Attacks on Pak-Afghan border

 Pakistan said on Monday that Afghan and US-led forces had failed to hunt down a Taliban cleric responsible for a spate of cross-border raids despite repeated requests from Islamabad, a complaint likely to deepen tension between the neighbours.
___________________________________________________

.Once again hundreds of armed militants crossed over from Afghanistan into Pakistani soil and attacked Kakar check post in Barawal area of Upper Dir killing one Pakistani soldier and injuring two others while 30 of the insurgents were killed in the encounter. This is not for the first time that Afghanistan sponsored armed miscreants have attacked Pakistan posts. On August 27, this year, some 200 to 300 heavily-armed militants based in Afghanistan attacked seven paramilitary check posts in district of Chitral, killing more than 30 personnel of the security forces. In one of such major attacks, on June 1, more than 500 armed militants who entered Upper Dir area from Afghanistan killed more than 30 police and paramilitary soldiers. Police said that well-trained terrorists who targeted a chekpost, also destroyed two schools and several houses with rocket and gunfire attacks, while killing a number of innocent people. On June 3, hundreds of militants crossed over from Afghanistan and again besieged the Pakistani area. In the recent past, the former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, while repeating the false allegations had indicated that Pakistan’s “failure to stop insurgents from Pakistani side of the border” has resulted into “40 per cent rise in the militant’s attacks in east Afghanistan…infiltration of insurgents in Afghanistan takes place from the safe-havens of FATA.” In this context, on April 20, 2011, US Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen has alleged that ISI has been supporting, funding and training fighters that are killing Americans and coalition partners in Afghanistan. Their media have also left no stone unturned for alleging Islamabad for cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan, also involving Pak Army and its intelligence agency, ISI. However, American baseless blame game against Islamabad in connection with cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan continues. In this regard, we need to prove, whether Pakistan is responsible for cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan or the latter in Pakistan.Significantly, the Afghan Taliban have categorically denied their involvement in such attacks. A Taliban spokesman has told the Afghan Islamic Press that in such attacks, no Afghan Talib took part; especially the deadly attacks launched in Dir and Chitral areas of Pakistan. He said that they were facing a big enemy in Afghanistan and were not carrying out operations anywhere in the world, including Pakistan. Not surprisingly, dozens of such incidents have increased tension between the two neighbouring countries, with Pakistan raising the issue with Kabul and NATO in bilateral meetings. Pakistan’s Foreign Office has already stated that Pakistan has been forced to retaliate against such cross-border attacks. Despite additional security measures undertaken by Pakistan to protect its citizens from attacks from other side of the Durand Line, the way the Afghan militants are challenging a regular and highly professional Pakistani force, crossing border and not only killing innocent villagers but also attacking security posts is enough to prove at whose behest these attacks are taking place. Otherwise too, it is next to impossible that aggression against Pakistan was possible without knowledge and active connivance of the occupation forces because they claim to have modern surveillance system to monitor movement on every inch of the soil in their areas of interest. The attackers sometimes number more than three to four hundred and it is unimaginable that such a significant movement remains undetected by the United States and NATO forces. But there are reasons to believe these attacks are fully backed by occupation forces with a view to increasing pressure on Pakistan. In fact, militants are funded, trained, armed and pushed into Pakistan for do and die mission. In this backdrop, the assertion by US special envoy Marc Grossman that his country would keep on asking Pakistan to crackdown on so-called safe havens is highly provocative. This shows that for the United States, lives of its soldiers are more important than those of Pakistani citizens who are being killed in cross-border attacks by Afghan militants. Pakistani security officials have recommended to the Afghan government and the NATO authorities to set up more posts at the border to stop such attacks. The ISPR chief, Maj Gen Athar Abbas, recently told the media that the issue was discussed at a joint US-Pakistan-Afghanistan military commission meeting in Peshawar. Against 900 border posts set up by Pakistan on the Pak-Afghan border, Afghanistan while ISAF have only 100 such posts, allowing the terrorists to cross the border with relative ease. Pakistan has already boosted the security at the Afghan border. The Karzai government in Kabul should be informed that such attacks do not sever the maintenance of the brotherly ties between the two countries.

By Afia Ambreen (Frontier Post)

_________________________________________________________

The Afghan cauldron

The mughal president of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai is again at its best,vitriolic on one hand appeasing on other. Pakistan bashing is at centre stage and Pakistan fanny at off stage.
____________________________________________________

India is the strategic ally and partner, Pakistan is a twin brother. The person on protamine (the protein in caviar) can only give such an expensive statement, expensive “cause” it is going to cost the political fortune to many. The mughal president of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai is again at its best, vitriolic on one hand and appeasing on the other.Pakistan-bashing is at centre stage and Pakistan fanny at off stage. Give it a break. The political vibes from Afghan president are complicating the already complexed situation of the region.Afghanistan is becoming a rentier state, at least the presidential palace and its environs. Is it going to be the strategic partnership with India or it is going to be the much dreaded strategic encirclement of Pakistan? Pray that it is none; the Afghan tectonics cannot bear the political or diplomatic shenanigans. Who is the sorcerer’s apprentice here?The Afghanistan-India pact is a serious development in the region on three accounts, one, India is the first country with whom Afghanistan has made a military pact, and even the military interventions of Russians on the behest of Afghan rulers were termed as the corollary of a pact of friendship. This is no small an achievement for Indians. Secondly, Americans are now all out to give clear messages, no more Morse codes, the enhancement of Indian stature is at the cost of Pakistan, it is due to the diverging interests which cannot converge being polar opposites. US has entered into an upping the ante policy with India as its corner stone. The stone wall is being built around the bay and barn, every one appreciating the collection of stones from far flung quarries, no one asking the purpose, the necropolis of history is sliding slowly towards the ultimate irrelevance, Afghanistan the graveyard of invaders is the new necropolis of history. History no more judges people by the deeds they under take, history now takes into account the things which you are supposed to do but it is never done, owing to some unknown reasons.Thirdly is the emergence of India as the new economic power house with the fastest growing middle class in the world, it is becoming the pillar of the new economic and political world order. Two regions, the Middle East and Central Asia are going to be dependent on the oceanic India; the third, power houses of pacific rim are also going to be a partner in coming decades.In this scheme Afghanistan is going to be the land mass bridge of diminishing value, because the routes of new silk road will only have the geographical tranquility rest of Afghanistan will be ruled by the perennial war lords, who are to keep coming like the Egyptian locust. The strategic pact of India-Afghanistan envisages military training to the Afghan national army, training to Afghan police, joint explorations of minerals, control of Hajiqak iron ore, building of dams on river Kabul, road and infrastructure development and a number of other security, political, economic, educational, and parliamentarian initiatives which India is under taking in Afghanistan. Virtually it is going to be the bonhomie the Indian way and the indianization of Afghan society.Pakistan as the neighbour has very less concerns till the time Indian mechanizations are in the sector of development only, but military matters are a different ball game. Indians say they are very relevant in the Afghanistan, well relevance is an intricate phenomenon in twenty first century, Pakistan being direct neighbour and the country who hosted the largest number of Afghan refugees in the world is irrelevant and the neighbour’s neighbour is relevant. Kudos and keep it up, it is all imperial hubris.US lost its high moral ground in Afghanistan because the military approach to the Afghan problem made it irrelevant to the situation on ground, a common Afghan thinks then what is the difference between a red army soldier and an American GI. Absence of political approach resulted into a zero sum game. Americans did not give any concept of a political product for Afghan people, the chaos after Russians left was to be dealt by a home grown or at least domestically imbibed political product. Afghanistan was a political failure, but what it got was a doze of military concentrate.A Taliban phenomenon was a reaction to war lordism, so if some one wants to replace Taliban with a better system it is ought to be the political one. But where are the product and the system approach there in. War is too serious a thing to be left to the Generals, even if they are trained in the first world. Pakistan is an easy punching bag, thanks to the national tradition of malmasti (hospitality). Admiral Mullen calls Haqqani network as the veritable arm of Pakistani intelligence service. Who is going to establish the alibi or the link to what ever is said, believed and displayed through words and deeds?Pakistan was always sensitive to Indian presence in Afghanistan, the allies were also conscious of the fact, now they are behaving in the alien way, it is not a mere change of heart, it is a change which is skin deep and up to the bone, the DNA of friendship has trans mutated.Pragati, an Indian magazine in year 2008 dedicated one of its special issues to the topic that India should have military presence in Afghanistan. Indian trainers are not new in Afghanistan; the rebuke to Pakistan is definitely new. There had been ebbs and flow in the relations of two countries (Pakistan and US), the lean years and the mean years, the average outcome remained within the halo of friendship.For the first time the things are pretty complexed between Pakistan and USA. The pent up emotions are the product of misreading the lessons of relevance. The hype of bad patch is not good for both the countries, empires die not from their strategic fatigue, and it is the imperial hubris which moves the corner stones of a giant plinth.If India is to be taken as the player, then it is to be in the political plane otherwise it is not to be. The backyard analogy apply equally every where, more so to the Hindukush Mountains, a name itself implies the untold stories of yester years.
______________________________________________________

By Abid Latif Sindhu (Frontier Post)

US–China Trade War?

Beijing on Wednesday slammed a currency bill passed by the US Senate targeting China's yuan policy, saying the "protectionist" legislation would harm Sino-US ties and the global economy as a whole.
"The bill cannot solve unemployment or other economic problems in the US. It is essentially practicing trade protectionism by making an accusation of currency manipulation, which is a serious violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules," China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said.
In defiance of China's repeated warnings, the Democrat-led Senate passed the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act with a 63-35 majority Tuesday.
The legislation is now two steps away from being signed into law, including an approval in the House of Representatives where some Republican leaders had called it "dangerous" and refused to schedule a vote on it.
Ma on Wednesday called on the US government, Congress and various committees to oppose the legislation and to tackle trade protectionism.
If signed into law, the act would make it easier for the US government to slap retaliatory tariffs on imports from countries that are deemed currency manipulators.
Some US officials and trade groups have been accusing China of deliberately keeping the yuan low to gain an advantage in bilateral trade. The Alliance for American Manufacturing, which supported the legislation, said before that a 28.5 percent appreciation of the yuan would create 2.25 million jobs in the US and reduce the annual trade deficit by $190.5 billion. However, Beijing firmly rejects such claims. Since 2005, the yuan has appreciated 23.3 percent against the US dollar. It strengthened by 103 basis points to reach a record high of 6.3483 against the dollar Tuesday ahead of the Senate vote, according to figures from the China Foreign Exchange Trading System.
The People's Bank of China, the country's central bank, said on Wednesday the US is only looking to blame its own problems on outsiders "China's interest rate reform has achieved clear results," the bank said. "Making groundless accusations about the yuan could seriously disrupt the exchange rate reforms that China is undertaking."
The American Chamber of Commerce in Beijing expressed its regret over the Senate vote on Wednesday, saying that the provisions of the bill are unnecessary and would be counterproductive to the goal of protecting US employment.  "The Senate would damage the bilateral trade and investment relationship, weaken our standing in the WTO, and damage our national interest," the chamber's chairman, Ted Dean, said in a statement to the Global Times. Calling on the House of Representatives to refrain from taking further action on the bill, the chamber advised increasing exports to China, Washington's third largest market, to support US employment. The US National Retail Federation also expressed its disappointment at the vote, saying "to force China's hand isn't likely to work and could open the door to retaliation against US goods that would threaten American jobs at companies who do business with China."
Zhou Shijian, a senior researcher at the Institute of Sino-US Relations at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times that the Senate vote was another publicity stunt to divert the public's attention from thorny domestic problems in the US.
"Some US politicians lost their senses in unilaterally stipulating such an act that totally disregards under the WTO. It won't stimulate either the US economy or employment given that the majority of US imports from China are labor-intensive products," Zhou said.
Barclays Capital said in a client note that the Senate's passage is already "sufficient to sour the atmosphere for bilateral cooperation at a time when it is most needed to maintain global growth and stability."   
"In the unlikely scenario that the bill becomes law and the US penalizes Chinese exports, China might retaliate, for instance, by taxing US MNCs (multinationals) in China," Reuters quoted the note as saying.
However, Yi Xianrong, an economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, downplayed the possibility of a trade war.
"Many people have called for payback by selling off (Chinese holdings of) US debt. That would be utterly foolish," he told Reuters.
________________________________________________________

Baloch youth in Pak Army

 It was really a fascinating scene to watch on Tuesday when thousands of young Balochs participated in a thrilling passing out parade at the EME Centre at Quetta marking their regular formal induction into Pakistan Army after their normal training. The spirited and motivated youths from the province pledged allegiance to the country and saluted  national flag, which was a reassuring development in the backdrop of intensive propaganda campaign launched by some quarters.
_________________________________________________________

The prime minister may have reiterated his offer of dialogue with what he calls angry Baloch leaders, expressing readiness even to go to their doorsteps to listen to their “grievances”. But, bluntly, they are no leaders but hereditary princes holding their tribes in their serfdom with their ferocious private armies at their command. And it is not the wellbeing of the Baloch people that sits at the heart of their “anger”. It is their own vaulting ambitions for greater personal economic affluence and more strength to their muscle power that solely impel them and lead up to their grouses out of their frustrations in not getting wholly what they want on this count. This is the palpable bland truth. Their own demands they artfully dress up as the Baloch people’s grievances.And no lasting peace can even be hoped for in Balochistan by going after massaging these princes’ large egos and appeasing them by conceding their endless demands. A meaningful venture to this end could only be the emancipation and empowerment of the enslaved Baloch commoners, particularly their youth. And this Baloch youth is, demonstratively, a mountain of oceanic hidden treasures of boundless talent and unfathomable energy. The Baloch youths who have somehow broken out from their oppressive princes’ shackles have impressively shown the enormous mettle this youth is intrinsically made of. They have admirably made their mark in various fields, rising to the pinnacles of diverse professions and services. They have made respectable professionals, renowned doctors, prominent lawyers, reputed civil servants and remarkable generals. But this Baloch youth is chronically the nation’s most wronged and neglected segment. He indeed is the pathetic forlorn victim of a double whammy. The princes callously use the Baloch youths in their serfdoms as the gun fodder for their feuds and fracas. The federal governments have throughout followed the policy of keeping the princes in good humour, while dealing an ignoble total disinterest to the commoners. All the time, they have been hankering after keeping the princes happy by satiating their unquenchable thirst for fattening up their financial and muscle powers in every manner. And all along they have given a short shrift to the uplift of the Baloch commoners, especially their youth brimming with talent, promise and energy.It is only now that opportunities are being opened up to the Baloch youth to grow, flourish and advance as a fuller respectable human being. Apart from recruitment to its officers corps and ranks by lowering the qualification criterion, the army has laid out a remarkable chain of educational institutions for Baloch youths’ schooling, higher learning and training in various trades and skills. In thousands, the chain will produce professional and skilled manpower on its conveyor belt regularly for the province to meet its trained hands’ needs from its own human reservoir. More, Balochistan is admittedly enviably rich in natural wealth. Yet, while appallingly the princes have all through been self-servingly bemoaning of the province’s rich mineral resources being plundered for others’, not its residents’, good, they never ever raised a voice for even establishing an institute of mineralogy in the province for producing specialised trained local manpower to exploit this natural wealth. Nor they acted to this end when not infrequently they held the reins of state power in the province. It is the army that has taken an initiative in this regard, not even the incumbent provincial administration. Anyway, some measures like giving jobs to the province’s educated youth under the Balochistan package should certainly help bring the Baloch youth upfront. But far more robust efforts are still needed to help this promising youth to show its mettle fully and vibrantly. The state hierarchs must understand that the key to permanent peace and tranquility in Balochistan as well as its socio-economic advancement lies not in appeasing and mollycoddling the Baloch princes. The surest way to it is the emancipation, empowerment and advancement of its commoners, the Baloch youth in particular. And it really hurts that Levies force has been revived in a patently politically expedient move. Since the recruitment to the force is to be from the tribes, Levies will predictably be crammed up with the Baloch princes’ favourites and appointee. Resultantly, the recruits will be loyal not to the state authorities but to their benefactor princes whose muscle power they will beef up muscularly.On another plane, while the security forces in the province must be bound on the pain of penalty to strictly abide by law in their actions, the commission on missing persons must be energised in every manner to find out the whole truth, establish the facts and bring the real culprits to justice. This is an extremely saddening humanitarian issue that must be brought to a denouement sensitively. And the state authorities imperatively must be very elaborative on their stance about the foreign hands’ involvement in the province’s disturbed conditions. They must identify unambiguously these foreign hands and their local collaborators. No hedges are acceptable. At stake is our most sensitive strategically-located province’s peace and stability.
__________________________________________________________

Secret Strategic Games in Afghanistan

CIA, RAW and Mossad have been destabilising Pakistan to 'denuclearise' the latter. On the other side, Indian and Afghan rulers want to entrap the US permanently in Afghanistan in order to achieve their secret designs by damaging American global and regional interests. So in Afghanistan, multiple secret strategic games are being played.
__________________________________________________________

Since the US-led NATO forces occupied Afghanistan, stiff resistance of the Taliban militants which created unending lawlessness in the country has made it a most conducive place for the foreign countries and the Karzai-led regime to play secret strategic games to obtain their clandestine aims.First strategic game is collective, which includes the US, India, Israel and country’s President Hamid Karzai who are in collusion to fulfill their covert strategic designs against Pakistan, Iran and China.Under the cover of the US-led blame game against Islamabad regarding cross-border terrorism, Talibanisation of Afghanistan and Pakistan, secret agencies like American CIA, Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad have well-established their networks in Afghanistan. Particularly, India has been running secret operations against Pakistan from its consulates in Mazar-i-Sharif, Jalalabad, Kandhar and other sensitive parts of the Pak-Afghan border. New Delhi has not only increased its military troops in the country, but has also decided to set up cantonments. In this respect, US and regime of Hamid Karzai encouraged India in using the Border Roads Organisation in constructing the ring roads by employing Indo-Tibeten police force for security. On october 5 this year, India and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement, deepening their security and economic ties. In this regard, India will help Kabul in diversified projects. The deal will guarantee Afghanistan’s security as foreign troops begin withdrawing from the country, which will be completed in 2014. However, apparently, it is open strategic agreement, but secretly India wants to further strengthen its grip in Afghanistan not only to get strategic depth against Islamabad, but also to use the war-torn country in destabilising Pakistan. For this purpose, with the tactical support of CIA and Mossad, and assistance of Afghan Khad, RAW, based in Afghanistan has been sending well-trained agents and militants in Pakistan, who have joined the ranks and files of the Taliban. Posing themselves as the Pakistan Taliban, they not only attack the check posts of Pakistan’s security forces, but also target schools and mosques. They are continuously conducting suicide attacks and targeted killings, fuelling sectarian violence in our country. Now, Indian support to insurgency in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baloch separatism has become a routine matter.Drug and kidnappings are some other source of Indian income. According to an estimate, world’s 90% heroin is cultivated in Afghanistan. So money earned through drug-smuggling and hostage-takings is utilised in buying weapons, being sent to the foreign agents and the insurgents in Pakistan.Nevertheless, besides backing subversive acts in Pakistan, India and US are also supporting the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and other Balochi separatist leaders who have taken shelter in Afghanistan. For example, Brahmdagh Bugti has been operating against Pakistan from Kabul. On July 23, 2008, in an interview with the BBC, Brahmdagh Bugti had stated that they “have the right to accept foreign arms and ammunition from anywhere including India.”Another CIA and Indian-supported separatist group, Jundollah (God’s soldiers) is also working against the cordial relationship of Pakistan with China and Iran. In the past few years, Jundollah kidnapped and murdered a number of Chinese and Iranian nationals in Pakistan. This insurgent group has not only been committing acts of sabotage in Pakistan, but also in Iran. In this respect, on October 18, 2009, a suicide attack had killed several officers in the Iranian Sistan-Balochistan. On December 15, 2010, two suicide bombers blew themselves up near a mosque in Iran, killing 39 people. Jundullah claimed responsibility for these incidents. Regarding all these attacks, Tehran had directly accused CIA for funding of that type of terrorist attacks, while diverting the attention of Iran towards Islamabad through secret propaganda.In this context, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei revealed, “The bloody actions being committed in Iraq, Pakistan and Iran are aimed at creating a division between the Shias and Sunnis…those who carry out these terrorist actions are directly or indirectly foreign agents.”It is noteworthy that in the recent years, several persons died in the terror-incidents and ethnic riots occurred in various regions of China’s Xinjiang — the largely populated Muslim province. For all the incidents, India blamed Pakistani militants for supporting the insurgency in order to deteriorate Sino-Pak ties. In fact, New Delhi which had given shelter to the Tibetan spiritual leader, Dalai Lama and his militants have been playing a key role in assisting upsurge in the Tibetan and Muslim areas of China. Recently, US President Obama also met Dalai Lama so as to indirectly encourage insurgency in China.It is of particular attention that Balochistan’s ideal geo-strategic location with Gwadar seaport, connecting rest of the world with Central Asia irritates America and India. So, it is due to multiple strategic benefits that the US which signed a nuclear deal with India in 2008, intends to control Balochistan in containing China and subduing Iran. Second secret strategic game is being played by India and Afghan President Karzai against the US-led forces in Afghanistan. In this regard, if the US-led NATO forces withdraw from Afghanistan, Karzai regime will fall like a house of cards. Even New Delhi will not be in a position to maintain its network in wake of the successful guerilla warfare of the Taliban. Therefore, India and Karzai have been doing their utmost to convince Washington to have a long stay in Afghanistan. Before his trip to Washington in 2009, during his interview to the Washington Post and Newsweek, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said that he would encourage the American leadership to stay in Afghanistan. Otherwise, Afghanistan could fall into a civil war if the US exited. But Singh and Karzai were frustrated when US and NATO countries repeatedly remarked to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan. Failed in their objective, Indian and Afghan rulers, with the help of RAW and Khad, started acting upon dirty tricks to get the foreign forces——especially those of America entangled in Afghanistan permanently. In this context, with help of some so-called Muslims, RAW and Khad have increased attacks inside Afghanistan, particularly targeting American soldiers with the sole aim to revive old blame game of the US against Islamabad and ISI in relation to cross-border-terrorism. In these terms, New Delhi and Kabul succeeded in their connivance against the US when the latter disclosed that it will maintain reasonable contingency in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of forces. Recently, tension increased in Pak-US relations when American retiring top military officer Mike Mullen accused that Pakistan is waging a ‘proxy war’ in Afghanistan with the help of country’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), alleging for a recent assault on the US embassy in Kabul. Mullen’s irresponsible statement was also repeated by the other US high officials who issued stern warning about Islamabad’s failure to crack down on the Haqqani network, raising the possibility of US unilateral action in North Waziristan. On September 27, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, while endorsing US Admiral Mike Mullen’s allegations regarding ISI and Haqqani network, said, “There is now growing awareness of the groups which indulge in these nefarious activities.” Kazai and his top officials also shared Mullen’s allegations. Besides, on October 5, President Karzai accused Pakistan of supporting militant networks in his country and of having links to the recent assassination of peace envoy and former president Burhanuddin Rabbani. Nonetheless, in wake of escalating tension between Islamabad and Washington, Pakistan’s civil and military leadership has rejected allegations of the foreign conspirators. While, in the recent past, the US-led intermittent attacks by the armed militants who crossed inside Pakistan from Afghanistan, have continued.In this connection, on October 6, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani issued a warning to Afghanistan to stop cross-border incursions in Pakistan. While Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has disclosed, “Certain forces are at work to destabilise Afghanistan and Karzai should not play in their hands.”Notably, regarding Indian activities in Afghanistan the then NATO commander, Gen. McChrystal had pointed out: “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan…is likely to exacerbate regional tensions.”In fact, under the pretext of Haqqani group, CIA, RAW and Mossad have been destabilising Pakistan to ‘denuclearise’ the latter. On the other side, Indian and Afghan rulers want to entrap the US permanently in Afghanistan in order to achieve their secret designs by damaging American global and regional interests. So in Afghanistan, multiple secret strategic games are being played.
_____________________________________________________

By Sajjad Shaukat (sajjad_logic@yahoo.com)

India promises to prop up Karzai

 Delhi would do well to remember as well that all its support to the regime of Mohammad Najibullah-political, military, security and economic- still did not prevent the regime from collapsing in 1992 when the mujahideen came knocking on the doors of Kabul.
__________________________________________________________

President Hamid Karzai’s two-day visit to India presages a major realignment of regional powers over the Afghan problem. India has taken a carefully thought-out decision to pitch for a key role in the so-called “endgame” in Afghanistan, commensurate with its aspirations as a regional power and in defence of what it considers to be its vital interests against the backdrop of a developing situation about which it is genuinely concerned.

India, however, will not get away unchallenged in its newfound "pro-activism" and how the ensuing regional rivalries will play out in the coming period remains far from clear. The cloudy horizons may have got just a bit darker as Karzai's presidential jet takes off from the Indian capital on Wednesday.

Karzai, too, had a mission on his mind as he headed for Delhi. Late on Monday evening, on the eve of his departure for India, he spoke candidly about his political predicament. His much-touted reconciliation policy toward the Taliban is at a dead-end and for crafting a way forward he needs to get a fresh mandate from a loya jirga (tribal assembly) that will be convened for the purpose.

He blamed Pakistan for being uncooperative in the peace process and yet he acknowledged that he needed to talk to Islamabad, being mindful that it also is what the United States and the international community want him to do - despite the wave of "anti-Pakistan" sentiments sweeping large sections of Afghan society and notwithstanding the deep and entrenched aversion to any truck with Pakistan over the Taliban that many figures within his own coalition harbor.

The leadership in Kabul has traditionally reached out to India as a counterweight to Pakistan. Karzai's visit to Delhi (his second visit in seven months) falls within that classic mould, but what gives added dimension to his mission is that his principal political allies at home - groups belonging to the erstwhile Northern Alliance (NA) - also happen to be forces closely associated with India for the past several years.

His two vice presidents, Mohammed Fahim and Karim Khalili, were leading figures in the anti-Taliban resistance, which India promoted, and Fahim, in particular, is the inheritor of the war machine of the late Ahmad Shah Massoud who was substantially supported by the Indian security establishment during the anti-Taliban resistance of the late 1990s.

If Delhi has decided to take the plunge and stand overtly behind the Karzai-Fahim-Khalili axis of power that is taking shape in Kabul, it is because the Indian political leadership is acceding to certain compelling reasons given by the country's security establishment.

First and foremost, there is deep disillusionment over United States policies and a resultant feeling that India must pursue an independent course in Afghanistan to safeguard its security interests. The US's pattern of intermittently quarreling and depending on Pakistan to advance its regional strategy in Afghanistan exasperates the Indian establishment.

Just as Indian pundits concluded that the recent rift in US-Pakistan ties was far too advanced to lend itself to repair, Washington has once again kissed and made up with Islamabad. New details have begun emerging that the US Central Intelligence Agency might have taken the help of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence in contacting the Haqqani network and that the US would have offered the Haqqanis a place in the Afghan government.

The fact that the US and Pakistan may be working together to finesse the Haqqani network (which India holds responsible for the two murderous attacks on its embassy in Kabul) and bring it into the peace process horrifies Delhi and it runs contrary to repeated American assurances to Indian officials.

Besides, Delhi is convinced that Pakistan masterminded the assassination of the head of the Afghan High Peace Council, Burhanuddin Rabbani, who was close to India, as part of a calculated plan to systematically remove from the political chessboard all figures who may challenge Taliban supremacy in the coming period, especially as the drawdown of US troops accelerates.

Three-pronged strategy

Within the framework of the dialogue with Pakistan, the Indian leadership had somewhat exercised self-restraint in robustly advancing its interests in Afghanistan in the recent period, but the Indian security establishment seems to have concluded that Islamabad is pushing the envelope nonetheless, aimed at exterminating all Indian influence in Kabul in a future set-up dominated by its Taliban proxies.

Equally, Delhi is not convinced about the efficacy of the troop drawdown plan of President Barack Obama. Ironically, India shares the skepticism recently voiced by Pakistani army chief Pervez Kiani as to whether the 2014 timeline to hand over responsibility to the Afghan security forces is realistic under the prevailing circumstances.

Thus, India is taking matters in its own hands, so to speak, to do what it can to ensure that the present power structure in Kabul (which is very well-disposed toward India) gains resilience in the near future.

The concrete outcome of Karzai's visit to India is three-fold and it reveals the range of Indian thinking. First, India is poised to step in for the first time in the post-Taliban era to fulfill a role that it used to perform before the mujahideen takeover in 1992 when Afghanistan was under the communist regime - namely, a commitment to be a mentor of the Afghan security forces.

Second, Delhi is making a strong pitch for a major role in the exploitation of the multi-trillion dollar mineral resources in Afghanistan. Third, India and Afghanistan have decided to work on their respective bilateral cooperation grids with Iran with a view to developing a trade and transit route through Iranian territory, bypassing Pakistan.

Clearly, India visualizes the non-Pashtun groups in central and northern Afghanistan as a bulwark against a Taliban takeover in the country. Yet, India will insistently maintain that its dealings with these groups will be strictly within the framework of a state-to-state relationship, given the alchemy of the political structure in Kabul supporting Karzai.

The point is, Tajik officer corps practically dominate Afghan forces and Delhi can be confident that they can be trusted to resist a return to power of forces such as the Haqqanis supported by Pakistan. In short, Delhi is virtually falling back on the raison d'etre of its policy to support the NA in the late 1990s.

Delhi doesn't rule out the possibility of another outbreak of civil war in Afghanistan. It is reviving its interest in "operationalizing" an airstrip it built in Tajikistan out of its own funds and has sought permission from Dushanbe to reopen a military hospital it built in the late 1990s at Farkhor on the Afghan border to provide medical treatment to the NA warriors fighting the Taliban.

Pakistan is sure to perceive the forthcoming Indian role as mentor of the Afghan forces and Delhi's decision to resuscitate its infrastructure in Tajikistan that used to provide underpinnings for the erstwhile NA's militia as moves directed against its "legitimate interests" in Afghanistan. The stage is getting set for a rather vicious eruption of Pakistan-India animosities. Pakistan's "asymmetrical" response in the past typically took the form of terrorist strikes at targeted Indian interests.

Indian restraint was commendable in the past when faced with the challenge of terrorism, but there is a school of thinking in the Indian strategic community that it is about time that India calls the Pakistani bluff. At any rate, India seems to anticipate troubled times ahead and has just begun a massive two-month military exercise on its desert border with Pakistan in Rajasthan sector, involving some 20,000 troops belonging to its strike corps and its air force, with an ambitious agenda to test its offensive plans to capture and hold enemy territory deep inside.

Second, Delhi is encouraging Indian business to invest in Afghanistan's mineral resources by way of emerging as a "stakeholder" in that country. Delhi is currently pushing a policy of acquiring strategic "assets" abroad and Afghanistan's vast mineral resources offer big scope for Indian investment.

Indian corporate giants are getting interested in the proposition, too. An Indian consortium is preparing to participate in the tender for the Hajigak iron ores in Afghanistan, which is estimated to hold reserves of 1.8 billion tonnes. The two memoranda of understanding signed during Karzai's visit to Delhi - relating to the field of mineral exploitation and the development of hydrocarbon - signal the shared interest of the two countries in facilitating large-scale Indian investments in Afghanistan.

To be sure, India's moves in this regard will be keenly watched by other countries, especially China and the US, which are already neck-deep in the scramble for resources in Central Asia. For the first time in the post-Soviet era, India is spreading its wings in the region and is scouting for "assets". While it lags far behind China, it seems to estimate that the game is far from over.

Third, India's main challenge with regard to a trade and transit route to Afghanistan needs to be addressed in priority terms and Karzai's visit provided a timely opportunity to have consultations. Delhi has vaguely spoken for over a decade regarding the importance of a Silk Route via Iran, but a new criticality has arisen. The point is, India cannot hope to have an effective Central Asia policy in the absence of a viable and dependable access route to the region.

Delhi views Iran as the obvious choice as a partner in this regard. Despite the improved climate in India-Pakistan relations and notwithstanding the stirrings of a more relaxed trade regime between the two countries, no one in his senses in Delhi quite expects that Islamabad would facilitate an access route for India's trade and investment ties with Afghanistan where the two countries are locked in rivalry.

Pakistan is dragging its feet with regard to the implementation of the trade and transit treaty it signed with Afghanistan under sustained American prodding. India does not see any prospect of Pakistan agreeing to include it in this treaty, as propagated by US officials.

Equally, India is far from optimistic about the US's grandiose Silk Road project connecting the Central Asian and South Asian regions, which is likely to be presented as a major regional initiative at a forthcoming conference in Istanbul on November 2.

Iran gets two suitors

Thus, finally, after some five years of neglect, Delhi has begun dusting up the framework of India-Iran strategic cooperation. This is no easy task, as Tehran harbors a deep sense of hurt that Delhi succumbed to US (and Israeli) pressures to atrophy India's ties with Tehran. But a beginning has been made in a dramatic manner recently with Delhi seeking a bilateral meeting with Tehran at the highest level of leadership and the latter promptly agreeing.

The fact that last month's meeting between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad took place in New York - on American soil - was in itself invested with great political symbolism. Clearly, Delhi was preparing the ground for Karzai's forthcoming visit.

At any rate, Manmohan seems to have taken a personal interest in breathing life into the India-Iran strategic partnership, which many hold him as responsible for stifling in recent years in deference to American wishes.

India's rapprochement with Iran coincides with an upswing in the latter's ties with Pakistan. Iran is going to be assiduously courted by the two South Asian rivals. Pakistan's efforts will be to forge a matrix of commonality of interests with Iran over the Afghan situation and India's attempt will also be orientated in the same direction. How Iran balances its multiple choices will form an absorbing template of regional politics.

Pakistan will strive its utmost to avoid a replay of the 1990s when Iran shared common interests with India to resist the Taliban regime. This can only be done by Islamabad accommodating Iran's interests in Afghanistan, while, on the other hand, Delhi will strive to reinforce its shared concerns with Tehran over the prospect of the ascendancy of forces who enjoyed established links with al-Qaeda in the past.

Pakistan will factor in that the key to keeping India out of Afghanistan and the Central Asian chessboard will depend on its ability to "neutralize" Iran. On the contrary, India will view Iran's cooperation as integral to its strategy toward Afghanistan and Central Asia.

This curious turn to regional politics gives Iran much strategic space to maneuver vis-a-vis the US. Washington's "containment" strategy toward Iran will be virtually rendered ineffectual if India and Pakistan ignore it and forge strategic links with Tehran.

The US will inevitably come to view Indian "proactivism" in Afghanistan with a sense of disquiet, just as it hopes to work with Pakistan to reconcile the Taliban and to bring on board the intransigent Haqqanis. Again, India is identifying itself as, arguably, the strongest supporter of Karzai in the region at a time when the US is patently disillusioned with the Afghan leader and is counting on the remaining part of his second term in office to somehow get over so that by 2014 a new leadership can take over in Kabul.

The US and its Western allies and the Afghan opposition have openly welcomed Karzai's hints that he may not seek a third term (which the Afghan constitution also forbids) but they would know that the doughty Afghan leader possesses acute political instincts and they may not have heard the last word on the matter. India's seamless support for Karzai could become a headache for the US and its allies to dethrone him.

Delhi, on the other hand, will assess that its interests are best served in an alliance between Karzai and his erstwhile NA allies perpetuating their hold on power. The bottom line is that Karzai's coalition comprising powerful NA satraps serves Indian interests. The strong expression of support to Karzai by Manmohan leaves no one in doubt as to the thinking in the security establishment in Delhi that India should go the whole hog to prop up anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

At a press conference with Karzai on Tuesday, Manmohan said meaningfully, "India will stand by the people of Afghanistan as they prepare to assume the responsibility for their governance and security after the withdrawal of international forces in 2014."

Karzai echoed his trust in the Indian commitment by pointing out that the strategic agreement with India that was signed during his visit was the first such agreement Afghanistan had ever concluded. He seems to have implied that he was prepared to accord India the pride of place as one of his most valuable partners. (The US-Afghan strategic agreement is due to be signed by the time of the Bonn conference in December.)

Again, the US will have misgivings about the decision by Afghanistan and India to rev up a trade and transit route via Iran. The very purpose of the US's Silk Road project with Afghanistan as a regional hub, which it is pushing with its European allies, aims at sidelining Iran (and Russia) in the "new great game". Whereas, Delhi now is showing preference to Iran for providing it with an access route that connects it with Central Asia (and Russia).

In overall terms, Washington is not going to be enthused by these Indian moves in Afghanistan, even if it doesn't pour cold water on Delhi's high enthusiasm for the Karzai regime. The US special representative on Afghanistan, Marc Grossman, is scheduled to visit India this week and will patiently search for rational explanations by his Indian interlocutors, while keeping his counsel to himself.

The big question, therefore, remains to be answered: Will it prove to be within Delhi's capacity to advance on its own such an ambitious agenda of all-round strategic partnership with Afghanistan? High hopes have been raised during Karzai's visit, but the pitfalls of Indian policies cannot escape notice, either.

India's record of fulfilling its commitments to its "allies" (not only Afghan) has been patchy. India repeatedly failed at critical points to bolster the NA despite its pleas when the Taliban juggernaut began rolling into the Amu Darya region. Meanwhile, Karzai would also know Pakistan's centrality in any Afghan peace process and India can never be a substitute for Pakistan.

The situation around Iran is central to the US's Middle East policies and the present government in Delhi may lack the grit to indulge in an act of strategic defiance of Washington. The Indian elites are not inclined to allow any serious contradiction to arise in the US-India strategic partnership in relation to the region - although they view with extreme distaste Washington's overtures to Beijing to step in as a provider of security for Afghanistan and as a "stakeholder" in the regional stability of South Asia.

All that can be said for certain for the present is that the Indian military and security establishment may have scored a huge propaganda point over its rivals in Rawalpindi and Islamabad by succeeding after six years of persistent effort to gain the status of a mentor of the Afghan armed forces. There is a heady feeling among the strategic community that India has at long last become a player in the "great game".

Will Indian military advisors be stationed in Afghanistan? If that happens, the Indian political leadership cannot overlook the grim prospect of the nascent dialogue process with Pakistan disintegrating in no time. It is highly unlikely that Islamabad (or Washington) would countenance an Indian military presence in the Hindu Kush.

At the end of it all, Delhi would do well to remember as well that all its support to the regime of Mohammad Najibullah - political, military, security and economic - still did not prevent the regime from collapsing in 1992 when the mujahideen came knocking on the doors of Kabul.

______________________________________________________

By M K Bhadrakumar (The Statesman)

India, Afghanistan and the End-Game

There are no permanent friends or foes in international politics, but the interests are. It has been amply displayed by India and Afghanistan while dashing another move on the strategic chessboard of South Asian Region. It is same Hamid Karzai, whose election to the presidential slot of Afghanistan for the second time had been silently opposed by India in opposition to Abdullah Abdullah, the Tajik titan, while Pakistan was reported to be in side with the former. During one of his visits to Pakistan, Karzai had passionately stated that “Pakistan and Afghanistan are conjoined brothers.” Today, he is again in India seen signing a strategic partnership pact. At the agreement signing ceremony, Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Indian premier, said that terrorism was being used “as an instrument of policy against our citizens,” again maligning Pakistan without naming it. “The deal,” he said, “creates an institutional framework for our future cooperation.” He also notified that agreements on energy and mining add a new dimension to our economic relations and that, “India will stand by the people of Afghanistan as they prepare to assume the responsibility for their governance and security after the withdrawal of international forces in 2014.”

The agreement should not be viewed and analysed on face value. There are yawning motivations for it. On the one hand, American people are too wary of the “3-trillion dollar” war, which brings home nothing but coffins of the American youth with not even a meagre yield of the gory toil in sight, let alone a politico-military victory. Americans want to go home in a state of stalemate before that it turns into a recorded rout or semblance of defeat. America’s drawdown diagram has upset both India and Karzai. India looks at the US presence in Afghanistan as a licence to its presence therein. For Karzai, the presidential palace is assured haven till such time that the Americans are operating at full strength in Afghanistan. If they go home, Karzai may have to take the last flight of US Army to run his restaurant in New York again. New Delhi too is not a bad option. This is how the interests of India and Karzai are seeking convergence in regional politics. Thus, the End-Game in Afghanistan is heralding a new Start-Game.

India is seeking an enhanced role in Afghanistan. It has already made noteworthy inroads into Afghan polity and society spending nearly US$2 billion out of the coffers that could have been spent on well-being of the socially deprived, economically underprivileged and homeless Indians who sleep in their millions on the footpaths of major metropolitans like Bombay, Kolkata and New Delhi. Geo-politics has prevailed over human security, courtesy to the expansionist Indian mindset. Anyway, Indian polity is leaving clear signatures that it is not going to leave space for anyone else on the podium of regional strategic speech-board. Certainly, it is trying to heap up political capital against none else but Pakistan. Principally, Pakistan cannot object to Afghan alignment with anyone including India. Yet, it has to keep note of any such move or arrangement that could breed a snake in its backyard. India understands that Karzai, though a Pashtun, does not represent popular Pashtun sentiment in Afghanistan. But a “strategic partnership” would keep the glow of India’s case alive under the ashes of history that could be set ablaze any time the sun of India’s goodwill shone in the heart of an Afghan polity in the days to come. This would let India keep a strong foot in Afghanistan. It has already deployed an Indian Air Force squadron on Ayni Air Base of Tajikistan. Deployment of one more on Bagram Air Base after American retreat would sound even more viable! India-Karzai agreement has also shown that they would continue to project “terrorism” as “instrument of Pakistan.” Actually, this is what all India wants Karzai to do; continue crying wolf and we would do the remaining part of the job.

What Pakistan needs to do under the present circumstances is not far from one’s reflection. It needs to create stronger-than-ever nexus with Afghan populace irrespective of their caste or creed. Meagre Kabul-Jalalabad Highway would not do enough to reach out to the spectacles of Afghan mind. They need more. Our politico-bureaucratic institutions need to think beyond political and military lines. There is abundant room along societal welfare line. It is indeed irony of the fate that while millions are Afghans are still living in Pakistan as refugees and their president, who too reportedly owns property in Quetta and Peshawar, goes and signs an agreement with India, which bears anti-Pakistan smell. We must remember that clock never clicks the same hour again in the gallops of history.

The writer holds master’s degree in Strategic Security Studies from the College of International Security.
 ____________________________________________________

 By Ehsan Mehmood Khan

Affairs, Washington D.C. and is pursuing M.Phil in International Relations from Faculty of Contemporary Studies, Islamabad.

ehsanmkhan@yahoo.com

(Statesman)

The real target of America

American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was termed by some serious thinkers and intellectuals as the first step of the big game planned to reach the atomic assets of Pakistan at the end. Such cautions from people having the ideological belief, had very little response particularly from the ruling secular elite of that time headed by Musharraf, who lacked the courage to demonstrate resilience to the American illicit pressure. The final goal of the Crusaders in Washington was the dismantling of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals for which Afghanistan was to be turned into a launching pad. The series of events and recent developments give a clear indication towards that direction. America’s top leadership, both civil and military, have been seriously engaged during the past few weeks to demonize Pakistan’s armed forces, specifically the ISI to be responsible for the attacks at the heart of Kabul on the important American centres, including its embassy. They have accused the ISI to be backing the Haqqani network which has been incriminated to be responsible for these deadly attacks from North Waziristan Agency of Pakistan.If we go back into the retrospect, we find that Taliban were all prepared for dialogue on the Osama issue after the 9/11 episode. America could have achieved its purpose of Osama’s extradition through diplomatic channels and by using the good offices of Pakistan. America turned down every peaceful offer Taliban were making for the settlement of the Osama issue and launched her attack against Afghanistan. Pakistani leadership took a U-turn and offered its full support to America by providing all facilities of ground, air and sea to the aggressor to haunt the empty handed Taliban in the name of ‘war on terrorism’. Musharraf did all this for the sake of prolonging his illegitimate rule with the American support. Some political parties (calling themselves as leftists), a group of journalists and intellectuals completely endorsed the American policies of aggression in the region in the same way they had done when the USSR had attacked Afghanistan in the early eighties. This group of journalists and political intellectuals ran their media campaign so vigorously that Pakistani rulers did not heed the least to review their newly-adopted track under the American threat of, “With us or with the enemy”. Dislodging the Taliban and haunting the so-called Afghan insurgents, America grounded herself deeply in Afghanistan with all her might aided by the NATO and other allied forces in addition to the Northern alliance and Karzai’s puppet administration in Kabul. America gave ample room to the Indian interference, both covert and overt, and the Indian RAW took a glaring and active anti-Pakistan adventurism on the Afghan soil in full connivance of American CIA. The sabotaging activities in the country, particularly in the KPK, the naked aggression against Pakistan on the vulnerable points through the border line and the insurgency in Balochistan are good indicators to that situation. She has been promoting the idea of terrifying the West and all the anti-Islamic forces of the atomic weapons likely to fall into the hands of terrorists. To travel through all her journey, America has discovered very rightly that there are three very important hurdles in her way to reach her final goal, the atomic assets of Pakistan. At the top there is a very trained and disciplined army filled with the strength of deep conviction (Eiman) which is a source of Unity, Discipline and Jehad, the slogan of our armed forces. Second to the armed forces we have a world top ranking intelligence agency the ISI. America and all the inimical forces of this ideological country have joined hands in propagating a very negative picture of these inevitable organs of the security of the country. Through the media war, the Western media in general and that of America in particular are busy in disseminating all types of disinformation in order to undermine the credibility and prestige of our armed forces and the ISI both. To make this notorious campaign more effective and ambitious there are certain people within the country who are aiding the efforts of these forces in exchange of dollars. These include the so-called commentators and analysts who are trying to attribute every evil and activities of terrorism to be the planning of the security forces and the ISI. If one listens to the two programmes of the VOA, the Pushto channel of the Dewa Radio and the Urdu programme ‘In the News’ (Aap Ki Duniya) one can easily conclude how the state-run programmes are misleading the world about Pakistan. The Pushto programme particularly promotes the hatred against the armed forces and also accelerates the negative thinking already existing in the form of provincialism and nationalism. These programmes are always attributing all negative developments to the armed forces and those political parties and groups which believe in the ideological structure of the country. The third main hurdle in the way of the enemies of Pakistan is the Tribal citizens of Pakistan, whom the Quaid-e-Azam had named as the hands-and-arms of Pakistan. History is witness to the fact that the present Azad Kashmir on the Pakistan side is a gift of these tribal ‘mujahids’ who had reclaimed it from the Hindus after partition. We also know that during these six decades we did not need deployment of any security forces on our western border since our tribal brethren were manning these frontiers without any remuneration. They had proved their worth as the unpaid, informal and traditional force with all their capabilities of thwarting any untoward aggression from the west. During the rein of the Islamic Emirate of the Taliban of Afghanistan our west was safe to an exemplary standard. To create cracks in the solidarity between our armed forces and the tribal Pakhtuns, America worked on the multi-dimensional conspiracies and created a gulf between the two organs, responsible for the security and solidarity of the country. Through manipulation of the situation in these areas by importing terrorism in the shape of Mullahs, saboteurs, suicidal bombers, target killers, invisible Raymond Davis etc the most patriotic armed forces were forced for confrontation against the ill-informed but undoubtedly equally patriotic tribal Pakistanis. America has been struggling through all this decade-long terrorist activities to widen the gulf between the two important elements of strength and solidarity for Pakistan. She seems to be successful to a great extent in her nefarious designs as is evident from her threats of unilateral action on this soil if we do not take up our sleeves against the Haqqani network, a nightmare for the American generals and the civil administration in the White House.We Pakistanis do remember that conspiracies against Mr. Z.A. Bhutto were hatched by the Americans and he was murdered since he boldly denied bowing before America on the issue of initiating the project for the nuclear arsenals. How can the same America see the atomic assets in the hands of Pakistan, considered by Israel and India as their arch enemy? The troika consisting of America, Israel and India has perfected all its offensive regarding reaching our nuclear installations. The network of terrorists established by these forces have been carrying out all their destructive activities in the mosques, funeral prayers, public places and every where it finds a chance. It makes no difference if all such terrorist acts are being carried out through the fugitives from Pakistan drained out as a result of Army action or the ones purchased from the Northern Alliance or more sophisticatedly trained the like of Raymond Davis. We had been very categorically cautioned by the Iranian President, Ahmadinejad in June this year that America has completely drawn out its notorious plan of attacking our nuclear assets. He had claimed to have this information through very authentic sources. Anyhow, the Pakistani rulers did not take this note seriously. Attacks of Abbottabad and on the PNS Mehran in Karachi were a test case and probably a rehearsal for the purpose under reference. We should see writing on the wall and seriously ponder over the situation since Obama has already approved American attack on our nuclear assets. In a complicated situation like this, the All Parties Conference convened on Sept. 29th seems to be an important event showing solidarity of the nation behind their armed forces for the defence of the country. However, the message conveyed across the spectrum was very weak and it did not mention even the name of America, who has created this dubious situation for us. It seems like an FIR, in which the name of the accused and the crime committed is missing. Under these uncertain circumstances, we need to review our past policies viz-a-viz our partnership with the US in the so-called war on terror. Some of the suggestions are as follow.We should bring all the mutually agreed items of action in a written memorandum prepared on the basis of equality as is done between the two sovereign states. We should redefine clearly and unambiguously all the elements of our engagement with US with clear conditions specifying the limits to which we can go.The limits to which both the parties can go should clearly be mentioned and the red lines indicated very neatly and conspicuously which should not be transgressed by any of the parties in all circumstances. The logistic facilities we have given to the US and NATO must be recompensed specifically mentioning every segment that is under use for the purpose.We should have a clear commitment and guarantee of the US that India must remain within the limits as far as her interference in the Afghan affairs are conflicting to our interest.America should fully guarantee that there will be no future armed incursion in our country as repeated many a time during the past few months on the borders of Dir, Chitral and Bajaur Agency. We should have a clear guarantee of the US Administration that there will be no secret agents on our soil. We should also emphasize on the Americans to take note of the activities of the Indian consulates working on the soil occupied by the American occupation forces. Any problem/issue arising between the two should be addressed through dialogue and finding mutual solution rather than to resort to threats and pressure.

 By Muhammad Faheem (Frontier Post)

America’s lost decade!

Insurgency in Afghanistan is gaining momentum, making things worse for the Afgan Government and US-led alliance. From 2001 to 2010 the US-led Alliance has suffered 2.169 casualties. In the last two years more than 7,400 attacks had taken place in Afganistan resulting in more than 2,400 civilian casualities. Public support of the US war in Afganistan is also waning the US, Afganistan and regional countries. According to a recent CNN poll, only 37% percent of Americans favor the war in Afganistan, and more than half of Americans belive the war has turned into a Vietnam- like quagmire.
____________________________________________________________

Air Commodore ® Khalid Iqbal

While Pakistan does not seek an all out confrontation with the United States, it is also not starved of the options to continue enduring a transactional relationship. Beside commonly stated reasons for American frustration, one major cause is Pakistan’s recent effort to look for alternative alignments within Asia. Recent diatribe by the American leadership was indeed a close call, hopefully the worst is behind us; however next American relapse, with spiralling effect, may not be far away. Incriminations hurled on Pakistan are rather serious. Waging of a proxy war is too sombre a blame to die down. America has indeed mouse trapped itself; these accusations would keep coming back to haunt it with snowballing effect. America will neither be able to swallow nor spit it. Descent on escalatory ladder would be much tougher than the climb. Process of strategic divergence that started with the Raymond Davis episode has reached its peak. Public hostility towards the United States has reached new heights, exposing inherent strategic incompatibility of Pak-US relations. A decade after 9/11, Pakistan is being asked the same question: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”. Going by this fixation, America has indeed lost a decade in fruitless pursuits.This time around American calculus is grossly out. Much has changed since 9/11. Thanks to American Machiavellian approach towards Pakistan, gap between the public perception about America and leadership’s policy evaluation about America is at its minimum. Expectations of buckling like a decade ago are misplaced. Given the spike of public antagonism, no political leader could afford to digress from collective national sentiment, at least publicly. Statements by the political leaders indicated that a national level consensus had evolved much before the convening of APC. Amid the prevailing confusion of jumping the fray by other countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and, India, visit by the Centcom chief was a mysterious one. In all probability he came with an ultimatum which triggered an extraordinary meeting of corps commanders which voted down any military operation in North Waziristan; thus limiting the turf for the APC. APC has formalised the national consensus; and sent across a strong message. Now, at national level, there is a need for the political leadership to fully assume the charge of Pakistan’s America policy and demonstrate that it could walk the APC talk. First ‘to do’ is to lower the tempers at political level and convert this crisis into opportunity.Pakistan needs to evaluate its options, which are numerous; and review the courses of action available to America, that are numbered. Nevertheless, none of the sides can afford a direct confrontation without enormous risks. There are compatible capabilities on both sides, Americans are aware that in any military confrontation, Pakistan has no option but to retaliate irrespective of the losses. Americans are well aware of the limitations of employment of raw military power and crude economic sanctions. America may not conduct conventional operations on Pakistani soil. It may encourage the cross border incursions by Afghanistan based militants to overstretch Pakistani forces. It is likely to conduct periodic special operations akin to Abbottabad attack to embarrass Pakistan’s military leadership, create an aura of insecurity amongst the general public and induce a feeling of helplessness amongst the political leadership.In addition, the US would focus on non-operational military punishment, by severing military aid and supplies. However, this will go back in circles to haunt America as it will curtail the combat prowess of Pakistani military to carry out operations in tribal areas. That is why Admiral Mullen told the US lawmakers that a “flawed and strained engagement with Pakistan is better than disengagement”. America understands that the relationship with Pakistan cannot be broken because of the constraints entrapping the US. A damage control effort has already been initiated by relevant American functionaries. It will be interesting to see, how America balances its compulsions and limitations. Pakistan cannot afford escalation, likewise the US also cannot up the ante unrestricted without the risk of reaching a point of diminishing returns. By scuttling the semblance of a strategic partnership, the US has already lost most of the leverage it had over Pakistan. Though Pakistan will not opt for escalation, it is prone to respond, in kind, to the US actions. The US could stop bilateral aid to Pakistan. But that is unlikely to hurt Pakistan too much. US aid does not help the government’s precarious fiscal situation in any meaningful way as only 12-15 per cent of the total amount is channelled for budgetary support. If $3 billion (per annum) in economic and military aid is disbursed fully, this accounts for less than seven per cent of the total foreign exchange earnings of the country. The increase in export revenues and remittances in the current year was almost twice that amount. As regards significance of the aid, World Bank data shows that during the previous five years, net Official Development Assistance (ODA) from all sources to Pakistan has averaged less than 1.5 per cent of its Gross National Income. Per capita aid from all sources in 2009 was $14 only! Severing of civilian aid would have only a 0.14 per cent impact on Pakistan’s GDP growth. These facts do not point towards any meltdown if the American aid is withheld.But the real concern for Pakistan’s solvency would be loss of support from international lenders like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF); both look towards the US before deciding, they may deny the requests until a nod by the White House.A candid estimate puts losses to Pakistan’s economy due to its participation in war on terror around US$ 70 billion. The US has provided $20.7 billion to Pakistan since 2002, which makes about 0.1 per cent of the American treasure spent on war on terror over the same period. The biggest head, consuming $8.9 billion, is “Coalition Support Fund”. However a sizeable portion of it remains un-remitted. The US is getting obnoxiously stingy on reimbursements of this fund, rejecting 44 per cent claims in 2009, as compared to 1.6 per cent in 2005.Beyond that lie export quotas, both bilateral and others: if the US declares Pakistan a state sponsoring ‘terrorism’ that would unleash a sanctions regime which will severely impact Pakistan. However, in view of the strong support by China, America will not be able to accomplish this. In case of an eventuality, Pakistan could respond by imposing corresponding transit charges of logistics flowing through land routes and slam a ban on transit of its military aircraft through Pakistani air space. This would literally choke the foreign troops operating in Afghanistan.Pakistan understands that it is not in its interest to allow terrorists safe havens or allow such elements to launch attacks on other countries from inside Pakistan. A number of meaningful administrative and military related suggestions have been made by Pakistan to control the trans-border movements; to which Americans have shown a cold shoulder. Pakistan needs to project itself as an agent of peace in Afghanistan. It is uniquely placed to facilitate a process of cohabitation amongst various factions of Afghan resistance. America needs to understand that it cannot continue to slaughter the resistance forces while paying lip service to the need for reconciliation. It is now amply clear that America wants to run away from Afghanistan at a faster pace than its advent. It does not serve long-term American interests to leave behind a stable Afghanistan, so it is doing all gimmicks to spoil the pudding. Pakistan needs to take appropriate measures to minimise the impact.

khalid3408@gmail.com