. There will be more beatings and arrests; more injuries and deaths. The Egyptian regime hasn’t responded to any of the demands of the protestors. It has cut or removed subsidies on many staple goods in a country where millions survive on less than two dollars a day. Just before the protests broke out on Tuesday, the government was preparing to cut energy subsidies, a move that would have hiked prices even further. The health ministry was also planning to cut public healthcare coverage, limiting the hours at public hospitals where patients are charged nominal fees. The ruling regime has always ignored calls for change.
In related news, Mohammad al-Baradei, former Egyptian head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told France 24 television today from Cairo that President Hosni Mubarak "must go," saying that protests against his rule would intensify. He said "President Mubarak doesn't seem to understand the message of the Egyptian people," underlining that "Mubarak's speech was totally disappointing and that the protests will continue with even more intensity until his fall."
Meanwhile, influential Egyptian religious scholar, Yusuf al-Qardhawi, who lives in the Persian Gulf emirate of Qatar, urged Mubarak to step down for the good of the country, saying his departure is the only solution to Egypt's crisis. The Sunni Muslim cleric also encouraged Egyptians to keep up their protests demanding an end to Mubarak's three-decade rule. He said the ruler has become "blind, deaf and dumb."
Also as per the coming reports, ministers close to the ruling pyramid are leaving the country with their families, while there appear sharp divisions among them. Even the West led by the US, which has propped up Mubarak for the past three decades, will not be able to bail him out this time in view of his gross violation of the Egyptian people's rights and his iron-fisted rule of the past 30 years.

Tweet

Foreign Espionage Network in Pakistan

 David Raymond including his companions were agents of the American CIA and were on an  anti-Pakistan mission. In fact, he is part of the illegal activities of the Blackwater whose employees of entered Pakistan in the guise of diplomats.
______________________________________________________

 By Sajjad Shaukat


On January 27, this year an American employee of the US Consulate in Lahore, identified as David Raymond, shot dead two Pakistani youths, while a third was crushed by the driver of a Parado jeep, who was called by him for help, at Chowk Qartaba. Persons, sitting in the jeep were also carrying weapons. Police arrested David near Old Anarkali Food Street after a chase and registered a case against him on two counts, while a case was also registered against unidentified people.

On the one side, the United States has called for the immediate release of the American diplomat, claiming that Pakistani authorities have detained the diplomat unlawfully and in violation of international law. On the other side, investigators and experts are the opinion that the under-investigation American involved in the murder of civilians in Lahore was in Pakistan on a visit visa and not on a diplomatic assignment�does not qualify for immunity from prosecution.

Sources suggest that David Raymond including his companions were agents of the American CIA and were on an anti-Pakistan mission. In fact, he is part of the illegal activities of the Blackwater whose employees of entered Pakistan in the guise of diplomats.

However, with the help of Indian secret agency RAW and Israeli Mossad, Blackwater has rapidly established its network in Pakistan. It has recruited those Pakistani nationals who are vulnerable and can work on payroll. In this connection, the company has been giving high financial incentives to our people. In this context, some reports suggest that this notorious firm has been recruiting smugglers, employees of the security companies, experts of the psychological warfare, scholars and journalists in order to fulfill anti-Pakistan designs of America including India and Israel.

It is of particular attention that a few days ago, Pakistani security officials have foiled an attempt by the Indian intelligence to enact a fake encounter for implicating Pakistan in incidents of cross border terrorism. The plan was unearthed when a suspect, working for the Indian RAW was apprehended in Sialkot border area, while attempting to cross over to India through the border security fence; an impregnable barbed wire obstacle. Entrance points on the fence are locked and controlled by the Indian Border Security Force (BSF). The suspect has confessed to work as an Indian spy who was tasked to recruit agents from Pakistan to work for Indian intelligence.

Well-informed sources indicate that the suspect whose name has been withheld for security reasons disclosed that his Indian handlers, Mr. Sharma and Mr. Amjad, had asked him to recruit a Pakistani national by offering a large monetary reward, preferably carrying a weapon and send him across the border through the border barbed wire fence after liaison with the BSF troops. Mr. Sharma had assured him that all the details of border crossing would be finalized by him and duly taken care off at his end. The suspect also disclosed that the Indian Intelligence had planned a fake encounter to kill the border crosser and exploit the episode as proof of subversive elements launched by Pakistan’s spy agency, ISI crossing over from Pakistan to commit acts of terrorism in India. He also pointed out that he had held a few meetings with his Indian handlers in Islamabad as well.

Nevertheless, both the above mentioned events prove the involvement of Americans and Indians under cover intelligence officers stationed in their Islamabad embassies and consulates, and are continuously engaged in espionage activities in grave violation of their diplomatic status.

It is mentionable that in the last three years, Pakistan’s security forces and intelligence agencies have caught a number of foreign spies along with sophisticated weapons, working against the integration of the country. In this respect, a number of times, arms and guns were also captured from Americans, traveling in the vehicles in various cities of Pakistan, camouflaged with dark mirrors.

Although Pakistan’s security forces have successfully coped with the Taliban militants in the Malakand Division and South Waziristan, yet situation has deteriorated in the country where subversive events like suicide attacks, targeted killings, attacks on buildings, oil pipelines, sectarian violence etc. have intensified due to the presence of external spies.

Notably, Pakistan’s civil and military high officials have openly been revealing that RAW, Mossad and other foreign agencies are involved in supporting separatism in Balochistan and acts of terrorism in other cities of Pakistan.

In this respect, on April 23, 2009 in the in-camera sitting of the Senate, Federal Minister to the Interior, Rehman Malik had displayed documentary evidence of Indian use of Afghanistan to create unrest in Balochistan. It is believed that the main aim of in-camera session was also to show the engagement of American CIA and other external agencies as part of a conspiracy against Pakistan because at that stage, Islamabad did not want to publicly point out America.

In this regard, Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit without naming CIA  had revealed, “The evidence of foreign powers’ involvement in the destabilisation of Pakistan will be shared with relevant countries.”

While in the recent past, Governor of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa, Awais Ghani had disclosed that some world powers were trying to divide Pakistan, adding that if he were not a governor, he would have exposed them.

During the Malakand and Waziristan military operations, ISPR spokesman, Maj-Gen. Athar Abbas has repeatedly indicated foreign hands in helping the insurgents in order to destabilize Pakistan.

It is notable that Pakistan is the only nuclear country in the Islamic World; hence the US, India, Israel and some western powers are determined to weaken it. Notably, despite American cooperation with Islamabad, its main aim along with India and Israel remains to de-nuclearise our country whose geo-strategic location with the Gwader port entailing close ties with China irks the eyes of these powers. Hence, they are in collusion to destabilise Pakistan. For this purpose, a well-established network of Indian army, RAW, Mossad and CIA which was set up in Afghanistan against Pakistan in order to support insurgency in the Khyber Pakhtookhwa and separatism in Balochistan have been extended. However, now, it has been expanded in whole of Pakistan as recent suicide attacks, bomb blasts and targeted killings in Karachi and Lahore have proved.

The fact of the matter is that CIA, RAW and Mossad are collectively working inside Pakistan. In this context, these secret agencies have been spending huge money to train and equip the militants who have been entering Pakistan on daily basis and have been conducting suicide attacks in our country, and assaults on our security forces including targetted killings�inciting sectarian violence.

Besides, these foreign agencies have purchased the services of some Indian Muslims and Pakistanis. Those who did not come up to their terms have been neutralized or murdered. In this regard, in the past few years, some politicians, intellectuals, journalists and religious leaders have been killed by the agents of these external agencies, while some are on their hit-list. Their purpose is to create perennial unrest in Pakistan, while main aim remains to disintegrate the country.

Nonetheless, the incident in Lahore, arrest of an American, David Raymond, and the suspect from Sialkot border�working for Indian spy agency, without any doubt confirms the presence of a well-organized foreign espionage network, based in Pakistan and the same is run by CIA, RAW and Mossad including their undercover agents. While conducting acts of terrorism to weaken Pakistan remains their top priority.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book : US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power : Dangerous Shift in International Relations. Email : sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

Tweet

Seeking solutions through the army?

It is intersting to note that Altaf Hussain and his senior colleagues are more vocal than any other political party about the army`s espanded role in security affairs in Punjab and KP but they do not want the army to do anything in their political domain --- Karachi.
________________________________________________________


By Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi

It is the irony of Pakistani politics that politicians criticise the army for undermining the political process but they do not hesitate to seek out the army top brass to serve their partisan political agendas. For the last couple of weeks, different political leaders have been demanding the deployment of the army in Karachi, Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) to cope with killings and other internal security issues.

The polemical exchanges among the political leaders on calling out the army began when some political leaders argued that the army might be called in Karachi to end target killings and other violent incidents. On January 14, Shahi Syed, Sindh President of the ANP, demanded military action to restore security in Karachi. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain said on January 23 that there was nothing wrong in summoning the army for restoring peace in Karachi. As the PML-N and the MQM began trading charges and counter-charges, some PML-N leaders hinted at the need to secure law and order in Karachi by deploying the army.

The MQM was perturbed by these statements, especially by the ANP’s demand for a military operation in Karachi because the former views the latter as a political rival. It not only rejected the demand but also launched a counter-offensive by demanding the summoning of the army in KP for maintaining peace and order. The MQM chief, Altaf Hussain, made a more categorical demand for Punjab. He said on January 24: “Martial law should be imposed in Punjab since crimes against women and kidnappings for ransom are rife in the province.”

Another popular discourse with Altaf Hussain is revolution against feudal, moneyed and corrupt people. He talked of revolution towards the end of 2010 and asked the top brass of the military to support such a revolution, which his party was expected to sponsor. He returned to this theme in his January 24 statement and sought the military’s cooperation by warning them of the consequences of staying away. He remarked, “If the armed forces do not act now, they will also be put in the dock in case of a revolution by the people.” He also said that if needed he would come to Pakistan in military uniform.

The standard operating procedure in the MQM is that if Altaf Hussain says something the senior party members play the same tune until Altaf Hussain gives them a new political theme. The Pakistan-based MQM leaders have since been talking either of revolution (without defining how it would be pursued) or the need for army deployment in KP and Punjab. Currently, the MQM is engaged in hard-hitting recriminations against the PML-N against the backdrop of Altaf Hussain’s criticism of Nawaz Sharif and the PML-N.

It is interesting to note that Altaf Hussain and his senior colleagues are more vocal than any other political party about the army’s expanded role in security affairs in Punjab and KP but they do not want the army to do anything in their political domain — Karachi. They also want the army to back an Altaf-led revolution whose nature and direction is yet to be articulated.

The MQM is known for listening to signals from the military establishment. It is quite possible that it is talking of the military’s expanded role in non-professional domains more than any other party because its leadership has read (or misread) some signal of the army’s dissatisfaction with current domestic politics.

Pakistan’s political class needs to recognise that the top brass of the military continues to be the most formidable political force. The track record of their expanded role reflects three clear trends.

First, the military is an autonomous political player that does not subscribe to the agenda of any political party. There is no chance of the military joining hands with a political party to pursue the party’s political agenda. It expands its role in pursuance of its own agenda.

Second, the military government co-opts a section of the political elite to acquire political legitimacy and to ensure civilianisation of military rule. However, the top commanders jealously guard their autonomy and do not let the co-opted political elite gain the initiative, which stays firmly with the military top brass.

Third, the top brass of the military have a negative view of the civilian political leaders’ capacity for good and effective governance. They are seen as too partisan and divided to think beyond their personal and party gains. The senior commanders are likely to have a more negative view of Altaf Hussain because he operates from abroad and has dual nationality.

The top brass may be dissatisfied with the performance of the civilian political government but they need the civilian leaders for political ownership of their counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency measures. Further, they recognise that their struggle against terrorism stabilises Pakistan and wins them respect at the international level. In addition to this, they are facing security pressures from India.

It is very unlikely that the top commanders would be interested in directly assuming power or performing police duties in cities because their hands are already full with other problems. Further, given Pakistan’s economic and political problems, any direct intervention or partisan support to a political party will make them vulnerable to criticism. This will cause strains in their relations with the west, especially the US.

The military is able to influence the civilian government from the sidelines on security-related matters and their professional and corporate interests. The PPP-led federal government has realised, after immature attempts to subdue the military, that civilians cannot assert their primacy unless they put their economic house in order and pursue the politics of harmony and conflict resolution.

There is no need to call out the military for internal security tasks in the cities. In Karachi, a committee should be set up comprising the top local leaders of the MQM, the ANP and the PPP for maintaining peace and harmony. If there is some incident in an area, all the members of the committee should jointly visit the area and talk to the people.

If these political parties continue blaming each other for the trouble in Karachi, and talk of their separate heroes and adversaries, there will be no end to the agony in Karachi. The top leaders of the three parties should jointly visit the troubled areas to restore peace and security rather than blaming each other for the trouble on TV talk shows.

The writer is a political and defence analyst

Tweet

Pakistani Media coverage and terror

By Humaira Masihudding & Mujtaba Quadri

Once again terrorists have struck this time simultaneously in Karachi and Lahore (25th January 2011). And once again our media went into a frenzy covering the mayhem, destruction, the desperate expressions on the faces of the bystanders and the victims themselves being wheeled into emergency rooms, this coverage continued till the next day. One cannot even begin to imagine the jubilation and celebration that must have taken place at the same time in the cells of the sponsoring terrorist outfit. The high fives, the full throated extremist slogans, the smug smiles and the twinkling of the hatred filled eyes. This reaction of the cheering terrorists is made possible wittingly or unwittingly by none other than the media. But what baffles the mind is that it's been years and years since we have as a society been targets of terrorist assaults and yet have been unable to formulate a regulated and sound policy regarding the coverage of these terrorist attacks. But first in order to do so we need to have a 101 level understanding of the phenomena itself. We must understand that the terrorists work within the framework of carefully thought out and planned strategy. They employ aggression selectively and precisely to achieve the purpose of creating a mega pool of citizens crippled with fear (this would be a stepping stone for their long-term agendas). Contrary to popular thought terrorists apply aggression not emotionally but instrumentally, it is employed after careful planning to gain the maximum amount of mileage but the most important aspect to understand here is the strategic intent of the terrorists. According to Dr. Bruce Bongar (the psychology of terrorism) while citing the study of merrari "the strategic intent of modern terrorists is to create huge numbers of secondary psychological casualties by means of large scale physical attacks. In the 1970s it was often repeated that terrorists 'want a lot of people watching' not a lot of people dead - today it is more accurate to say that terrorists want a lot of people dead - and even more crippled by fear and grief." A study of the terrorist attack on 20th March 1995 (Sarin attack) in a Tokyo subway is a testament to the above mentioned fact, 12 people died but 4,000 went to their local hospitals for psychogenic symptoms (this is exactly what a terrorist would want). How many people are suffering from deep seated psychological affects in this long drawn out war in Pakistan is anybody's guess. In a country where there is no disaster, mental health service, one wonders how many secondary/tertiary victims of bomb blasts have received psychiatric treatment. But if the government cannot put into place a policy regarding disaster mental health service. The least they can do is to initiate the drafting of a joint advisory to be drawn up by all stake holders dealing with terrorism starting with the FIA, all security and law enforcement agencies and PEMRA on the coverage of terrorist attacks. The advisory must take into account, that out of all force multipliers (technology, religion, transnational support, media coverage) it is the coverage and the media which gives the terrorist attacks several times the energy and effect. Analysts who studied the bombing of the twin towers point out that the probable reason behind the 17 minutes gap between the two crashes was to get the cameras in place so when the second plane would strike the whole world (literally billions) would witness the attack over and over again, in recordings if not in real time. The media as a force multiplier allows a small group committing a small limited attack to have an amplified effect (could be several hundred times over). Just how much expertise does one need to understand the simple equation between terrorist attacks and media coverage. It is about time we realise in the words of Joel Shurkin that the terrorist wants to deliver a message and the media is his messenger. On the other hand the media owes a duty to the public to keep them informed, this paradox has to be dealt with clear cut guidelines made by all stake holders that would ensure the delivery of the required information without the theatrical and dramatic presentation which has hitherto been the standard practice. For a start let's do away with the grandiose background music, the animations of exploding vehicles and the constant hyped up repetition of the event and downgrade the placement of the news item. All this needs to be done with immediate effect we have already lost a lot of precious time.

Tweet

Tunisian Tsunami may sweep more Arab States

Fears that Tunisian political Tsunami, being described as Jasmine Revolution, might engulf more Arab-African countries are coming true, as there are clear signs of troubles in both Yemen and Egypt. While situation in Yemen was within manageable limits, fast changing developments are taking place in Egypt where the deteriorating conditions have forced President Hosni Mubarak to impose curfew in three cities in a bid to quell rising demand for his ouster. 

Initial assessment by analysts around the globe predict that there was no immediate threat to the President, who is ruling the country for the last three decades, as Army and the West have vested interests in maintaining the status quo, albeit with some concessions to people who are demanding more political liberties and resolution of their economic problems, but there are indications that the United States, as well as some other Western backers of Mubarak, have started aligning themselves with the aspirations of the people. There were also reports that troops, called out to restrict movement of the people, are instead displaying solidarity with their agitating compatriots in mufti. This shows that Hosni Mubarak will ultimately have to listen to the popular demand and his attempts to seek administrative solution to the political and economic problems would not work. The widespread demonstrations in Egypt are another reminder after Tunisia that there are limits to the patience of the people. It is generally believed that political stability leads to economic growth and prosperity but unfortunately even after thirty-year rule of Mubarak, 40% of Egyptians are hardly scratching out a living with a meagre less than two dollar a day income. This is despite the fact that Egypt, after Israel, is the largest recipient of the American aid for decades and is earning handsomely from tourism. Similarly, emergency is in force for the last 25 years and police and law enforcing agencies have unlimited powers to arrest and detain people without any tangible reasons. And worst of all, the 85-year-old leader is preparing his son Jamal to take over the reins, a proposition that is unacceptable to the majority of the people, who want a change for real and better. We believe that instead of allowing the country to plunge into a turmoil, which may cause instability, the issues involved should be resolved through a genuine process of negotiations culminating in immediate political and economic reforms.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had his entire cabinet resign Saturday amid ongoing violent anti-government protests demanding that Mubarak step down.

Violence appeared to be growing with Reuters reporting at least 74 dead in protests since Tuesday with around 2,000 injured, as reports indicated the army fired live rounds at protesters.

The dismissal of the government followed an order by Mubarak, 82, who vowed earlier Saturday that a new cabinet would improve democracy but refused to give up power.

"It is not by setting fire and by attacking private and public property that we achieve the aspirations of Egypt and its sons, but they will be achieved through dialogue, awareness and effort," the president said in a midnight TV address, his first public appearance since the protests began, the Xinhua News Agency reported.

However, the president's words appeared to go unheeded.

"We are not demanding a change of cabinet, we want them all to leave - Mubarak before anyone else," Saad Mohammed, a 45-year-old welder who was among about 2,000 people gathered

in Cairo's central Tahrir Square, told Reuters Saturday.

The demonstrators, predominantly young students or poorer city-dwellers, are lashing out against what they see as a legacy of repression, corruption and economic despair under Mubarak, who has held power since the 1981 assassination of then-president Anwar Sadat by Islamist soldiers, the report said.

So far, the protest movement does not appear to have coalesced behind a single figure or organization, even if Mubarak did wish to start a dialogue.

Li Weijian, director of the Research Center of West Asian and African Studies at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, said that the unrest is a result of both domestic pressure and external influences from outside, and that protests would continue unless a new leader emerges.

"Demand for action against corruption in the country is high, and some of Mubarak's policies during his long tenure backfired. Maybe it is time for him to step down," Li told the Global Times. "With Washington shifting focus from the Middle East to Asia, Egypt's internal disputes, which are usually triggered by anti-US sentiments, have risen to the surface again."

US Vice President Joe Biden told the PBS News Hour on Thursday that Mubarak has been an ally of Washington and has been "very responsible on" regional issues.

"I would not refer to him as a dictator," Biden said, adding that Mubarak should not resign.

Tweet

US persona non grata kills Pakistanis

 Pakistan`s foreign policy managers expect the US to come up 

with a request of diplomatic immunity for Raymond Davis, but 


 it is almost impossible for Islamabad to accet any such demand 

owing to the rising anti Americanism across the country.


_____________________________________________

IN a classic example of American arrogance and colonial mindset, a US national, who is an undercover spy, working as technical advisor at the Lahore Consulate General, killed three Pakistanis and injured several others, sparking widespread protests in the provincial metropolis and condemnation from across the country. Raymond Davis’ action is nothing but a brazen crime and terrorist act of the worst order by the citizen of a country that claims to be fighting the war on terror.

It is highly unfortunate that the dastardly incident took place at a time when state-run television was showing an interaction of US Ambassador Cameron Munter with a select group of Pakistani students as part of his public diplomacy to counter, what he believes, misperceptions about his country. Thursday’s terrorist act is a grim reminder of the fact that you can’t bridge trust deficit or mould public opinion in your favour by mere statements and verbal assurances when your actions speak otherwise. It is policies and actions that shape opinion and we have seen for many years that Washington has negative, discriminatory and hateful approach towards Pakistan and that is why anti-Americanism is on the rise. This is not for the first time that an American national has indulged in crime against Pakistanis as there were a number of incidents in the past as well in different parts of the country especially in Lahore and Islamabad where US officials behaved crudely and entered into altercation even with police officers. This not only amounts to trampling of the country’s sovereignty and challenging the writ of the State but also constitutes misuse of the diplomatic immunity under Geneva Convention. All this is happening because of the meek attitude of our leaders, who miserably failed to uphold dignity of the country, encouraging likes of Raymond Davis to do whatever they like as if it is not a formal country but a mere jungle where no laws and rules prevail. There are reports that the culprit previously served as an operative in Peshawar and was declared persona non grata because of his questionable activities. We wonder how and why Pakistan Embassy in Washington again issued visa to a person who was declared persona non grata. Does it mean lack of coordination among the State institutions or deliberate attempt on the part of some people to allow spies and criminals to enter the country, kill people and do things to destabilize Pakistan? American Embassy and some Pakistani officials are understandably trying to justify the firing at and crushing of people by Raymond on the plea that those killed were, in fact, dacoits and the agent acted in self-defence. But eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence clearly suggest that the victims were innocent people with no criminal record against them and it was an act of terrorism in every sense of the word. Public anger over this shocking incident is valid and a judicial inquiry should be ordered to find out the truth and till then the killer must not be allowed to slip out of the country in the garb of diplomatic immunity, which is not and should not be available to murderers.

Tweet

US wants to clip Karzai’s wings

 The United States`s proxy war against Afghan President Hamid Karzai has taken a vicious turn, undermining the tenuous political equations in the country. Washington is displeased with Karzai`s moves to accelerate reconciliation with the Taliban, while his pitch for a regional initiative and his agenda of a multi-vector foreign policy challenge US regional strategies.
_______________________________________________________


By M K Bhadrakumar

The US is caricaturing Karzai as a tin-pot dictator, arguing that he is "anti-democratic" since he decided to postpone by a month the convening of a new parliament. The election commission cleared the election results and Karzai's reluctance to accept the results casts him in poor light.

However, Karzai has no choice but to order a special tribunal to review election results. Close to half of the population consists of ethnic Pashtuns and yet 75% of parliamentary seats have been "won" by non-Pashtuns. The Hazaras constitute 10% of the population, but they "won" 20% of the seats, including in Pashtun-dominated regions. 

Something has gone very seriously wrong. Conceivably, the election commission did come under extraneous influence, as alleged by the attorney general. A parliament on the basis of the available results lacks political legitimacy, as Pashtuns will feel disenfranchised. Karzai rightly apprehends that Pashtun alienation, which is at the root of the insurgency, would further deepen and that can only augment Taliban's support base.

Enter the Americans. Washington waded into these ethnic politics by encouraging non-Pashtun leaders to challenge Karzai's decision to have the election results reviewed by a special tribunal. The American ambassador in Kabul, Karl Eikenberry, and his Western colleagues threatened to attend a gathering of the elected parliamentarians and recognise it as the "real" parliament. 

This extraordinary "trade unionism" by Western diplomats can only be seen as an orchestrated move predicated on the calculation that Karzai is damned either way. If he convenes a parliament at this juncture, the US proxies who command a majority will incrementally weaken him and can even impeach him at some suitable moment. 

But if Karzai insists on greater Pashtun representation, it becomes a point of friction with the non-Pashtun groups, and the delicate web of pan-Afghan alliances that he tenaciously wove while consolidating political power over the past two to three years will unravel.

Plainly put, the US is using the ethnic card to "entrap" Karzai and bring the Afghan leader to his knees. The US is counting on the opposition candidate in the 2009 presidential election, Abdullah Abdullah, and the speaker of the outgoing parliament, Younus Qanooni, to spearhead the opposition to Karzai. The Washington establishment has also co-opted former Afghan intelligence chief Amrullah Saleh, who was sacked by Karzai last year. 

Abdullah, Qanooni and Saleh belong to the Panjshiri clan and the line-up has dangerous overtones of a (Tajik) revolt against (Pashtun) Karzai. The US is also instigating sections of Hazaras whose political influence is at its historical zenith today.

Why such venom? 

Besides weakening Karzai, the US hopes to deal a body blow to the Afghan leader's initiative to kick start an intra-Afghan dialogue. Karzai is banking on a pan-Afghan alliance to support his audacious plan to reconcile the Taliban, and the US is using the ethnic card to unravel Karzai's alliance system.

Why such venom toward America's own one-time protege? Washington finds Karzai increasingly acting as an Afghan nationalist rather than as a US surrogate. What is at issue is how to secure a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan. Washington is negotiating a new Status of Forces Agreement with Kabul but Karzai is resisting the US plan to keep permanent military bases. US Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Kabul last month failed to clear the deadlock.

Meanwhile, Karzai is making sustained efforts to develop ties with Iran and Russia, including military cooperation, so as to reduce his dependence on the US by the 2014 timeline. Moscow has proposed a key role for Kabul in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Last week, Karzai visited Moscow and openly said that the Russians made better friends for the Afghan people than the Americans. This was the first official visit by an Afghan head of a state to Moscow since the departure of Soviet troops in 1989. The US reportedly tried to dissuade Karzai from undertaking the visit. 

Karzai also recently deputed former Northern Alliance stalwarts Burhanuddin Rabbani (who heads the Afghan High Council for Peace in charge of reconciling with the Taliban) and Mohammad Fahim (the first vice president) to Tehran to seek Iranian support for his policies. 

Most importantly, the climate of Afghan-Pakistan relations has dramatically improved and the US feels "excluded" even as Kabul and Islamabad show signs of kick-starting an intra-Afghan dialogue. The recent visit to Islamabad by Rabbani underscored a new flexibility on the part of Pakistan. 

Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani received Rabbani. Biden visited Islamabad within days of Rabbani's talks with the Pakistani leadership but he drew a blank. Evidently, Islamabad and Kabul increasingly find themselves sharing a lot of common ground. Neither one favours US General David Petraeus' military strategy and both are keen to begin talks with the Taliban.

Within a week of Biden's talks in Islamabad, Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir flew to Kabul and held more consultations, which included calls on Karzai and Rabbani. Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmay Rassoul is now scheduled to visit Islamabad on Tuesday for a follow-up.

Kabul and Islamabad are getting along better than at any time in the past decade and they don't seem to need the crutch of US mediation. By the time the US-Pakistan-Afghan trilateral forum of foreign ministers convenes in Washington on February 21, there could be a strange reversal of roles with Pakistan and Afghanistan coordinating their stance vis-a-vis the US. 

Clearly, the spectre of a peace initiative on the Afghan problem at a regional level has begun haunting Washington for the first time. Biden openly flirted with the idea of a long-term American military presence in Afghanistan. Middle-level US officials have shifted gear to reinforce Biden's thought process. A recent speech entitled "The Obama Administration's Priorities in South and Central Asia" by Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake at the James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy falls into this category. 

Red reg, intransigent bull.

Blake underscored that Washington intends to expand its engagement with Central Asia, "this critical region", which is situated at a "critical crossroads, bordering Afghanistan, China, Russia and Iran".

What emerges from Blake's speech is that Washington and Delhi may have drawn closer on Afghanistan. Arguably, this was bound to happen. India is perhaps the only regional power that still seeks a military solution in Afghanistan. India quietly favours a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan. The US is edging toward the one-dimensional Indian view of Pakistan as the "epicentre" of global terrorism. 

The US views India as a red rag to taunt the intransigent Pakistani bull and India may not mind it. Blake made a stunning claim that India is the key US partner in Afghanistan and Central Asia:

These projects with India in Afghanistan mark a small but important part of a significant new global development - the emergence of a global strategic partnership between India and the US ... India's democracy, diversity and knowledge-based society make it special, a model of a tolerant pluralistic society in the region, and one that now actively seeks to work with the US and others to help solve problems on a global level ... The strength of India's economy makes it the powerhouse of South and Central Asia's growth.

He said one of the three "primary objectives" for the US in the "dynamic regional context" of South and Central Asia would be to "build a strategic partnership with India". This may seem like hyperbole, but it makes for geo-strategy. 

He said one of the three "primary objectives" for the US in the "dynamic regional context" of South and Central Asia would be to "build a strategic partnership with India". This may seem like hyperbole, but it makes for geo-strategy. 

Then, there are the opaque operational factors. India wields influence with the "Panjshiri boys" who happen to be the current US proxies. Saleh figures as a key advisor to the security establishment in Washington, while Abdullah and Qanooni act as front men in Kabul. All three share a near-pathological aversion to Karzai and are viscerally opposed to any form of accommodation with Taliban. Pakistan brands Saleh as an "Indian agent". If the American ploy is to annoy the Pakistani military (and Karzai), there couldn't be a better choice than Saleh. 

Any US-India axis in Afghanistan can only be tactical, but it will nonetheless be seen as high provocation by Pakistan and Iran (possibly, also by Russia and China). Pakistan will feel more justified than ever to have placed such irrevocable faith in the Taliban as its "strategic asset".

The US will eventually realise that it is skating on thin ice. There are half-a-dozen very good reasons why Pakistan remains and will continue to remain central to any durable Afghan settlement. Karzai will prove to be as tough as a nail. Thus, in many ways, the US proxy war in Kabul promises to be a defining moment.

Tweet

US must solve Kashmir issue

Obama too after wining the election negated his own statement of acting as mediator over Kashmir Issue between India and Pakistan. In fact US has special agenda of containing China with the help of India. US also knows that the natural resources and its connectivity with Pakistan, India and China made its location very sensitive and strategically important for the regional and global players too.
______________________________________________________


Brig ( R ) Asif Haroon Raja

SOON after occupying Afghanistan in end 2001, the US instead of putting things in order in the occupied country started wasting its energies on Pakistan and kept nudging it roughly to do more against foreign militants and those providing them shelter in the north-western tribal belt of Pakistan. It kept its gaze fixed on Pakistan only and held it responsible for providing safe sanctuaries and allowing cross border terrorism. To divide the premier institutions, the US charged that some elements within the Army and ISI were linked with Taliban. Afghan regime under Karzai egged on by India was more specific in its allegations and said that the ISI was running training camps for the militants and launching them into Afghanistan. 

The US and Karzai regime paid no heed to other next door neighbours of Afghanistan like Iran, China, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan from where cross border movement was more easier than from Pakistan. They ignored the fact that almost equal number of runaway Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters had taken refuge in Iran and neighbouring three ex Soviet Republics of Central Asia where pro-Taliban Islamic movements were raging. Russia which has still not forgotten the huge trauma it suffered in Afghanistan because of US role was also keen that Afghanistan becomes a graveyard for USA. China also must not have taken kindly to CIA’s discreet involvement in its southern Xingjian Province and in Tibet. Unlike pro-America Pakistan which is also a coalition partner and frontline state to fight US dictated war on terror, Iran is antagonistic towards USA and desires its crushing defeat at the hands of Taliban.  

The main reason for overlooking all other players and singling out Pakistan is the secret plans hatched by USA in collaboration with India, Israel and Britain. The US can ill-afford to ruffle the feathers of China and Iran because the two are following independent foreign policies and are not dependent upon US aid and above all are blessed with strong leadership. Pakistan on the other hand is ruled by handpicked corrupt rulers and is submerged in foreign debts. Its economy is in ruins and oxygen is being provided by US controlled IMF and World Bank to keep the country barely floating. Pakistan’s economy has been deliberately enfeebled to compel its weak-willed and compliant leaders to hand over the keys of strategic assets of the country to Washington. 

Notwithstanding US and Israel’s ardent wish to denuclearize Pakistan, the two doesn’t want liquidation of Pakistan. At best the two want Pakistan to become a secular and a non-nuclear docile state ready to serve US interests in the region. India on the other hand wants decimation or as a minimum balkanization of Pakistan since it is still not reconciled with its existence and considers it a thorn in its way to become a big power. India has been constantly poisoning the ears of US leaders and presenting Pakistan as the biggest threat to USA and the western world. 

Indian leaders have been convincing them that the roots of terrorism in Afghanistan lay in FATA. It has been inciting them to push forward its special forces into FATA to destroy the roots. Bright idea of safe havens in Waziristan has been transplanted into the minds of US officials so firmly that they have got transfixed with it and are convinced that until and unless the sanctuaries are destroyed either by Pak Army or NATO, no worthwhile results will ever be achieved by them in Afghanistan and will suffer a defeat. 

Had Pakistan been peaceful as it was before 2002, and there had been fewer fatalities taking place as a result of terrorism, the accusers could have some grounds to get suspicious and hurl unsubstantiated accusations that there appeared to be some kind of linkage between Pakistan’s security forces and militants? On ground, Pak Army, ISI and civilians have suffered heavy casualties at the hands of militants of different hues who have joined up against them. Series of terror attacks have taken place on ISI installations in Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Lahore and Multan. GHQ was also struck by the terrorists. Pak Army and ISI have suffered well over 3200 casualties since the two joined the war in 2002. Injury list run into thousands with many crippled for life. List of widows and orphans is quite long. These figures are several times more than what the combined armies of 48 countries involved in counter terrorism have suffered in Afghanistan.

Pakistan Army has suffered heavily since it has been fighting the foreign aided militants tenaciously. Nearly 145000 troops are fighting the faceless enemy under tremendous resource constraints since the US which had pushed them into the furnace of war has been releasing funds and counter insurgency equipment miserly. It has been withholding the critical support on account of Indian unfounded apprehension that the supplied equipment would be used against it. While the US is sympathetic towards Indian speculative security concerns, it is least bothered about genuine security concerns of Pakistan. It is therefore highly unjust and immoral on part of USA to insinuate that Pakistan is backing the militants. The accusations are travesty of truth and speak of mala fide intentions of USA.

Peace agreements with Maulvi Nazir in South Waziristan (SW) and with Hafiz Gul Bahadur in North Waziristan (NW) had been necessitated out of military expediency which suited both sides as well as peaceful residents caught up in the crossfire of security forces and militants within the two war zones. This arrangement is not new or is unique. The US-NATO has been resorting to this practice and is currently trying to negotiate a political settlement with Taliban. Peace agreement between two warring parties doesn’t mean turning the guns against the third country as is wrongly interpreted. It is not Pakistan under the garb of friendship playing a double game to harm US interests but it is USA in league with its partners which is playing a dirty game against Pakistan. Yet the US has the brashness to point fingers at Pakistan.

While ignoring dozens of small and large scale military operations in seven tribal agencies of FATA and several parts of Khyber Pakhunkhwa in last nine years, the US is now stuck with NW and is trying to give an impression that Pak Army is reluctant to undertake action against militant sanctuaries or is incapable of fighting them in their stronghold. They forget that within NW, 33,000 troops are stationed since 2005 and have conducted several big and small operations. It was owing to successes achieved that Gul Bahadur was forced to sign a second peace agreement in 2008. A full-fledged operation on the scale of Swat and SW cannot be undertaken at present since troops are outstretched and extra deployment is at the cost of weakening critical eastern front. Very little rehabilitation work has been done in Mehsud belt of SW since majority of displaced persons living in camps of Jandola, Tank and Dera Ismail Khan have still not returned. Severe weather which will persist till March is another constraining factor; so is lack of resources particularly helicopters and funds. Civil administration is still reluctant to take over its duties in SW. 

To say that issue of terrorism will get settled after a successful operation in NW and that it will have a salutary impact on dwindling fortunes of US-NATO in Afghanistan will be naïve and far-fetched. It must be understood very clearly that small numbered Haqqani network and other militant groups in NW are not making any material difference on the outcome of war raging between Afghan Taliban and occupation forces and unpopular Afghan National Army (ANA). Forays if any are too few and insignificant. These can be easily blocked if ISAF establishes border check posts at known crossing sites and mine/fence them. Bulk of resistance forces of Mullah Omar, Jalaluddin Haqqani and Gulbadin Hikmatyar are residing in provinces of southern and eastern Afghanistan and are operating all over the country from there. With 80% of territory under their sway they hardly need any sanctuaries across the border. 

Sanctuaries are made use of only under duress as was the case from 2001 to 2003 when the Taliban and al-Qaeda were on the run and had no base within Afghanistan to operate. The ground situation has altered from 2007-08 onwards and now the Taliban are making effective use of their secure firm bases in Pashtun inhabited southern and eastern Afghanistan to hit targets anywhere in the country. The big question is that has the ISAF been able to stop or even curtail Taliban’s forays into central, western and northern parts of Afghanistan including Kabul from their forward bases? As such the hullabaloo about NW is misplaced and mischievous in intent. It has no relevance whatsoever on the outcome of war in Afghanistan which the coalition forces have lost. Even when NW will be cleared of presence of militants, the latter will not get liquidated but will shift to other areas. 

None can deny that as against brilliant performance of Pak Army, the performance of US-NATO equipped with most sophisticated weaponry and technology and having plentiful material resources duly supported by Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan regime have been poor. They have been constantly losing battles and conceding space and have got confined to major cities. Their two efforts to recover Helmand province failed while freeing Kandahar from the hold of Taliban is still a far cry. Civil leadership in Washington particularly ruling Democrats want early closure of war and return of troops while Pentagon and US-NATO Generals are not prepared to gracefully accept defeat and are also not in favour of early withdrawal. They are insisting that they will be able to turn the tide by the new extended dateline of 2014. 

This logic could have worked had the coalition troops not been suffering heavy casualties and incurring mental disorders and the US economy was recovering. While morale of coalition troops is down, ANA is entwined in discipline problems. Fast melting economy of USA is having adverse effects on domestic health. Quagmire of Afghanistan has not only begun to pull down occupation troops but also the prestige and honour of the sole super power. Uni-polarism has come under duress and talk of fragmentation of US imperialism is often heard. 

The Taliban smelling victory are unwilling to negotiate with the US or with Karzai and that too on US conditions which call for surrender of arms, detachment from militancy and Al-Qaeda and changing their anti-American mindset. Considering the trials, tribulations and sacrifices rendered by the Taliban for three decades, it is absurd to expect from them that they will overlook America’s betrayal and oppressions and will throw away its gains made at a very heavy cost and agree to unreasonable demands of USA. Going by pure logic and reason, why should they trust USA and accept a formula tailored in Washington? Time and tide are in their favour and they can see that the invaders have got caught up in a whirlpool from which they cannot extricate at their own. They will allow the time and tide to flow for they know that longer the occupation forces stay, it will render them more vulnerable. 

Notwithstanding rhetoric of US-NATO Generals that progress has been made and they will sooner than later reverse the tide, the withdrawal in all probability will commence from coming July and by end 2011 about 30,000 US troops would reach their homes. Significant thinning out in NATO forces will also take place and by mid 2012 weight of counter insurgency will start shifting on to the shoulders of ANA. A new bait of meeting military, economic and intelligence needs of Pakistan has been thrown by Washington to keep it tied to war on terror for times to come.

Whatever methodology adopted by USA will be 90% in its own interest and 10% in Taliban’s or Pakistan’s interest. With insincere intentions and selfish interests, hope for an agreeable solution to Afghan tangle will be implausible. Unless ground realities are understood in right perspective and realism overtakes delusion, the situation in Afghanistan will remain turbulent and its ripple effects will keep falling on Pakistan.


If the US continues to eye Pakistan with distrust and insists on providing space to India in Afghanistan in spite of Pakistan and Iran’s strong reservations and makes no effort to solve the chronic issue of Kashmir simply because India doesn’t like it, it will leave behind messy Afghanistan and Pakistan which will keep the region destabilized for a long time. Instead of getting transfixed on NW, the US leadership should tackle macro issues dispassionately rather than self serving micro issues favouring USA only. Lasting solution to Kashmir is a must to curb extremism in the region. So far, the entire focus of US leadership is to keep India appeased even at Pakistan’s cost. It should do away with its discriminatory policy and initiate concrete steps to solve Kashmir tangle before it departs. This will help in making South Asia a cradle of peace and will contribute a lot towards restoring badly mauled credibility of USA in Pakistan. It is doable particularly when India has let go its stubbornness and is giving signals for renewal of composite dialogue. For a change, the US leaders should deflect the mantra of ‘do more’ on India and upon itself.

Tweet

Battlefield Egypt

President Hosni Mubarak, facing the biggest challenge to his authority of his 31 years in power, has ordered the army onto the streets of Cairo. Mr Mubarak is expected to make a statement shortly. The curfew is now in effect, but live television pictures from Cairo continue to show large crowds on the streets.
_____________________________________________________________________

Tens of thousands of protesters filled the streets of Egypt on Friday, prompting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to impose a curfew to cover all 28 governorates in the country, state television announced at the end of a fourth day of mass nationwide protests.

He had earlier declared a curfew in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez.

“Following the earlier decree... the commander of the armed forces has decided to extend the curfew to cover all governorates in the country,” state television said.

The curfew was to run from 6pm to 7am until further notice.

The president “has asked the armed forces, in cooperation with the police, to implement the decision, and maintain security and secure public establishments and private property,” it said.

In Cairo, protesters poured out of mosques after Friday prayers and ran rampant through the streets, throwing stones and torching two police stations as police chased them with batons, firing tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets.

In the canal city of Suez, protesters overran a police station, seized weapons and set fire to security force vehicles in fierce clashes in which a demonstrator was killed, witnesses said.

The nationwide demonstrations, inspired by the “Jasmine Revolution” in Tunisia, have swelled into the largest uprising in three decades, sending shockwaves across the region. Eight people have been killed, hundreds injured and some 1,000 arrested.

But in a hint that authorities might heed the rising tide of popular anger, a senior lawmaker and member of the ruling party called for “unprecedented reforms” in order to stave off a revolution.

Egypt is one of Washington’s closest allies in the region, but analysts say the United States is growing increasingly concerned that its refusal to implement more political reforms could lead to further unrest and instability.

That was reflected on Friday when Fitch ratings agency said it had revised its ratings outlook for Egypt to negative.

Demonstrations spread around the capital of Cairo, where police appeared overwhelmed as protesters broke through several police barriers.

Protesters were seen being dragged away and pushed into police vans, as others defied the heavy police presence and made their way to the central Tahrir Square.

Leading dissident Mohamed ElBaradei, who has said he would be prepared to lead a transitional authority if he were asked, was among a crowd of around 2,000 targeted by police and was forced to take refuge inside a mosque in Giza Square and not allowed to lead.

The crowd attacked police vans, torching one, after a civilian had most of his hand blown away, allegedly by police.

Protesters also set fire to the governorate building in the centre of Alexandria.

Medical sources said at least five protesters killed and 870 were wounded on a day that saw security forces using rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannon to disperse crowds. Some were in a serious condition with bullet wounds.

The main opposition party, Wafd, said Egypt needs a period of transitional rule, new parliamentary elections and amendments to the constitution so a president can stand for only two six-year terms. agencies.

Tweet

Tragedy of Indian Occupied Kashmir

Indian Army and paramilitaries since more than two decade in Indian Occupied Kashmir, Extrajudicial exections by Indian Forces are common in Kashmir.Indian security forces have committed torture, disappearances, and arbitrary detentions, and they continue to execute Kashmiris in faked encounter killings.
______________________________________________________


By Assabah Khan

Kashmir is the highest militarized conflict zone in the world. Till 2008 the number of troops in this region was 700,000. During 2008 Amarnath land row 20 companies of CRPF Battalion were deployed in this territory taking which comprised some 80,000 more troops. In 2010 agitation 20, 000 troops were deployed thus making it 800,000.


The whole sense of scenic beauty is taken away by the great tragedy of militarism which is faced by this nation. Somewhere far away in Holland Ms. Marjan Lucas is waiting that her lifetime ban will be lifted by Government of India and she will visit this territory.Mr. Barrister Abdul Majid Tramboo is waiting in London with his family that his ban will be lifted and he will meet his near and dear ones after a span of 15 years. His father died but was not granted visa. Shireen Tramboo lost her mother in June 2010 but was not granted visa to attend the funeral procession of her mother.

Ms. Masooda Parveen is waiting for justice in UN bodies as her huband was killed in custody 13 years ago on 2nd February. She applied for passport twice but it was rejected so that she should not be able to plead her case in UN.


Mukhtar Ahmad Beigh’s father is waiting that his son who was enforcedly disappeared on 26th Sep, 2000 will return home.

Mr. Farooq Ahmad Dar (Bitta Karatey) who has served 18 years in jail and who was more than ten times charged with Public Safety Act (PSA ) is waiting that some day he will be granted passport by the Government of India. He wants to give went to his political insights. Belives in peaceful resolution of Kashmir conflict and has been acquitted in most of the cases by honourable High Court.


Javed Ahmad Mir is also waiting for his passport so that he can take a breath of fresh air in the skies outside India. He takes pride that he is the senior most pro-freedom leader who floated HAJY group.
( Hammeed Ashfaq, Javed, Yaseen) in 1989 and gave clarion call of freedom to Kashmiris. Hameed and Ashfaq have already tasted martyrdom and he stands there as torchbearer of freedom for Kashmir.


Wajahat Qureshi faces same dilemma. He wants to work zealously and peacefully for the youth of Kashmir. He is invited to many forums outside India but unable to leave because he has no passport. He is also associated with the moment from the very inception.

120 boys lie quietly in their graves who fell prey to the bullets of Indian soldiers in the summer of 2010 and their mothers are looking with haunting eyes at the administration that they will get justice. They were no militants but the civilians of Kashmir mostly in the age
group of 6-22.

Neelofar Jan and Asiya’s family is waiting that justice will be done to them. Majlis-e-Mashawarat is called in for support.


Naushaba Begum and Kulsoom are waiting that Major Ravinder Singh Tewetia will be brought to book.

Zareefa Begum in Kunan Poshpora is waiting that one day her son will grow up and help her in getting justice.

People on Line of Control are waiting that all the landmines will be cleared on Uri-Muzaffarabad road and their children and cattle will no more be maimed.

Kashmiri migrants are waiting that they will return to their homes and they will not witness another Naadimarg.Sikhs are waiting there never ever will be in Kashmir another Chattisinghpora.

In Kashmir the problem is there are no support structures for the victims of above mentioned injustice and almost everyone tries to fight an individual battle for justice. We have to have mechanism where all
these people could fight collectively against their oppressor. Here comes in the importance of institution building. At the moment, most of public institutional space is shrinking due to excessive militarism.

The people need to raise their collective voice against that. All other things will fall within that paradigm. In Human Rights discourse media feels the internal discourse of right of self determination is violated. While as political leaders feel that external discourse of right of self determination has been violated.

No external agency is going to come with magic stick until and unless people of Kashmir do not raise their collective voice against all the atrocities committed to them by the state. In London we raised our voice against Iraq war and result is Tony Blair is no more on the scene. If Kashmiris as a nation want to overthrow the yoke of militarism which has led to the destruction of whole social fabric of Kashmir collective voice is the only solution.

Personal wrongs can be undone but historical wrongs cannot be undone. Kashmiri youth are vigilant and alert and they need to be vigilant to historical wrongs being committed to them. They need to find an alternative path to this vicious circle of violence. They can convey their point by peaceful method and efficient negotiating skills.

Every Kashmiri soul is precious. It is duty of the people who are in the leadership role to own the responsibility that not even a single Kashmiri youth is injured not to talk of being killed, not even a single Kashmiri woman is molested not to talk of rape. There will be no countless bodies of Kashmiri youth flowing through Jehlum and going to another side. Kashmiris will be able to express themselves freely in intellectual debates and discourses.

Kashmiris are able to live a life of dignity and integrity under the sun. My dearest one “ We will meet gain by the villas of Peace till the  ‘soldiers’ return the keys.

Tweet