AGL 40.20 Decreased By ▼ -1.30 (-3.13%)
AIRLINK 129.11 Increased By ▲ 1.11 (0.87%)
BOP 6.60 Increased By ▲ 0.34 (5.43%)
CNERGY 4.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-2.42%)
DCL 8.45 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.12%)
DFML 41.25 Increased By ▲ 0.56 (1.38%)
DGKC 87.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.90 (-1.02%)
FCCL 33.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.75 (-2.2%)
FFBL 65.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.43 (-0.65%)
FFL 10.54 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.19%)
HUBC 110.70 Increased By ▲ 2.00 (1.84%)
HUMNL 15.23 Increased By ▲ 0.77 (5.33%)
KEL 4.78 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (2.8%)
KOSM 7.83 Increased By ▲ 0.50 (6.82%)
MLCF 41.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.82 (-1.92%)
NBP 60.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.34 (-0.56%)
OGDC 182.80 Increased By ▲ 3.83 (2.14%)
PAEL 25.36 Decreased By ▼ -0.34 (-1.32%)
PIBTL 6.26 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (3.3%)
PPL 147.81 Increased By ▲ 1.66 (1.14%)
PRL 24.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.35 (-1.41%)
PTC 16.24 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.62%)
SEARL 70.50 Increased By ▲ 0.30 (0.43%)
TELE 7.30 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (1.11%)
TOMCL 36.30 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.28%)
TPLP 7.85 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.13%)
TREET 15.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-1.86%)
TRG 51.70 Increased By ▲ 1.34 (2.66%)
UNITY 27.35 Increased By ▲ 0.45 (1.67%)
WTL 1.23 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.81%)
BR100 9,842 Increased By 47.4 (0.48%)
BR30 30,036 Increased By 389.6 (1.31%)
KSE100 92,520 Increased By 499.1 (0.54%)
KSE30 28,786 Increased By 121.7 (0.42%)

Now that the parliamentarians would be back from the pro-longed Eid holidays, I hope the first thing on their agenda is an in-camera briefing by the government and the military on national security. (Though I shouldn't be mentioning military separately as they are supposed to be a part of the government, we all know in reality in Pakistan it isn't so).
President Zardari has promised this briefing in his address to the parliament. The issue is most urgent as it is seven years late already. When President Musharraf took the decision to support the West on an American threat, we had no parliament. Even after the 2002 elections when a quasi-parliamentary democracy was restored, the President did not feel it necessary to take the politicians along.
This was his major mistake. On the one hand going to parliament could have given Pakistan some flexibility and resistance against the American pressures. On the other hand the nation could have been told that the previous policy of supporting the Taliban and Jihadi organisations needs to be changed. But for doing this the establishment had to accept that the previous policy was wrong and counter-productive.
The national security policy, since the first martial law in 1958, is being crafted by the military leaders and not the civilian governments. Recent history shows whenever a civilian leader has tried to deviate from the script; he or she has been booted out by the army. When Ms. Bhutto invited Rajiv, appointed a retired general as ISI chief and tried to stop covert support for the Khalistan movement, she was shown the door.
In her second innings she was careful and went along with the idea of supporting Taliban, thanks to the advice of her Interior Minister General Babar (R). But she did not support the Kargil adventure plan. Mian Nawaz Sharif made a major break-through with the BJP led coalition government in India. The move was snubbed by the army by going in for the Kargil adventure. Mian Nawaz Sharif went along with this move fearing that the army may find him soft on India and Kashmir issue.
Before 9/11 the US government ignored Pakistan's support to Taliban and Jihadis who were fighting in India. Today's "Islamic Terrorists" were US government's allies during the cold war against the Soviet Union. US Congressman Charlie Wilson was proud of creating 'techno-guerillas' who were well trained in making all kinds of bombs. The same techno-guerillas are the master trainers of Afghan Taliban and Pakistani terrorists.
The changing mode of the US establishment can be gauged from the fact that the two US vice president candidates in a recent debate declared Iran and Pakistan as the two most dangerous countries of the world. They have taken their cue from Bruce Riedel. He is a senior fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, a retired official of the Central Intelligence Agency and a senior advisor on South Asia and the Middle East to the past three US presidents and Nato.
In his paper on Pakistan he proclaimed: "Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world today. All of the nightmares of the twenty-first century come together in Pakistan: nuclear proliferation, drug smuggling, military dictatorship, and above all, international terrorism. Pakistan almost uniquely is both a major victim of terrorism and a major sponsor of terrorism. It has been the scene of horrific acts of terrorist violence, including the murder of Benazir Bhutto in late 2007, and it has been one of the most prolific state sponsors of terror aimed at advancing its national security interests. For the next American president, there is no issue or country more critical to get Pakistan right, and which means developing a policy that will move Pakistan away from being a hothouse of terror. That goal, however, will be exceedingly difficult to achieve."
It seems that now the establishment has started realising that the India centric National Security Policy needs to be changed. Perhaps this time they have little option but to keep the Pakistani politicians in the forefront because their support is crucial for moving away from supporting Taliban in Afghanistan and Jihadi organisations intrusions in India. India has already emerged as an economic power and as an important economic ally of the West.
Stephen Cohen, Senior Fellow on Foreign Policy at Brooking Institution, is another influential expert on this region. He is an author of two well-researched books on Pakistan - 'The Pakistan Army' and 'The Ideas of Pakistan.' In a recent article after the Marriott blast he writes: "The army has to come out and support Zardari's strong statements in deed and in word (so far it has been silent).
In fact, Pakistan has to admit to itself publicly that it has lost control over a good portion of its own territory, and rather than belabouring the Americans (and soon, perhaps Nato) for intervening to hit at groups that have used Pakistan as a base from which to operate freely in Afghanistan, they must level with themselves and the Pakistan political community and declare that such outside intervention is necessary so that Pakistan can regain control over its own territory. Instead, the Pakistan public debate (again, conducted among a tiny elite), revolves around the protection of the saviour of the state, Dr A. Q. Khan, whose nuclear weapons are irrelevant against the real threat, and the intrusions of the Americans."
He further adds: "If Pakistan cannot face this reality then Washington should indeed look for other options. None are as attractive as Pakistan as an ally in the struggle, but they do exist. India was the first state to offer the US help after 9/11, and it is now operating in large numbers in Afghanistan itself... There are other possibilities as well, but Pakistan is the preferred ally in this war, as it has the most to lose if the Islamists should succeed. We will see soon whether they are willing or unable to act - I don't know which is worse."
So the message is either Pakistan should allow active intrusions of US and Nato for regaining its control over the areas lost to militants, or US will use the Indian option. Both the options cannot be part of Pakistan's National Security Policy. The US experts and administration should realise that intrusion of their forces in Pakistan is making life difficult for Pakistan Army and the new government, as it is resented by the people. As a matter of fact the ground reality is that most people think that US and Nato forces' presence in Afghanistan and the unproportionate collateral damages in which many innocent people have died is the real cause of suicide bombings inside Pakistan.
The internal threat to National Security is because the very people who were responsible for maintaining security in the country breached it by nurturing Islamic militants without realising its long-term dangerous consequences. It is, therefore, important they should destroy the bitter harvest sown by them with the support of the people of Pakistan.
The other option of using India in tackling Taliban's insurgency in Afghanistan again would be counter-productive for the world. This policy would push Pakistan to continue their support of Taliban to secure its Northern borders. This option would also be not effective as it is Pakistan which is the frontline state in this war and not India.
For Pakistani establishment and politicians now there is no option. It has to think about becoming an economic ally of India, instead of fearing it, and attempting to counter it in the region. No doubt the Kashmir issue has to be resolved. But it should be according to the wishes of the people of Kashmir and not as territory dispute between the two countries. Normalisation of relations with India is now an urgent need. This alone would help us to overcome our fear that has led us to chase the mirage of strategic depth in Afghanistan by supporting Taliban and Jihadis.
Arguments that we should defy the US like Iran are naïve. In the first place, though we are being bracketed as the most dangerous country of the world with Iran, our economy cannot sustain sanctions of the western countries. Secondly, Iran has been careful in not providing safe havens to Taliban. They guard their borders closely and do not allow Afghan Taliban to cross over like Pakistan. That we should defy US and its allies by further cementing relations with China is also not sound. Indeed we should further strengthen our relations with China and seek financial and military support from them. But when push comes to shove against the US or even India, the Chinese would not be able to help much. They have too strong an economic relation with both the economic powers.
All these factors call for a National Security Policy paradigm shift and to take a saner course keeping long-term interests of the people of Pakistan in mind. Objective realities of the regional world politics have changed. Those who do not recognise this or are preaching resisting this change are either naïve or suicidal. ([email protected] Blog: www.babarayaz.wordpress.com)

Copyright Business Recorder, 2008

Comments

Comments are closed.