Columns /editorials 20th September 2008

[NoToRi0uS]

Columns by various columnist & new reports.
Haroon Rasheed, Irfan Sadiqui & others.
Sar-e-Rah from Daily Nawai Waqat

[NoToRi0uS]

[NoToRi0uS]

[NoToRi0uS]

Pulao politics -- II Saturday, September 20, 2008
Sardar Mumtaz Ali Bhutto

The essence of the article by Dr Meekal Aziz Ahmed in this newspaper on Sept. 11 was that since everyone else in society is corrupt, what is the harm if we elect a president who is also corrupt. If this is acceptable then we have no right to call this country Pakistan. It should be called Corruptistan and, shedding all pretences, we must get down to the already advanced practice of murder and loot. This is pulao politics, the basic objective of which is to ride roughshod into power, or get as close to it as possible, for the sole purpose of making instant material and social gains. In pulao politics the people do not matter and the whole edifice of the state is balanced on the shoulders of the politicians who manipulate the people to land advantageous positions.

The general elections of 2008 unfolded a unique scenario: The absolutely disastrous eight years of Musharraf's misrule had brought people out into the streets demanding security of life and property, protection against corruption and inflation, an end to the war in FATA and Balochistan, and so on. Change had become inevitable, and this once again brought Shaheed Benazir Bhutto and her party into focus. The dismal state of affairs, the unprecedented publicity blitz and most of all the tragic murder of Benazir, gave the pulao politicians, who have hijacked the PPP, the chance they had been waiting for since 1996.

Instead of going into a long mourning period and following the tracks of the killers of their leader, in whose name they still thrive, her successors reinvigorated their election campaign to take full advantage of the reaction of the people to her murder. "Democracy is the best revenge," they said but did not explain how the killers of Benazir would be brought to book. No FIR has been filed and those responsible have absolved themselves by throwing the matter at the United Nations, knowing that it will be buried like the Rafik Hariri case.

The murder provided a chance to Asif Zardari to end the banishment imposed on him by his wife, reportedly for making a deal some three years ago with the intelligence agencies to be their man in the PPP. Not only that, he even produced a will which made him lord and master of all that his wife stood for. Given the background, this document was questioned by many, but by not the pulao politicians of the party, who had their sights firmly set on the rewards of power that lay just around the corner.

The PPP's electoral victory brought all kinds of people into lucrative high positions, including absconders abroad, as well as friends of the "Friend of Friends." Patronage at government expense stretches even to Zardari's servants, who occupy VIP rest houses and move about with police escorts. Meanwhile, anyone called Zardari seems to have assumed a status above the law. They are going and involving themselves even in things like depriving the poor fishing community of Chotiari Dam of their fish.

The PPP stalwarts seem to have forgotten that the vanquished masses did not vote for pulao politics, but for the apprehension of the killers of Shaheed Benazir and instant relief from the many agonising problems they face on a daily basis. Asif Zardari has chosen the prime minister, chief ministers, the composition of the cabinets, and ordered hundreds of postings and transfers during the last six months, but kept none of the promises made to the people. On the contrary the people have been told that promises are not sacrosanct, and that there is nothing final in politics.

Thus, it is not surprising that whereas 60,000 jobs were promised immediately after the budget in Sindh, 80,000 employees of National Council for Human Development have been sacked. In his first press conference as president (what a mess that was, made all the worse by the schoolteacher-like interference by the ubiquitous Sherry Rehman), Zardari grandly announced that following the legacy of Shaheed Zukfikar Ali Bhutto, his very first visit abroad would be to China.

True to form, he did a U-turn on that and scurried off to the UK. This is no way to treat China, which is the most reliable friend Pakistan has. It is not a good omen that the day before he took the oath, American troops landed inside Pakistan and conducted a lethal ground assault.

It has now been made abundantly clear by the Americans that they will not only continue to use drones against targets in Pakistan but also enter our territory at will. The nation waits with bated breath to know how the new "awami" president will deal with this.

The government is already at war with its own people in FATA, the NWFP and Balochistan. Is it going to take on the Americans too? The prime minister has already said that it cannot. There is no Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to declare that we will fight even if we have to eat grass. Pulao politics may fool people but it cannot guard the frontiers of the country.

Similarly, war has to be declared on lawlessness, corruption and the economic crisis. Pulao politicians have neither shown the ability or the inclination to deal with these problems. How can they, with so many skeletons in their closets? Lawlessness can be significantly reduced in a short span of time by simply making the police do its job of enforcing the law. But who is to do this? The "awami" government feels so threatened that ministers, and indeed the prime minister and president, cannot venture out without dozens of security personnel escorting them. Recently when the president came to Naudero there was a virtual curfew in the whole of Larkana district. A government that lives in such mortal fear and depends on the police for survival can do little to control its own malpractices and combat crime.

As for corruption, this is no longer an offence. Musharraf made it a part of our culture by allowing it to the extents that even those in jail or under trial for corruption were inducted into the cabinet, while his pets, the nazims, were given huge sums to gobble up with impunity, as long as they continued to be loyal to him. Those pulao politicians who have long observed such feasting from a distance are certainty not going to miss the chance now that it is their turn to gorge. And let us not forget the immoral and unconstitutional NRO which has cleansed those accused of murder and serious corruption, so that these offences are no longer an obstacle in the march to the highest positions in the country.

The basic formula for improving the economy is to spend less and produce more. The government is applying this in reverse. The greatest setback to the economy is the huge government spending resourced by deficit financing and massive borrowing. This leads to inflation and a fall in the value of the rupee, which in turn leads to high costs of imports and a deep imbalance in trade. There is also the menace of uncontrolled smuggling, in which not only the bureaucracy but politicians also are reported to be involved. With such vested interest at stake who will dare interfere?

Thus, all the evils are rooted in the practice of pulao politics which has a stranglehold on the nation and allows no improvement or progress. This is a vicious circle which can only be broken with the advent of an Ataturk, a Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or a Mahathir Mohammad. But there is no such person in sight.



The writer is chairman of the Sindh National Front.[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[NoToRi0uS]

US strikes and institutional disconnect Saturday, September 20, 2008
Rahimullah Yusufzai

The writer is resident editor of The News in Peshawar

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, thrust like most Pakistani politicians into a position in which he had no experience, believes rather naively that there is an institutional disconnect in the US government. It means he is of the belief that the Americans shouldn't have carried out yet another unilateral missile strike using the CIA-operated Predator aircraft in Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal region on September 17 following assurances the same day by the top American soldier Admiral Michael Mullen to him and other Pakistan government functionaries that Washington respected Islamabad's sovereignty.

One has to call Qureshi naïve. How come he forgot that a similar assurance was given by no less a person than President George W Bush to Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani during the latter's visit to Washington on July 28 and yet the same day the US military unilaterally struck once more in Pakistan's tribal areas with its ferociously named Hellfire missiles to cause death and destruction? Qureshi was there at the White House that day in his capacity as foreign minister and yet he wants to be forgetful of the promise that the US president made and broke within hours. He should know that the US administration doesn't function the way our wayward government and its institutions operate in Pakistan.

There is certainly no 'institutional disconnect' in the US government and it is time to realize that Washington has decided after reviewing its failed strategy to stabilize Afghanistan that this objective cannot be achieved without including Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in its new military initiative in the region. In Admiral Mullen's words, America's inability to contain violence in Afghanistan had forced its military commanders to adopt a more aggressive and comprehensive strategy that would cover both sides of the Pak-Afghan border. This new strategy would remain constant whether the US is ruled by President Bush or one of the two presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama.

Qureshi's naivety reminds one of his predecessor, Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri, who optimistically said on more than one occasion that the Siachen and the Sir Creek issues with India were about to be resolved and that significant progress had been made on solving the intractable Kashmir conflict. Under him, the foreign office was also hoping against hope that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would finally visit Pakistan by the end of 2006 or beginning of 2007. Political instability in Pakistan was certainly the major reason for Mr Singh not to visit Islamabad but one has to remember how our government was clutching at straws and beseeching the unwilling Indian Prime Minister to undertake that trip.

The Manmohan Singh visit is still nowhere in sight and now we have President Asif Ali Zardari remarking in his first press conference after his oath-taking that the nation would be hearing good news on Kashmir. Should we take Mr Zardari seriously after his famous comment that the Murree Declaration which he signed with Nawaz Sharif for reinstating deposed judges was politics and nothing more? Pakistanis definitely need some good news in these times of gloom and uncertainty but somehow most of them are unable to trust our politicians, particularly Mr Zardari. Already, cynics are saying that the good news that President Zardari promised was appointment of Maulana Fazlur Rahman, who knows a trick or two to stay close to the corridors of power, as chairman of the National Assembly committee on Kashmir.

Compared with the US determination to go ahead with its new military strategy to strike at will in Pakistan's tribal areas without taking the government and armed forces of Pakistan into confidence, one is appalled to note the disarray in the ranks of our rulers. President Zardari has yet to condemn the US attacks, which have increased in numbers and intensity and now include assaults by its ground forces. Strangely, he asked Britain during his private meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown in London to intercede on Pakistan's behalf with the US with the request not to violate its sovereignty and to stop its cross-border attacks in Pakistani territory. Why can't he discuss the matter directly with the Americans after having known that Britain has already backed the new US military strategy for Pakistan's tribal areas? Or was he unaware of London's position on the issue? It seems so considering the fact that President Zardari said after meeting the British Prime Minister that there would be no more cross-border US raids. Isn't it strange that he sought guarantees from the British for something that concerns the Americans? Perhaps, he got an assurance from Mr Gordon Brown of the kind that President Bush and Admiral Mullen had given earlier to the Pakistan's civil and military leadership. If this is how Pakistan is going to conduct its foreign policy then one can forget the rest and just pray to Allah to help us in our hour of need.

Not to be outdone, Prime Minister Gilani has been telling reporters about his negotiating skills which enabled him to convince both President Bush and Admiral Mullen to respect Pakistan's sovereignty and support its fragile democracy. In fact, the prime minister narrated how Mr Bush, in a rather imperial style, asked him about two wishes that he would like to make before the President of the United States of America, the most powerful man on earth in his capacity as leader of the world's only superpower. Our prime minister says he requested President Bush to grant his two wishes by supporting democracy in Pakistan and respecting his country's sovereignty by not launching unilateral attacks in its territory. He claims President Bush happily granted his two wishes and then publicly made this commitment before the media at the White House. How nice of the generous US president not to disappoint the new prime minister of close ally Pakistan that he accepted both his wishes in their first-ever meeting.

Encouraged by that encounter, Prime Minister Gilani excitedly told reporters in Islamabad on September 17 that Admiral Mullen agreed to issue a statement containing an assurance of respecting Pakistan's sovereignty following their meeting in which he reminded him that President Bush had personally made this commitment with him last July. It is another matter that both President Bush and Admiral Mullen even after granting the wishes of Prime Minister Gilani were unable to stick to their promise. It is possible that they found the whole thing funny because heads of state and government don't operate in such a manner. That is why their conscience wasn't pricked when they forgot the assurances that they had given to prime minister and went ahead with the task of securing the global strategic interests of the US by attacking the hideouts of Pakistan-based militants hostile to American designs in the region. In the process, they weren't bothered about violating Pakistan's sovereignty or weakening its democracy.

Contrary to foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi's argument that an 'institutional disconnect' in the US administration may have caused the Americans to give assurances to Pakistan and then bomb its tribal areas, he needs to do some introspection so that he is able to find out that it is Pakistan's government and its institutions that are suffering from the so-called institutional disconnect. His president is not ready, at least until now, to say something that could offend the US. His prime minister has declared that Pakistan cannot fight the US and apparently remains hopeful even at this stage that President Bush would honour his word after having granted his two wishes. His government's defence minister Chaudhry Ahmad Mukhtar after having initially justified the US cross-border strikes in Pakistani territory is now trying to overtake others in criticising the Americans. And then we have Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani who was the first to warn the US to keep its troops out of Pakistan's territory and in the process earned widespread appreciation of his people. However, his troops have yet to translate those words into action as the US drones continue to launch missile strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas, killing a few militants but a lot many innocent civilians, including women and children. One would not like the army chief also to sound hollow after having raised the stakes and created hope among Pakistanis that their armed forces were capable of defending the country's borders.



Email: rahimyusufzai @yahoo.com

[NoToRi0uS]

Nuclear double standards Saturday, September 20, 2008
Adil Sultan

The India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement is reaching its culmination phase after three years. While India still requires ratification of the 123 Agreement by the US Congress, legally it is now free to enter into nuclear commerce with other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), such as Russia and France. The consensus approval by the IAEA board of governors on Aug 1 was followed by a consensus waiver by the NSG on Sept 6.

The way the waiver was granted by the NSG has brought into question the legitimacy of the nuclear cartel, which was itself created as a result of India's misuse of civilian nuclear technology for developing nuclear weapons and conducting a nuclear test in 1974. According to Michael Krepon from Stimson Center in Washington, the NSG that required consensus approval for allowing nuclear commerce stands on its head, and "now it will have to be stopped with consensus." According to him, if India resumes testing the chances of termination of nuclear cooperation have been reduced – "because the two biggest beneficiaries of new nuclear deals with India, Russia and France, will want to continue business as usual."

While criticising the NSG waiver, Daryl Kimball from Arms Control Association (ACA) wrote recently, "The decision is a non-proliferation disaster of historic proportions that will produce harm for decades to come."

A realistic analysis of some of the arguments given by the proponents of the nuclear deal suggest that there are no tangible gains for non-proliferation regime and for India's nuclear power generation capacity. The promised foreign fuel supplies for Indian power reactors may increase its power generation capacity from mere 2.7 per cent to maximum of 7-8 per cent, but at the same time it will free up India's limited domestic uranium reserves to be used exclusively for bomb-making. Kimball believes that, "this will lead Pakistan to follow suit and help fuel the South Asian arms race."

Once the draft proposal was presented by the US to the NSG for consideration, around 20 states proposed more than 50 amendments and modifications. Some of the demands made by countries like New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway included specific clauses to be inserted in the NSG waiver warranting termination of nuclear commerce in the event of Indian nuclear test and no access to reprocessing and enrichment technologies that are not available even to some of the NPT member states.

While the US defended India's position vociferously and with no reticence at the NSG, administration officials gave a different picture to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

By following double standards at home and at the NSG, the US may have attempted to maintain high moral grounds at home by not deviating from the provisions of the Hyde Act and at the same time engaging itself in an offensive diplomatic manoeuvres to coerce and arm twist the 'naysayers' at the IAEA BoG, as well as at the NSG for extracting India-specific exemption -- to ensure that the deal does not get stuck at any stage.

The political expediencies that drove the whole process has made "civil nuclear cooperation" -- an instrument for achieving political ends. A non-NPT state with a dubious proliferation record could become eligible for civil nuclear trade, whereas some NPT member-states are denied civil nuclear technology, which is the inalienable right of every state signatory to the NPT.

The nuclear deal has the potential for India to make quantitative and qualitative improvement in its nuclear arsenal. Foreign fuel supplies for its civilian nuclear facilities would free up India's indigenous uranium stocks purely for making bombs. According to one estimate provided by former Indian additional secretary J K Sinha, the deal could help India produce 50 nuclear warheads per year.

If India does decide to make quantitative and qualitative improvement in its nuclear stockpile, it could lead to instability in the region. While Pakistan has officially stated that it does not intend to enter into an arms race with India but at the same time it cannot remain oblivious to a possible strategic imbalance once India starts to increase its bomb making capacity.



The writer is a security analyst pursuing his doctoral studies at Quaid-e-Azam University Islamabad. Email: adilsultan@yahoo. com

[kamranmuhammad]

Kia haroon rasheed nay Express news paper kaliye likhna chore diya hai??

since last couple of days i havnt seen his column in express newspaper. But here i found out that he is writing for Jang now.

[NoToRi0uS]

Editorials
The News
In safe hands Saturday, September 20, 2008
The safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear assets is a perpetual preoccupation of the western media, who apparently expect the imminent transfer or capture of those assets by the Taliban or other extremists. The level of interest in and anxiety about the security of our nuclear facilities will be heightened by a report from the American Institute for Science and International Security (founded by a former well-known UN weapons inspector) that Pakistan is close to completing a second reactor capable of producing plutonium and is well-advanced in the building of a third. The report suggests that once the two reactors are completed they will have a combined yield of plutonium sufficient to construct 8-10 atomic bombs per year; representing a considerable increase in the quality and quantity in the number of weapons in the state arsenal. Fears are voiced that as a result of this expansion of nuclear capacity the tension with India will be exacerbated and an India-Pakistan arms race will once again be under way.

Leaving the geopolitical issues (as well as those of proliferation) aside is there any real chance of Pakistan's nuclear assets falling into the wrong hands? For obvious reasons the details of security arrangements at nuclear installations both civil and military are mostly a state secret, but there is enough in the public domain to gain a good overview, and it is clear that Pakistan protects its nuclear assets much as any other nuclear state. The National Command Authority (NCA) was established in February 2000, and provides command and control oversight. Although not a party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty (NPT) Pakistan is a member of the IAEA and two of its power stations as well as two nuclear research reactors all operate under IAEA safeguards (but there are other nuclear facilities which do not). Its nuclear weapons have devices or systems installed on them that are there to prevent unauthorised use, and since 2004 all are fitted with a built in locking code known as a Permissive Action Link (PAL) similar to that used by advanced states. Additionally – and in line with other nuclear armed states – there is a requirement for the intervention of two (possibly three) people to confirm the codes before the weapons can be activated. Physical security for nuclear assets is provided by the Strategic Plans Division of the NCA, which has a security service of around 10,000 specially-trained personnel under the command of a two-star general. All facilities have in the last year had their perimeter fences upgraded and CCTV installed. The A Q Khan affair severely rocked international confidence in Pakistan's ability to manage personnel in the nuclear industry; and one of the benefits of the affair was a tightening of controls over the recruitment of personnel, and vetting is now reported to be exhaustive and carried out by several intelligence-related agencies. Politically, there is no sign of the Taliban or any other extremist group, getting within sight of the control of nuclear assets.

In short, Pakistan has a well-established nuclear security infrastructure, and at no time in the turmoil of the last two years has there been any suggestion that our nuclear assets were at hazard (though they will be high on every terrorists hit list as they are everywhere in the world) and they are no more 'at risk' than the assets of other nuclear states. Sadly, this reality is unlikely to be reflected in those parts of the western media determined to present Pakistan as a nuclear Bogeyman. Our nuclear assets and sites are in safe hands, and perhaps we need to be broadcasting that fact to our detractors a little more clearly and forcefully.
Back to basics Saturday, September 20, 2008
After a few turbulent weeks, the balance in relations between Pakistan and the US seems to have been restored. Assistant Secretary of State John Negroponte has stressed combined efforts between the two countries are vital to tackle terror and that unilateral attacks are unlikely to succeed. The fact that the statement comes immediately after similar remarks by the US military chief suggests everyone is finally thinking along the same lines and Washington has abandoned its strategy of greater aggression across the Pak-Afghan border. Indeed, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has also spoken out about the need to build cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan and emphasized that the US is anxious to prevent further civilian deaths. In purely military terms, the US is aware it cannot possibly succeed without Pakistan's ground forces, who have so far taken the brunt of the 'war on terror'. This is a point General Kayani has been at pains to stress. Indeed, since taking over as COAS, he has focused efforts on trying to improve the circumstances of life for soldiers at the lower level in the military hierarchy and by doing so boosting their morale. This of course is crucial in a situation where these men are expected to wage war against their own countrymen, often in hostile territory and against guerilla-style outfits against whom the Pakistan army has limited experience and expertise.

All this is important of course in the context of the overall war on terror. It is obvious Pakistan and the US need to work together. There is at present no other option. But the strategy needs to be clarified and widened. Pakistan's forces, in recent days, have been battling militants with renewed ferocity in Bajaur, Swat and elsewhere. While this has been criticized as an act of violence against citizens, the point is that people who break the contract between state and people by resorting to the most terrible offensives against it can no longer claim the right to protection. Forces must act against them. There is little choice, indeed no choice, but to wage a battle. But perhaps new fronts can also be opened up. There has been little talk so far about where these militias get their funds, their weapons, the hi-tech technology that enables them to run their sophisticated communication and propaganda operations. Some FM radio stations broadcasting their messages continue to run. In this area, the US can do a great deal to assist Pakistan. The channels of support, financial, technical and moral, that enable the militant organizations to function must be identified and cut off. Some of the funds are believed to be coming in from beyond Pakistan's own borders. Washington, during the course of its long battle with Al Qaeda, has traced out many routes used by the organization to gain access to money. It needs to now determine how the off-shoots of the groups functioning in Pakistan are kept afloat. The Pakistani authorities, in turn, can play a part in preventing the extortion from impoverished local people that helps the militants continue their struggle. The US must also offer support for other efforts. Seminaries where suicide bombers are trained must be closed down without further delay; propaganda must be met by counter-propaganda. Mosque Imams and other religious figures with standing in conflict-hit areas must be involved in this effort.

For the moment, Pakistan and the US seem to have worked out the terms of their military relationship. The tensions of the past few weeks are easing. But the 'war on terror' needs to be fought by opening up various fronts, and using such tactics to exert maximum pressure on militant outfits. In this the US can do a great deal to support Pakistan and ensure that the strategy worked out is one that can effectively lead to the Taliban being defeated while protecting the populations to which they present an immense threat.