Learning from US follies

THERE has been an interesting and heartening development in Somalia. Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed has been elected the new president of the country by their parliament and earned UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s congratulations (Feb 2).

Here, it is important to recall a few facts. In 2006, Sheikh Ahmed, who is considered by all sides to be a moderate leader, had been at the helm of the Islamist group called Islamic Courts Union (ICU), which was fighting to oust the ineffective transitional government created by the US-led international community.

By December 2006 the ICU had taken control of much of southern Somalia and restored peace to the territory, bringing to an end the warlords’ thuggery and lawlessness of the previous 16 years. However, this had alarmed Washington which, as usual, saw an Al Qaeda connection, despite ICU’s denials, and so it pushed Ethiopia into invading its neighbour to kick out the Islamists. The Americans themselves launched air and sea-based attacks on some hardliners.

In this period, the militant wing of the ICU, named Al Shabaab, allegedly aligned itself with Al Qaeda and was, by last December, controlling 90 per cent of southern Somalia. The tragedy is, if the US had not intervened two years earlier to rout the ICU-led by Sheikh Ahmed, radicalism wouldn’t have gone through the roof, taking thousands of civilian lives.

Ironically, the US representative has now welcomed the election of the same Sheikh as the president of the Horn of Africa nation! This illustrates the senselessness of American policies. As in case of the Iraqi invasion, apart from the Muslims, many Europeans (think tanks and analysts) had been stressing the need to include the Somali Islamists in the power sharing, but Washington’s extreme paranoia about Al Qaeda et al makes it act irrationally in all such situations.

Consider Pakistan. For the past several years, the US has constantly sabotaged all attempts by Islamabad to sign peace agreements with the Taliban and other militants. On several occasions it even resorted to air strikes a day or so before the treaty was due to be inked, in order to provoke the volatile tribesmen and scuttle the event.

The result is a manifold increase in radicalism and the situation now is of intense mistrust and hostility between the Taliban and the establishment, which is unlikely to end for years, if ever.Another significant fact is that according to reports in a section of the electronic media of Feb 1 (partly reported in Dawn, Feb 2), Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of the British defence staff, has made several observations that are in line with what other British commanders and diplomats have been saying.

He said Taliban can only be defeated politically rather than militarily; that the American drone attacks on Pakistan are counterproductive and that the Karzai government’s weakness is causing difficulties for the British troops in Afghanistan, which implies problems for others as well, including Pakistan.

In view of these ground realities, it is extremely important for Islamabad to review its strategy for a war, which the Musharraf regime converted into its own, and the present government has been following suit. Premier Gilani felt constrained to observe in Davos and foreign Minister Qureshi, in different words in Multan, the other day that the American strategy has failed in Afghanistan. Apparently, in their hearts our leaders know the US game plan is bound to fail in the entire region, but are unable to oppose Washington’s dictates.

The front-page picture in Dawn (Feb 2) from the troubled valley of Swat showed a man carrying his elderly mother on his back to escape from the fighting in the area, which brought tears into my eyes. But, those who matter seem unmoved. Sitting at a distance in their fortified residences, they just can’t feel the pulse of these devastated souls.

Wherever the Americans have intervened directly or indirectly, thousands of Muslims’ lives have been lost at the very least, be it Algeria, Somalia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, while in Iraq nearly a million got killed. Why should the Muslims have to be guinea pigs for Washington’s psychological hang-ups and stumbling experimentation?

S. KARIM
Karachi
DAWN - Letters; February 10, 2009

Blogged with the Flock Browser

US, India and the 'K-word'

AFTER great expectations had been raised in Kashmir and Pakistan that the new American president would finally do something about resolving the Kashmir issue, it appears that India and its supporters on the Capitol Hill have been able to dissuade him from doing so.

According to a report, on New Delhi’s request the US administration has kept the dispute out of the portfolio of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke (Jan 31). It cites the Washington Post as saying: “Eliminating… Kashmir from his job description…” is seen as a significant diplomatic concession to India that reflects increasingly warm ties between the country and the United States.

The Post also reported that Indian diplomats, worried about Mr Holbrooke’s tough-as-nails reputation, didn’t want him meddling in Kashmir. Ambassador Holbrooke is nicknamed “the Bulldozer” for arm-twisting warring leaders to the negotiating table as he hammered out the 1995 Dayton peace accords that ended the war in Bosnia.

Also, in interviews to various US news outlets, Indian officials warned Ambassador Holbrooke against ‘any high-profile intervention’ in Kashmir, pointing out that it was so politically sensitive in India that it’s referred to as the ‘K-word’. Further, that India’s former national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra, has said that his country was never going to relinquish control of Jammu and Kashmir because “that is written in stone and cannot be changed.”

The Indians are free to make any claims but they are reminded that there is another ‘K-word’ that is even more indelibly written in the life of nations and individuals, about which they ought to know better than anyone else. The word is ‘karma’ and is now known to ordinary people globally more than Kashmir is.

For 60 years India has been trying hard to digest what it had forcibly tried to swallow but the situation is that today it can neither swallow nor expel something that is non-kosher for it. The deadly side-effects of this unlawful morsel include a violent resistance on the part of the Kashmiri freedom-fighters — the erstwhile Indian premier Vajpayee had himself acknowledged it to be an indigenous struggle — that has caused much pain to India.

A fair estimate puts the number of those killed (another ‘K-word’) since 1989 at 80,000 and the Mumbai attacks appear to be one more manifestation of the karma. Another, even more frightful effect has been the nuclearisation of the region.

It is time India stopped fighting reality and accepted what the world leaders and even some of its own intellectuals and peace activists are saying. The famous writer and activist Arundhati Roy had been very candid and correct when she wrote last year (Dawn, Sept 3, 2008):

“For all these years the Indian state has done everything it can to subvert, suppress, represent, misrepresent, discredit, interpret, intimidate, purchase — simply snuff out the voice of the Kashmiri people. It has used money…, violence…, disinformation, propaganda, torture, elaborate networks of collaborators and informers, terror, imprisonment, blackmail and rigged elections to subdue what democratic people would call the will of the people.”

This should leave no doubt in anybody’s mind about the third degree New Delhi has given to the Kashmiris.

Instead of expediently trying to please India, Mr Obama should join hands with other countries such as Britain that think alike on the subject and do something concrete to resolve the issue fairly, in accordance with the UNSC resolutions and wishes of the Kashmiris.

The international community should not allow India to let its desire to hang on to Kashmir it grabbed from its real owners and continue to compromise the regional and global peace by blackmailing even the superpower. This would actually be in the nation’s own interest as well as that of South Asia and the rest of the world.

QAMAR IQBAL
Karachi

DAWN - Letters; February 10, 2009

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tribal heads urge the govt. to change policy on FAtA

Nawa-i-waqt

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Bazid Khel Villagers up in arms against Taliban

Sometime ago, it was in the news that a Union Council Nazim is leading an uprising against the Taliban along with the villagers of 'BazidKhel' near Bara.

I wonder that this courageous act is getting any attention at all? Its a one-of-a-kind valiant effort of one village to stand-up to intolerable reign of terror unleashed by the Taliban.

A story by Daud Khattak, on one of the mailing lists goes as follows:

* Committees organise patrols by volunteers to guard against possible attack to avenge killing of nine Taliban

By Daud Khattak


PESHAWAR: The hujra (community guest house) of a union council (UC) nazim is abuzz with activity in Bazidkhel village, on the outskirts of Peshawar, where villagers had killed nine Taliban last week.

On February 4, the villagers had killed nine Taliban, who had come in two cars from the neighbouring Bara tehsil of Khyber Agency to abduct UC Nazim Fahimur Rehman, who is behind the villagers uprising against a Taliban group from Khyber Agency.

Following the Talibans killing, their groups chief had warned the people of Bazidkhel, through his illegal FM radio, of a bloody revenge.To guard themselves against a Taliban attack, the villagers have taken up arms and have started patrolling the streets of the village, 20 kilometres from Peshawar. Speaking on his FM channel, the groups chief had warned the villagers to hoist black flags on their houses, to show they were not involved in the killing of the nine men, or face a bloody revenge.

Volunteer groups: However, the villagers defied the threat and formed volunteer groups to patrol the streets to guard against a possible attack. A six-foot-high wall has been constructed just behind the main entrance of the UC nazims hujra. This wall has been completed to avoid an abrupt assault from the front entrance, said Rehman. On the roof, labourers were busy erecting a boundary wall, usually used by villagers to take cover during a clash.

Praising the courage and cooperation of the villagers, Rehman said, Let them attack and we shall come out with a tougher response.With an AK-47 assault rifle slung over his shoulder and his cell phone constantly ringing, Rehman claimed he had the support of the people from 28 union councils. Nearly two dozen armed men sat in the compound of his hujra. Others guarded the front gate while another group sat alert on the rooftop. Rehman was happy with the cooperation and support provided by the government and the police. Were going to meet the NWFP governor on Monday, said the bearded nazim, in his late 30s.He said Bazidkhel and the surrounding areas were known for their long-standing blood feuds but the groups attack threat has brought us together. He said all tribesmen had set aside their personal enmities and had joined hands to face the common enemy.

The local Taliban chief had said the nine men had gone to the village to attend a condolence meeting. However, the UC nazim claimed he had received threats from the group in Khyber a week before the February 4 killings. Rehman said the group had a support base in Bazidkhel before the February 4 incident. However, all the people were now united against the group, he added.

Locals said night patrols had been increased in the area and committees had been formed to oversee patrols by volunteers. Cell phones had been distributed among the village elders and heads of the committees for coordination and quick reaction to any eventuality, they said.

Pakistan's Valid Questions, India's Stubborn Response

ISLAMABAD, Feb 9: Pakistan has described the information provided by India on the Mumbai attacks as ‘insufficient’ to reach a logical conclusion and bring the alleged perpetrators to justice.

Reviewing a report prepared by the Federal Investigation Agency, the defence committee of the cabinet headed by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani decided on Monday that Pakistan would also send a dossier to India with several questions required for investigation into the case.

Official sources told Dawn that the dossier had been drafted and would be sent to New Delhi in a couple of days.

India, it may be mentioned, has categorically rejected Pakistan’s claim that the information contained in its dossier was ‘insufficient’ and announced that it would not provide any further information to Pakistan.

In its dossier Pakistan seeks reports of DNA tests of Ajmal Kasab — the lone surviving perpetrator of the Mumbai attacks and nine others reportedly killed by Indian security personnel so that they could be matched with their family members, if any, in Pakistan.

Pakistan, according to the sources, also seeks information about weapons used by terrorists and details of mobile phone calls made by them and reportedly taped by Indian security forces.

Pakistan also demands information regarding I P addresses from which emails were sent to attackers by alleged perpetrators.

In the dossier, Pakistan also seeks access of Pakistani investigators to the Indians who also were believed to be involved in the attacks in order to interrogate them. There is a strong realisation in Pakistani security agencies that without the help of elements in India, the Mumbai crime could have not been committed.

Pakistan also urges India to provide details about Indian Navy officials who were reportedly killed by terrorists when they violated Indian territorial waters.

Pakistan has also decided to register a case against perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to bring them to justice in accordance with the law of the land.

Full story on Ball back in Delhi’s court: Answer sought to queries raised in FIA report -DAWN - Top Stories; February 10, 2009


I'd say the indian response is premature and irresponsible as well.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Dialogue with Taliban not an option............

While it seems to be a good idea that Government should re-start negotiations with Pakistan Tehrek-e-Taliban (PTT), I have found an increasing opposition to this idea especially among my Pukhtoon friends.

Came across this article by Mateen Saeed ( a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy & a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo), written in response to Masooda Bano's article urging a settlement of the violence in NWFP thorugh dialogue.

This article is reflective of the same thinking. It is a parallel view to currently prevailing view, I guess coming from a Pukhtoon analyst, should be given an ear.

I start by quoting him from his email posted in a mailing list,

Masooda Bano's suggestion/formula seems practical if Indian model of Bandit gangs surrenddering arms to CM or high ups is kept in mind. Masooda Bano might have in mind great Bandit queen Phoolan Devi, who was latter elected member of indian assembly, all her crimes pardoned etc. Problem with Taliban is neither they are Bandits nor any affectee of Talibans has ever levelled any such charge. They are puritans but their purification is confined to female activities, music, barber shops etc. Although they are very sensitive about nizam adle but if we compare their adminstration of justice with the justice great Sultani Daku, Muhammad Khan Daku and many alike personalities delivered during their reign of terror, one wonders either it will transform into an effective judicial system or will wipe out with the elimination of Taliban monstors. Another problems with talibans is they are sensitive only about speedy justice, on the other hand, problems of majority in this so-called land of pure are health , pure water , communication , inflation, employment and host of other problems. What solution our great puritans ( Talibans) have for these issues.

Complete story at: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=160963

Excerpts:

Dialogue and peace deals with Taliban have been a recipe for disaster for the Pakhtuns. Take for example, the peace deals that were signed with the Taliban in North Waziristan. Despite their existence, killings are happening there, women are barred from applying for CNIC cards, female education and music are banned, and the entire tribal leadership has been killed or made to flee from the area. Furthermore, safe passage is provided often to sectarian terrorists to Kurram and Orakzai agencies and we all know what has been happening there. Journalists who have observed the negotiations and deals claim that usually there are two agreements – one written, the other verbal. The written agreement, if implemented, would in fact restore the writ of the government. The verbal version however is that both sides agree not to disturb the other which means that the Taliban can in fact do as they please as long as they don’t target the security forces. Unfortunately, it is the verbal one that is usually implemented.


and.........

How can one possibly have a dialogue with a person who believes that Shias must be killed and who has actually killed many Shias? How can one negotiate with someone who enjoys beheading people, and has beheaded people — like the Swat Taliban who every day announce on their FM radio the names of all those that they behead?

plus.......

In my view it is the less-informed analysts who are pushing for dialogue with the Taliban – the ordinary Pakhtun are most certainly not in favour of this. I may be criticized for this but I will also say that it is the less-informed analysts who seem to be making the same mistakes that contributed to the disasters of our past. Before the fall of East Pakistan, many non-Bengali analysts in the media were saying that soon the situation would be controlled and we know what happened then. I should also point out that I have come across many nationalist Pakhtuns who are so frustrated and angered that they would rather deal with the Taliban on their own or wouldn’t mind allying with other entities which display less of a reluctance to deal with this scourge head on.

Complete story at: http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=160963

Insurgency in Swat - An analysis

Here's an analysis of the Swat situation by Abdullah Saad (http://abdullahsaad.com), a must read:

Part 1, Part 2

The Extremists!!

By: Dr Muzaffar Iqbal

The oxymoron "Muslim extremists" was obviously coined by those who have no idea of who a Muslim is. By definition, a Muslim is someone who follows the middle path, the one who has proclaimed that there is no one worthy of worshipping except Allah, the Most High, and that Muhammad--upon him be peace--is His Messenger. This proclamation establishes a covenant between a Muslim and his or her Creator. By definition, a covenant is a formal agreement and a promise of legal validity. It is a volitional act; that is, there is no compulsion on any human being to declare the Shahadah. But anyone who declares the proclamation of faith simultaneously agrees to follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the most Noble Messenger, upon him be peace, both of which prescribe the golden middle path as the path of Islam.

These two primary sources of Islam contain a very detailed and elaborate set of instructions, guiding Muslims to the path that leads to ultimate success in the Hereafter. These two sources are stable, accessible, and totally transparent. They outline a clear code of conduct, provide examples of moral behavior in all situations one can think of, describe legal boundaries and consequences of following or not following the path of Islam. The foremost obligation of a Muslim is to remain within the boundaries established by Allah, for these boundaries of Allah (Hudud Allah) cannot be transgressed without severe retribution.

To protect life at all costs and to keep others safe from one's hands and one's tongue is one of the most important obligations of a Muslim. A Muslim, by definition, is one from whom no harm proceeds. This means that no Muslim can think of taking another life, for such an act will clearly push him or her beyond the sanctified boundary. Furthermore, the Qur'an describes the collective body of Muslims as the "Ummah of the Middle Path" (Ummatun Wusta), a collective body of human beings committed to the middle path.

These are not merely abstract ideals; they have been exemplified in the full light of history during the twenty-three year period of the Prophetic life of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in Makkah and Madinah. A detailed record of this period exists for all to examine. Obviously this historical record contains incidents where a Muslim failed to remain on the Middle Path of the Qur'anic teachings and the Sunnah of the Prophet. But these exceptions do not change the rule; they merely underscore human frailty and since the Creator in all His Mercy knows human nature, He has provided recourse to the repentant soul, and warned the transgressors who do not repent of dire consequences.

Given the clearly outlined Middle Path of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, one cannot be a Muslim and an extremist at the same time. Since the Qur'an and the Sunnah are unalterable sources, there is no possibility of anyone inserting personal opinions into these two primary sources of Islam. Thus, extremism can only be the result of misunderstanding the message, or of a conscious and willful distortion, or rejection of the teachings of Islam. This is how Muslims have traditionally understood all acts of violence and extremism. Since there are known and well-documented examples of individuals as well as groups who have behaved in extremist fashion, Muslim scholars have developed a complete schema of such behaviour and prescribed solutions.

Those who proclaim to be Muslim but fail to remain within the boundaries established by the two primary sources of Islam--the Qur'an and the Sunnah--are not called extremists, but Khwarij. That is, those who have left, gone beyond the limits. This is not merely a semantic distinction, it is a distinction of fundamental nature including all aspects of life. Furthermore, it is a legal distinction. The Law differentiates between a behaviour that is accidental and one that is the result of a distortion of beliefs. The distortion in beliefs (and hence in deeds) entails consequences for both this and the next world. The distortion in beliefs can take place even "in the name of Islam," as in the case of the Kharajites who rebelled against the Muslim Ummah and state during 690-730. Such movements are not common in Muslim history, but there have been examples of individuals and groups who have been afflicted with this terrible disease.

What Muslims face now, however, is a disease of another order. There has never been a time in their history when Khwarij have dominated the scene as they now do. And there has never been a time in the past 1,430 years of Muslim history when such an internal revolt was so widespread. What Muslims have today is a global movement of Khwarij of two types: there are those whose beliefs have been corrupted "in the name of Islam," and there are those who have become Kharajites because they have become "secular Muslims"--another oxymoron.

Both cases have produced the same result: extremists. Thus, there are two kinds of extremists: those who have left the Middle Path of the Qur'an and Sunnah, through a self-delusion they call "in the name of Islam," and those who have chosen to abandon it as a reaction to what they see in their societies, or because their belief has eroded through what they received as education. These two kinds of extremists now fill the foreground of Pakistan's national life, just as they are the prime focus of a global crusade launched by the United States of America to reshape the Muslim world according to its own needs and priorities and to secure its global hegemony.

Whether national or global, individuals in both camps of extremists now face each other in a clash that invariably results in violence. It is a random and undifferentiating violence that engulfs everyone who happens to be within its range. Innocent lives are thus lost in a conflict that has now become like a simmering war between two sets of modern-day kharajites. There are global shifts in the intensity of this conflict: at times it emerges in Algeria, at others, it dominates FATA or the Swat valley in Pakistan, or raises its ugly head in Iraq. But wherever it emerges, it has the same underlying source: a distortion of beliefs. It is, therefore, important to understand the roots and varieties of both kinds of extremism and explore ways to deal with them.

(This is the first of a three-part series of articles.)

Source: The News on Tuesday, February 03, 2009

[The writer is a freelance columnist. Email: quantumnotes@gmail.com]

Numbing statistics

By Muhammad Ali Siddiqi
THE statistics are numbing and mind-boggling and should make any Pakistani sit up: in 2008 the country saw 2,148 terrorist attacks, which caused 6,825 casualties — 2,267 of them fatal.

Suicide attacks alone killed nearly 1,000 people — 967 to be precise — and wounded or maimed for life over 2,000. Of the 63 suicide attacks countrywide, the highest — 32 — occurred in the NWFP, killing and wounding over 1,000 Pakistanis; 10 in Punjab (201, dead, 580 injured), and 16 in Fata (263 dead, 497 injured).

Compiled by the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, these statistics do not include those who fell in ‘operational attacks’. According to the think-tanks’ report for 2008, more than 5,500 people were killed or injured in operational attacks (a minimum of 3,182 dead and 2,267 wounded).

What is scary is the steady rise over the years in the number of terrorist attacks and the consequent increase in casualties. In 2006, terrorist attacks left 907 dead and 1,543 injured; in 2007 there was a quantum jump in the figure for the dead — 3,448.

If to those killed in acts of terrorism we add those who died in operational attacks, sectarian and factional clashes and US drone attacks, the total number of civilians and security personnel killed in 2008 comes to a morbid 8,000, with the number of the injured approaching 10,000. The grand total for 2008, thus, comes to 18,000 Pakistani people getting killed or injured in acts of political violence.

Is the world aware of this Pakistani trauma? Going by the doubts cast on our commitment to fight terrorism and the ‘do more’ litany one doubts if we have been able to inform the world what this country and its people have been going through for years. In fact, it appears as if, barring US Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Richard Lugar in America and Foreign Secretary David Miliband in Britain, very few top personalities in the policymaking apparatus in the western world seem to be aware of Pakistan’s plight and the scourge which terrorism has become for us Pakistanis in our daily lives.

Our post-Mumbai diplomatic effort has not been all disaster. It did indeed succeed in convincing the world diplomatic community that Islamabad was not involved in the Mumbai crime. However, Pakistan’s advocacy of its case was characterised by diffidence. It failed to show our justifiable anger over India’s attempt to obfuscate the issue, and often we appeared to be pleading rather than telling.

Has India suffered anything even remotely resembling Pakistan’s trauma as seen in the cold statistics above? The answer is no, but the world evidently doesn’t think so. What the world does is to view the situation in terms of the ‘safe haven’ which is supposed to exist in Fata and elsewhere for the Taliban. That deprives us of the sympathy we deserve.

Read full opinion at DAWN - Opinion; January 26, 2009

Blogged with the Flock Browser

War on Terror: Time to pull out?

DAVID Miliband’s assertion that the ‘war on terror’ was a mistake, together with Nato’s Secretary-General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer’s criticism of pro-American Afghan President Hamid Karzai clearly indicates a rift between Europe and America towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.

International relations and global realities have changed tremendously since 9/11. The war on Iraq has exposed the limits of American military might. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghuraib exposed the moral bankruptcy of American regime which tremendously weakened American political power.

The resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan is testing the commitment of International Security Assistance Forces. The conflict between Georgia and Russia and now between Europe and Russia over gas supplies has marked the return of a belligerent anti-western power to the international stage.

The Iraq war and the recent butchery of Gazan Muslims in Palestine have exposed the bias inherent in international institutions such as the United Nations towards the West and its interests. And, above all, the most severe economic crisis has hit the West and crippled its economy, shattering the core capitalist principles of free market economy.

All of these factors have weakened western powers and their ability to influence states like Pakistan. Now is the time for Pakistan to review its foreign policy and make radical changes in it. The challenge on the eastern front provides Pakistan a golden opportunity to make a case for pulling out from the self-destructive war on terror.

The Pakistani government has already indicated that it would pull out from the war on terror if India isn’t reined in by the international community. After the rift increasing between America and Europe over the war on terror, Pakistan should actually move beyond just sending signals.

MOEZ MOBEEN
Islamabad

DAWN - Letters; January 22, 2009

Blogged with the Flock Browser