Libya: Seif al-Islam Gadhafi captured

Yahoo News
TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — Moammar Gadhafi's son Seif al-Islam has been captured in southern Libya, a Libyan militia commander said Saturday.
Bashir al-Tlayeb of the Zintan brigades told a press conference that Seif al-Islam was captured with two aides trying to smuggle him out to neighboring Niger.
Read More

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi captured in Libya-Guardian

Kadhafi's son Seif arrested: NTC

'Gaddafi's son captured' in Libya--BBC

Libyan commander tells reporters Seif al-Islam Gadhafi arrested in south Libya--Washington Post

Gaddafi's son Seif arrested: NTC--Hindustan Times

Staying focused

Hopeful eyes watched as the 17^th meeting of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) kicked off in Addu, Maldives, yesterday. Indeed, more closely monitored and analysed will be the meeting between the ministers and prime ministers of India and Pakistan on the sidelines of the summit. Already the upbeat statements of foreign ministers S M Krishna and Hina Rabbani Khar have been widely reported as further signs of thawing of relations between the two arch rivals. Without doubt the Pakistan government’s decision to grant Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India just weeks ahead of the summit set the tone for constructive developments in bilateral relations. The sweetener was the civilised and professional manner in which an Indian helicopter that had strayed into Pakistani territory recently was returned to India within hours.

The lack of cooperation between India and Pakistan is viewed as having been the stumbling block to SAARC developing into an effective regional organisation thus far. Having come into being 26 years ago with the aim of improving the quality of life for the South Asian population, which now stands at 1.5 billion, SAARC has achieved anything but that. One raison d’être of SAARC was expansion and promotion of regional trade, which too remains dismally low in comparison to both global trade as well as intra-regional trade in other regions of the world. When compared with other regional organisations like the European Union (EU), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), SAARC and the South Asia Free Trade Agreement  (SAFTA) have miles to go, despite their being not just the obvious answer to enhancing regional prosperity, but vital to it. Clearly, the opposition from certain lobbies within Pakistan, who wish to continue making the Kashmir issue a stumbling block to bilateral cooperation with India, is peddling a logical absurdity. The government has rightly ignored these lobbies in trying to move forward towards a constructive relationship with one of Pakistan’s immediate neighbours that is emerging as an economic giant with a huge potential market for Pakistani goods and services. It is unfortunate that when these lobbies find themselves left out in the political cold, they resort to souring the relationship via other means, and bringing to a screeching halt any meaningful progress in cooperation between India and Pakistan. The bilateral peace dialogue between India and Pakistan was suspended after the Mumbai attacks of 2008 when Pakistan-based terrorists brought carnage to India’s business and commercial capital, killing over two hundred people. It has taken close to three years for India’s anger and wounds to heal enough for it to restart a dialogue with Pakistan. More importantly, there is a realisation on the Indian side of terrorism being a common enemy and scourge that both countries need to fight together. This was borne out by SM Krishna’s statement with regard to the trust deficit between the two countries shrinking and a need for them to look at a ‘joint strategy’ to fight terror.

It is to be hoped that this year’s summit does indeed help in ‘building bridges’ between the SAARC countries. These bridges of physical connectivity, free trade and increased economic integration and interdependence have been long awaited by the peoples of the region, who want to live in peace and prosperity. It is time the governments rose to the occasion, setting aside their domestic political imperatives and moving forward in realising the dream of reviving the historical grand Silk Route. Given the fragile nature of the newfound positive direction of Indo-Pak relations, it is critical that India and Pakistan keep their eye on the ball to prevent this momentum from becoming another missed opportunity.

Pakistan decision to declare India MFN state-Paradigm shift

In a widely hailed decision, the cabinet unanimously approved Most Favoured Nation status for India on Wednesday. The decision deserves unreserved commendation, and were the PPP government to consider this as one more jewel in its crown, one would not grudge it. Business communities in both countries have welcomed the move. It is clearly a win-win move, which should have come years ago, especially in view of the fact that India granted this status to Pakistan 15 years ago. The fact that MFN is reciprocal in nature, i.e. trade privileges granted by one party extend to a reciprocating party, has meant that by not granting this status to India earlier, Pakistan has been hurting its own potential for export to India all these years. Meanwhile, India has come across as the more pragmatic country. Pakistani businessmen admit to having eyed Indian markets for a long time, especially given the plummeting purchasing power of consumers at home. MFN status for India should prove to be a sorely needed boost for local industry. Currently, official trade between the two countries stands at a paltry $2.7 billion, a fraction of the potential that may be assessed by contrasting this with last year’s Pak-China bilateral trade of $ 9 billion.
Today, the level of trade between neighbours Afghanistan, Pakistan and India is amongst the lowest level of regional trade anywhere in the world. No doubt, this bleak state of affairs is a legacy of the historic enmity between Pakistan and India, and the 30 year war in Afghanistan. In a larger context, the granting of MFN status to India is one of the crucial steps forward towards expanding regional trade and connectivity and placing Pakistan at the centre of it. Without the creation of positive ties with our immediate neighbours, such an outcome would be impossible. Opening up of trade and liberalisation of visas between Pakistan and India, especially for the business and tourism industries, lays the foundations for Pakistan serving as a strategic link on the new Silk Route from Central Asia through to India, with Pakistan benefitting not only from direct trading, but also transit fees.
It is a relief that at least one of the two players perceived to be against normalisation of ties with India is now on board. The Pakistan Army, which has traditionally held the reins of foreign as well as security policies of the country even during ‘democratic’ times, backs the move. The other, the religious lobby, remains obstinately opposed. Religio-political parties have once again raised the Kashmir issue, denouncing the MFN decision as hurting the Kashmiris’ cause. One might ask them how much help fighting wars, creating movement barriers and blocking trade has been to that cause in the last 64 years. They must give peace a chance now, and understand that interdependence of trade and the economy is key to regional peace and prosperity. Bilateral trade or a lack thereof, never has, and never will be an agency to Kashmiri freedom. As for the PML-N voicing its opposition to MFN status for India, the less said the better. It smacks of opposition for the sake of opposition. At least the party should have found a better reason for raising objections than ‘not being consulted’. It would be better for PML-N to realise that such statements only serve to strengthen perceptions of its increasing political isolation and consequent desperation. Such ill advised and ill timed statements could also potentially distill an impression of PML-N favouring politicking over national interest at a critical juncture in Pakistan’s history.
One would hope for this move to prove itself as the first step in a paradigm shift towards a relationship of mutual benefit to both India and Pakistan, and help to dull the bitterness of having fought three wars that benefited neither country’s economy or people.

An exercise in futility

As expected, the knots and tangles in Afghanistan during the so-called anti Soviet jihad and, more recently, the war on terror and the ensuing confusions felt not just by observers and allies but also the policy makers themselves are not proving easy to undo. The many layers of secrecy have left the truth almost unrecognisable and the heavy investment in the business of deception is now paying its dividends. The conference in Turkey, aimed at restoring at least some modicum of a working relationship amongst the stakeholders, is fast proving to be an exercise in futility.
The Pak-Afghan-US nexus in the war on terror is turning out to be more complicated than anticipated. The three allies have learnt from a fairly long experience that they cannot perform independently in the region. In this scenario, Turkey’s efforts for mediation between Pakistan and Afghanistan to bridge the trust deficit between the two neighbours are to be appreciated, but so far only mouthings in principle do not promise to activate a unanimous consensus or action in Afghanistan by all parties. The standoff between the US and its major ally Pakistan is going to last longer until the Pakistani military feels its interests in Afghanistan are secure. The US in its haste to get its objectives in Afghanistan achieved by 2014, wants Pakistan to remove its support and act decisively against the Haqqani network-led militants who are carrying out attacks on the US-led NATO forces from their sanctuaries across the Durand Line. The Kabul government, too, resents Pakistan’s support to the ‘terror groups’. Afghan President Hamid Karzai reiterated at the beginning of the Istanbul conference that terrorists continue to have sanctuaries outside of Afghan borders, from where they launch attacks on Afghanistan. The trust deficit is evident from President Karzai’s statement despite his meeting with President Zardari, which the Turkish leadership especially arranged between the two only a day earlier in Istanbul, that he would now only talk to Pakistan and not the Taliban. On the other hand, the Pakistani military establishment does not want to lose its interests in the region based on the doctrine of strategic depth. They are highly inimical to the Kabul government’s strategic deal with India, the archrival of Pakistan. Pakistan is averse to any peace plan for Afghanistan that includes India in it. The US wanted to get a draft of a regional security system prepared at the Istanbul conference, which could not be brought up due to the unplanned absence of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the event at the eleventh hour. However, Pakistan and some other participating countries, due to persisting differences amongst them, had already opposed the proposal for creating a regional security mechanism.
Both Pakistan and the US have huge stakes in Afghanistan. The Pakistani military establishment wants to secure its western border, while the US wants to stabilise the pro-US Kabul government to manage regional politics as per its wishes. However, the people of war-torn Afghanistan should have the prerogative to decide the future they deem is good for them. Through this grand Istanbul conference aimed at drawing up Afghanistan’s future, no breakthrough is expected. The politics of deception is still there. Our GHQ leaders do not seem impressed by the Kabul government’s demand to ‘move beyond words.’ Until the governments in Islamabad, Kabul and Washington unanimously carve out a post-withdrawal settlement that satisfies the contradictory goals of all of them, all these efforts would remain pretty much an eyewash.

Of change and alternatives

Sunday, October 31 saw two rallies in Pakistan’s two largest cities. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) held a huge rally in Karachi, which was dubbed ‘Democracy and Stability of Pakistan Rally’. That a party known for its opportunism and supporting military dictatorships came out on the street in support of democracy is ironic. The MQM, along with a delegation from the PPP, protested against Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s derogatory language against President Zardari at a PML-N rally in Lahore the other day. MQM chief Altaf Hussain addressed the rally from London and attacked the PML-N and the Sharif brothers. The language Shahbaz Sharif used against the president is condemnable, but expecting principled politics from the MQM that has quit the PPP’s coalition government on several occasions in the past three years can hardly be taken seriously.

Lahore also witnessed a rally on Sunday. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) rally was held at Minar-e-Pakistan, the symbolism of the location not being lost on anyone. It was a massive rally with over 100,000 people who came to show their support for PTI chief Imran Khan. That the PTI managed to attract one of the biggest crowds in Lahore in over two decades – over a million people came to Benazir Bhutto’s rally in Lahore back in 1986 – without the help of any government machinery must be recognised. It goes to prove that the people of Pakistan are disillusioned and fed up with the political class across the board. In reaction to the void created by the ruling incumbents, the people are looking for change. Anybody who comes along and seems to give a different message is bound to gain some traction. It is not so much that the things Imran Khan is saying are resonating with the people but the fact that he presents a possible alternative to the dreary spectrum in the next elections. Add personal charisma and hero worship and Imran Khan comes out as a seemingly ideal candidate for ‘change’. Mr Khan’s speech started with attacks against President Zardari and the Sharif brothers. His repetition of the false story pertaining to Ambassador Husain Haqqani about a nonexistent letter was uncalled for. Mr Khan should not bend facts to suit his case. On the domestic front, Mr Khan’s politics revolves around mainly two issues: elimination of corruption and systemic administrative structural change. Even if Mr Khan somehow manages to end corruption, is there any guarantee that the existing system will not regenerate it? How the PTI intends to save our economy is something that is virtually conspicuous by its absence in its programme. Mr Khan talked about the patwari (land record officer) system and the thana (police station) culture, but provided only half-baked solutions. Giving superficial solutions is a sign that Mr Khan has failed to recognise the actual depth of the problem. He needs to come up with better plans. Once again Mr Khan talked about reconciliation with the Taliban. He needs to be reminded that more powerful people and forces have tried this policy and failed. How can we expect those who kill and maim innocents for their fanatical objectives to think rationally?

Imran Khan talked about the rights of the Baloch and ending the ongoing military operation in Balochistan. How he plans to persuade the army and the FC to end their kill and dump policy is anyone’s guess. While he talked of educating women and the rights of minorities, he did not talk about the discriminatory laws that are loaded against women and religious minorities. He also failed to talk about the persecution of the Ahmedis and sectarian conflict. Mr Khan’s main targets were the politicians. By keeping quiet about the military’s role in Pakistani politics and the consequent mess we are in today, Mr Khan has certainly aroused suspicion. Many believe he has the blessings of the establishment.

The jury is still out on whether to call the success of PTI’s rally a game changer or not. PTI lacks the required party machinery and electable candidates. Mr Khan also made some tall claims, such as calling for civil disobedience and shutting down the cities if the politicians in power do not reveal the full extent of their wealth, but on this he may well be tested in the coming months. While the successful rally has added weight to Imran Khan’s political standing, the next general elections will show whether the PTI is able to translate a successful rally into parliamentary strength.

Afghanistan’s future

Pakistan’s position in the international arena has seen better days. Now our country is viewed as a pariah state responsible for sponsoring terrorism across the border. Despite the military establishment’s denials about not having any decisive influence over the Taliban and therefore a critical impact on Afghanistan’s future, Pakistan’s overt and covert support to the Afghan Taliban is no secret. In an interview, Major-General Athar Abbas, Director General (DG) of the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), said that Pakistan has “not been informed and not been taken into confidence on a possible roadmap or a practicable shape of the [Afghan] reconciliation process so far”. He was also critical of the BBC documentary about Pakistan’s double game in the war on terror. “We consider that report highly biased, it is one-sided, it does not have the version of the side which is badly hit or affected by this report. Therefore…it is factually incorrect,” Major-General Abbas said. Nobody expects that our military establishment would admit to playing this double game but to think that the world would buy their ‘denials’ is also naïve to say the least. On the other hand, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced tough questions from the US House Foreign Affairs Committee over the State Department’s willingness to negotiate with the Taliban. “So which is it, Madam Secretary, crackdown or negotiate with the Haqqani network or a little bit of both?” asked the Republican committee chair. “It is both. We want to fight, talk and build all at the same time,” answered Ms Clinton. It seems that even in the US, there are reservations about the Afghan reconciliation process.

While the Obama administration wants to reconcile with the Afghan Taliban, in Pakistan it has increased the frequency of drone strikes. This might be their way of pressurising the Afghan Taliban to come to the negotiating table while also trying to end Pakistan’s support for them. But drone strikes have not worked to the US’s advantage. It has increased anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and the militants and the right wing forces have taken advantage of this sentiment. Negotiating with the same Taliban the US helped dislodge would result in dire consequences for not just Afghanistan and Pakistan but the entire region. We should not forget that the Taliban are a barbaric force. If they are back in power in Afghanistan, there is no guarantee they would not host al Qaeda again. They have already provided sanctuaries to the Pakistani Taliban and once back in power would not hesitate to do so again. Pakistan cannot afford a Taliban rule once again despite the distinction given to them by our military establishment.

What is now needed is a new approach. The obvious way to bring back peace in the region is to adopt a three-pronged strategy. One, withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. Two, eliminating safe havens on both sides of the Durand Line and sending the militants back to their countries of origin. This will end proxy jihad and bring stability back to the region. Three, end interference of all regional and world powers in Afghanistan and let the Afghan people settle their own affairs. It would eventually lead to Afghanistan returning to its 19th century status of a buffer state, with the significant and beneficial new factor that it can now act as a trade and energy corridor for the region.

Nusrat Bhutto-A life of struggle and tragedy

In the death of Begum Nusrat Bhutto, the country has witnessed nothing less than the passing of an era. Begum Bhutto was perhaps the last representative within the past or present leadership of the PPP of the original élan of the party – left wing and anti-imperialist. All that has by now given way to the PPP being swayed by the currents of our times. The change in the party’s ideology could perhaps be traced to the moment when, partly because of ill health, Begum Bhutto was removed as the chairperson for life of the PPP and replaced by her daughter, Benazir Bhutto.

In a life that saw both highs and lows, and was never far from struggle and tragedy, Begum Bhutto was the bulwark of support for her husband Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) and after him, to her daughter Benazir. When ZAB was executed in 1979, many erstwhile leaders of the PPP abandoned him in the face of actual or threatened repression by the military dictatorship of General Ziaul Haq. Cometh the time, cometh the man, or in this case, woman. Begum Bhutto rose to the challenge, filling the void left by ZAB’s departure from this world, assumed charge of and the chairpersonship of the PPP in 1979, a post she held with great distinction until 1983. It is in this fraught period in the country’s history, when the horizon had darkened with the draconian repression by the Zia dictatorship, that she launched a determined and heroic struggle against the military regime. During this struggle, she suffered incarceration repeatedly and even physical abuse at the hands of the dictator’s minions. Undeterred, she pulled off the remarkable feat of uniting a broad spectrum of political parties to launch the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD). The movement was put down ruthlessly with an iron hand by General Zia. Around this time, Begun Bhutto was diagnosed with suspected cancer and allowed to leave the country for treatment abroad. She was a rock of support for her daughter Benazir in her captainship of the PPP from then on.

As though the fate of ZAB was not enough, she faced a continuing series of tragedies of Shakespearean dimensions. First her younger son, Shahnawaz Bhutto was murdered by poisoning by Zia agents. In 1996, her elder son and the apple of her eye, Murtaza Bhutto, was gunned down in Karachi by the police. That was not the end of the Bhutto family’s unprecedented record of tragedies. Benazir herself was gunned down in Rawalpindi after her return from exile abroad. It is not clear whether Begum Bhutto was either told or was aware of the death of her daughter, since by 2007 her Alzheimer’s is said to have rendered her unable to comprehend. A further tragedy was that Begum Bhutto, torn between loyalty to her daughter and the political ambition of Murtaza, cast her lot in with the latter. His killing is said to have so affected her that she not only retired from public life, but reconciled with Benazir and lived out the rest of her days in exile in Dubai.

While the respect Begum Bhutto was held in is reflected in the non-partisan tributes flowing in from all political parties and leaders, naturally it is the PPP, and especially its workers, with whom Begum Bhutto always retained a special rapport, who feel bereft. The prime minister announced a national holiday on Monday, the day of her funeral, and 10 days of mourning. The president, her son-in-law, awarded her the title of Madir-e-Jamhuriat (Mother of Democracy) and a Nishan-e-Pakistan for her services to democracy and the country. The Sindh PPP announced 40 days of mourning. The party has suspended all political activities throughout the country.

While the outpouring of grief for a great lady and great leader fill the air, her death could not, unfortunately, heal the divide in the Bhutto family. Murtaza’s widow Ghinwa and his daughter Fatima objected to her body not being allowed to come to her home in 70 Clifton, Karachi, or Al-Murtaza, Larkana, although they did travel to Garhi Khuda Bux for Begum Bhutto’s last rites. We do not know what Begum Bhutto would have made of the continuing feud in the family or the very different direction the PPP has taken from the party her husband founded and she steered through very difficult times. Perhaps it would not be far off the mark to surmise that she would have been somewhat disappointed by both. Be that as it may, while death comes to us all, the passing of some is a greater moment than others. Without fear of contradiction, one such was Begum Nusrat Bhutto, the epitome of grace under pressure and immense courage.

Beginning of a charm offensive

Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s recent interview with a local TV channel has been making headlines in the region. Talking about an attack on Pakistan by either the US or India, President Karzai said, “Anybody that attacks Pakistan, Afghanistan will stand with Pakistan. Afghanistan will be a brother of Pakistan. Afghanistan will never betray a brother.” When chairman Afghan Peace Council, Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani, was assassinated, the Afghan intelligence pointed at Mullah Omar’s Quetta Shura as being responsible for the suicide attack. President Karzai then said that instead of talking to the Taliban directly any more, Afghanistan would talk to Pakistan, implying that our military establishment controls the Afghan Taliban. It seems that Mr Karzai’s recent interview is in a way trying to placate Pakistan’s military establishment. This is nothing short of a charm offensive where the Afghan president is trying to persuade Pakistan to soften its position vis-à-vis strategic depth in Afghanistan. “Please stop using all methods that hurt us [Afghanistan] and that are now hurting you [Pakistan]. Let’s engage from a different platform, a platform in which the two brothers only progress towards a better future in peace and harmony,” said President Karzai. This is a clear reference to Pakistan’s overt and covert support to the so-called ‘good’ Afghan Taliban. Mr Karzai is right when he says that this policy has not just hurt Afghanistan, Pakistan is also paying the price of supporting terrorists. By differentiating between the Afghan Taliban and the local Taliban, Pakistan has made a big mistake. The attacks from across the border by the local Taliban should be proof enough for our military that the Afghan Taliban are not just harbouring the Pakistani Taliban but helping them with their attacks on Pakistani soil.
On the other hand, the US seems keen on negotiating with the Taliban. When asked whether the US expects Pakistan to militarily tackle the Haqqani network or force them to the negotiating table, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “It’s more the latter.” There is now an emerging consensus internally, regionally and internationally that peace and stability will return to the South Asian region through talks and a political settlement with the militants. Ten years after fighting the Taliban in difficult conditions, the US-led NATO forces have not been able to crush them. Other options were first explored but later General Petraeus’ surge approach did not work. The key to a settlement in Afghanistan lies with the Pakistani military, which is what Afghan President Karzai also hinted at. He was not addressing the Gilanis and the Zardaris when he talked about Pakistan. That our security establishment has been stoking insurgency inside Afghanistan is no secret. If our military remains recalcitrant and stubborn by not stopping this insurgency, a new civil war in Afghanistan is all but inevitable. Even though peace deals have not worked out in the past and we do not know at this poinyt whether they will be successful in the future, a political settlement may lead to the elimination of safe havens on both sides of the Durand Line. It is hoped that a combined strategy of political and military means will bring back peace in the war-torn region. It is equally important to root out safe havens from both sides of the border. The Afghans deserve peace after decades of civil war, a barbaric Taliban regime and a 10-year-long war. Pakistan, too, needs to put an end to its flawed policies if peace, stability and progress are to be achieved.

“Days and weeks”

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Islamabad from her interaction with the Afghan leadership in Kabul and in the backdrop of the tensions between Pakistan and the US, stemming from a series of events beginning with the Abbottabad raid, Admiral Mullen’s castigation of the ISI’s links with the Haqqani network, and the Pakistani civilian-military response orchestrated through the All Parties Conference (APC). The expectation in some circles may have been that Ms Clinton came bearing gifts and palliative noises. To some extent they may have been satisfied. But the essential thrust of Ms Clinton’s message was clear and unequivocal. The US expects Pakistan to act against the terrorist safe havens on its soil within “days and weeks”, she said, while nudging, cajoling, persuading the Taliban to enter peace negotiations. If they do not cooperate, Ms Clinton asserted, stern action should be taken against them. The palliatives, largely overshadowed by the import of the ‘stern’ message, were that the Pakistan-US relationship is too critical for both sides and cannot be given up, and that the US would not carry out any (further) unilateral actions against Pakistan. She ended by emphasising Pakistan’s critical role in the Afghan endgame, and that the APC call to “give peace a chance” could only be achieved if both sides realise that “we have some work to do”.

Reports state that Clinton seemed to have extracted the recognition from Pakistan that it could do more against terrorist safe havens on its soil. This led some commentators, especially on television, to criticise foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar for having seemingly conceded this point. However, a careful reading of Ms Khar’s statement may show that the American ‘joy’ at the seeming concession may have been overstated, and that the criticism had more to do with sensitivity amongst some of our commentators to the ‘do more’ mantra rather than what she actually said. Khar linked safe havens on this side with their counterparts across the border (a reference to the Pakistani Taliban having found sanctuary in eastern Afghanistan, reportedly with the Haqqani network’s help). Khar went on to say that better cooperation by the two sides could yield better results but categorically refuted ISI’s support to safe havens. So while the foreign minister stuck to her brief, the real question is the credibility of her defence of the Pakistani military and ISI’s role in supporting and providing sanctuaries to the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network on Pakistani soil, for which there is by now overwhelming evidence.

A parallel and important development is the concentration of US and Afghan forces in the eastern Afghan provinces considered the stronghold of the Haqqani network, presumably in preparation for military action against the group. Clinton would like Pakistan to put pressure on the group from the Pakistani side (the old hammer and anvil tactic). This would include not only military action on both sides of the border (Ms Clinton pointed out that action on only one side would not achieve the desired results) but also intelligence cooperation. Pakistani policy makers are by now wedded to the view that military operations offer limited gains (based on the experience of the military offensives in Swat and FATA), and it is time now for a comprehensive reconciliation ahead of the withdrawal of the foreign forces from Afghanistan. The question however remains, if the military is not prepared to reject its strategic depth obsession and continues to support the continued fight of the Afghan Taliban against the foreign and Afghan forces, what incentive is there for the Taliban to come to the negotiating table? From their perspective, it makes perfect sense to wait out the withdrawing foreign forces. What may follow causes greater concern. Unlike the relatively easy victory of the Taliban in 1994-96, this time they will face a broader and more determined anti-Taliban front, comprising not just the non-Pashtun ethnic groups, but also those Pashtuns who reject the medievalism of the Taliban. Therein lie the seeds of another civil war in Afghanistan, from whose effects Pakistan cannot isolate itself. Talking of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan while stoking the Taliban insurgency seems, to put it mildly, contradictory.

Robert Fisk: You can't blame Gaddafi for thinking he was one of the good guys

We loved him. We hated him. Then we loved him again. Blair slobbered over him. Then we hated him again. Then La Clinton slobbered over her BlackBerry and we really hated him even more again. Let us all pray that he wasn't murdered. "Died of wounds suffered during capture." What did that mean?

He was a crazy combination of Don Corleone and Donald Duck – Tom Friedman's only moment of truth about Saddam Hussein – and we who had to watch his ridiculous march-pasts and his speeches bit our lips and wrote about Libyan tanks and marines and missiles that were supposed to take this nonsense seriously. His frogmen flipped and flapped through Green Square in the heat and we had to take this rubbish at face value and pretend that it was a real threat to Israel; just as Blair tried to persuade us (not unsuccessfully) that Gaddafi's pathetic attempts to create "weapons of mass destruction" had been skewered. This, in a country that couldn't repair a public lavatory. 

Click here for complete column 

Shocking brutality

Nothing defines the post-Gaddafi National Transitional Council (NTC) regime better than the shockingly brutal manner in which Colonel Moammar Gaddafi was literally beaten to death after his capture on Thursday in Sirte. To reiterate the cliché that all is fair in love and war in this context is no comfort. The reports and footage of Gaddafi’s last moments are nothing short of hair-raising. This was a barbaric act in the extreme. With its usual expedient blinkers where its interests are concerned, the west, whether governments or the media, have tucked away their moral compass somewhere out of sight and convenient. The NTC pro-west regime they are triumphantly supporting is less likely to be, as the Libyan Ambassador in London claimed, a state ruled by law so much as a western imperialist satrap. Given that this treatment of a captured leader was not the first manifestation of the brutality of the NTC fighters (note the violence perpetrated against unarmed migrant African workers captured by the NTC and accused of being Gaddafi mercenaries without any proof), what is the explanation for this barbarism?

The NTC forces include al Qaeda affiliated groups who have been trying to overthrow Gaddafi through armed uprisings (especially in eastern Libya) over the years. Ironically, the very west that claims to be fighting al Qaeda worldwide turned a convenient blind eye to the troubling inclusion of these extremist jihadi groups in the NTC ranks. One faction of these al Qaeda affiliates was held responsible for the murder of a Gaddafi regime senior general who defected to the rebels and was leading their military campaign. Yet to date, no one has been held accountable for this murder. Libya presents the picture of the pattern likely to be used by the west from now on to take out regimes that oppose its imperialist ambitions. The model is to use local dissident or rebellious forces on the ground, supported by the US and Nato’s overwhelming technological superiority in air power, missiles and other ‘remote’ weapons to help crush regimes that do not play ball with the west. US President Obama boasted after Gaddafi’s brutal end was confirmed that not one American life had been lost in the Libyan campaign. What he conveniently forgot to mention was the role of covert special forces attached to the NTC rebels that arguably helped and directed their relatively amateur military efforts. Obama’s triumphalism pulled whatever thin fig leaf was put up by Washington under the rubric ‘leading from behind’.

Like in any detective novel, the two critical questions to be asked are: motive, and beneficiary, to determine the villain of the piece. Libya’s oil and gas riches are what the US-led west has been slavering over for a very long time. Gaddafi’s support to anti-imperialist movements worldwide earned him more than a fair share of the ire of the powers that be in our (still) post-Cold War unipolar world. France and Britain, that led the anti-Gaddafi pack, are licking their lips over the lucrative ingress they have gained through bringing the NTC to power into Libya’s oil and gas. As in Iraq, energy sources and imperialist intervention have a symbiotic relationship.

It may be too close to these horrific events to judge Gaddafi’s place in history. However, a few tentative conclusions can be tendered even now. Colonel Gaddafi’s coup in 1969 that overthrew the decrepit monarchy and established a popular Arab nationalist regime openly declared its support of all anti-imperialist movements in the world. Sometimes, his uncompromising stances and criticism of other third world countries that betrayed their ostensible support to such movements because of ties to, and pressure from, the west, invited retaliation and even relative isolation for Gaddafi. He was however, undeterred for a very long time. It is only when the west was  able to orchestrate a virtually total isolation of Libya because of the Lockerbie bombing and other incidents, that Gaddafi attempted to compromise with the west. He gave up his nuclear ambitions, support for already dwindling anti-imperialist movements, and tried to craft an acceptable modus vivendi with the western powers. However, if there is one lesson to be drawn from his fate, it is that empires have long memories and are totally ruthless in achieving their goals. Gaddafi joins a long list of the victims of the rapacious greed and domineering imperialist ambitions of the west that litters the history of the modern world. Rest in peace Colonel.

Mixed signals and warnings

General Martin Dempsey has replaced Admiral Mike Mullen as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In his farewell speech, Admiral Mullen said he continues “to believe that there is no solution in the region without Pakistan, and no stable future in the region without a partnership”. Admiral Mullen’s advice to General Dempsey was “to remember the importance of Pakistan to all of this; to try and do a better job than I [Mullen] did with that vexing, and yet vital, relationship”. Maybe Admiral Mullen was trying to take the sting out of his earlier statement linking the ISI to the Haqqani network by giving ‘friendly’ advice to his successor. With the change of command in the US military, there are mixed messages coming from the Obama administration. President Obama said US intelligence is not clear in terms of what exactly the relationship between the Haqqanis and the ISI is. A US official said that there will be no US boots on the ground in Pakistan. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton said that when she “became Secretary of State, they [Pakistanis] were trying to draw a distinction between the good terrorists and the bad terrorists, because we had funded the good terrorists together…That in no way excuses the fact that they are making a serious, grievous, strategic error supporting these groups, because you think that you can keep a wild animal in the backyard and it will only go after your neighbour?” An ambiguity has clearly been left in both President Obama’s remarks and that of Ms Clinton. The US admits it helped Pakistan in creating terrorists for the Afghan jihad but now those ties must be terminated.

While there are mixed signals emanating from the Obama administration, things in our neighbourhood are not looking good either. On the one hand Afghan President Karzai has rejected negotiations with the Taliban and asserted that Pakistan is the key to peace talks. On the other hand, the Afghan intelligence service has blamed the Quetta Shura for assassinating Burhanuddin Rabbani. “We have given the evidence to the Pakistan Embassy in Afghanistan to cooperate with us,” said Afghanistan’s intelligence service spokesman. The most significant statement, though, came from JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman who said it was possible that the US might go to the UN against Pakistan, where the Americans would raise the issue of the Quetta Shura. This would create trouble for Pakistan, especially if the US declares the Haqqani network a terrorist organisation and links between the ISI and the Haqqanis are established. Sanctions could be imposed on Pakistan in this event.

The pressure on Pakistan is building and the writing on the wall could not be clearer. Pakistan is heading towards isolationism. Even if we admit our mistakes, like the US did, it is important to correct those mistakes. If we are taken to the UN, things would get serious. When a hardliner like Maulana Fazl starts painting a gloomy picture, it means something is definitely wrong. Maulana sahib would not say anything as alarmist as this without a reason. The policy of exporting terrorism has made Pakistan a terrorist haven. We need to adopt a two-pronged policy: flush the foreign elements out of the tribal areas and talk to the local tribes to eliminate local terrorists from our soil. This would help bring peace back in the region and change our image of a breeding nursery for terrorists. 

The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki is a hammer-blow to al-Qaeda, and a reminder of how British campuses host extremists

By Michael Weiss
Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born al-Qaeda cleric, has just been killed in Yemen, according to both Yemeni defence ministry and US officials. This represents the harshest blow to al-Qaeda’s global movement since the assassination of Osama bin Laden in May. Although not a military strategist or commander of Bin Laden’s stature, Awlaki’s importance as a charismatic "procurement agent" for al-Qaeda, and as an ideologue for global jihadism, can be seen in his influence of several infamous lone wolf terrorists. These include Nidal Malk Hassan, the US army major who murdered 13 of his fellow soliders and wounded 29 others at the Ford Hood military installation in late 2009; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian UCL graduate who tried to detonate a bomb woven into his underwear on a Detroit-bound airliner two Christmases ago, and Faisal Shahzad, the abortive Times Square bomber.
Click here for more details

APC: an exercise in futility

An All-Parties Conference (APC) was held on Thursday at Prime Minister Gilani’s call to discuss Pak-US relations in view of recent events. Admiral Mike Mullen’s statement against the ISI irked Pakistan to such an extent that it led to war hysteria in the media. Mr Mullen openly blamed the ISI for supporting the Haqqani network. Pragmatically, the White House did not endorse Mr Mullen’s statement, which helped restore Pak-US relations to some extent. There were hardly any expectations from the APC given that our politicians had already resorted to ‘tough’ statements and warnings to the US in case of an attack. It was as if the civilian leadership wanted to give a stamp of approval to the military’s strategy. The APC was attended by at least 56 political leaders and the army top brass, including army chief General Kayani. Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and Director General (DG) ISI, Lieutenant-General Ahmed Shuja Pasha briefed the APC participants. “There are other intelligence networks supporting groups that operate inside Afghanistan. We have never paid a penny or provided even a single bullet to the Haqqani network,” said General Pasha. After hours of deliberations, the APC was able to come up with a 13-point joint declaration. ‘Give peace a chance’, most likely inspired by John Lennon’s famous song, was declared to be “the guiding central principle henceforth” in the unanimously passed resolution. The APC “rejected the recent assertions and baseless allegations made against Pakistan” and affirmed the nation’s “full solidarity and support for the armed forces of Pakistan in defeating any threat to national security”. This is quite interesting given that the armed forces’ flawed security and foreign policies have landed Pakistan in the current mess.
While most of the APC participants were there only to pay lip service to the so-called ‘consensus’, there were a few dissenting voices at the APC. PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif reportedly asked some tough questions and pointed out that there is no smoke without fire. Mian sahib addressed a press conference yesterday confirming those reports. “I talked in the moot about our internal weaknesses and called for introspection. We must ask ourselves whether we are at fault…we should admit our mistakes,” Mr Sharif told the media. He also said the government should reveal the terms of engagement between the US and Pakistan. Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party’s Mehmood Achakzai reportedly told General Pasha that peace can be achieved in Afghanistan within a month if the ISI wanted.
Barring Mr Sharif and Mr Achakzai, the performance of our political leadership at the APC was shameful. What was even more shameful was how representatives of the minorities were not even invited to the APC. The boycott of the APC by the Baloch nationalists made the exercise seem less credible. The APC resolution smacks of an ostrich-like approach. The political class let the army and its intelligence agencies off the hook once again. Disastrous policies adopted by the military top brass for decades have created problems for Pakistan internally and externally. Thus Mr Sharif and Mr Achakzai’s remarks were lauded by the saner voices in Pakistan. We must stop pretending as if everything is hunky-dory with our policies and the fault only lies with others. Pakistan’s India-centric security and foreign policies have not deterred India’s influence in Afghanistan and elsewhere. In fact, it has risen due to our self-defeating policies. If we really want to give peace a chance, we should stop interfering in Afghanistan through proxies and let the Afghans take care of their own problems. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s recent statement should be given due consideration: “I think Pakistan is paying a heavy price for the mistakes of the 1970s by linking religion with politics and developing religious schools which are, in some cases, dangerous sources of extremism.” It is indeed time for serious introspection.

Friend turns foe

Tensions are high and a relationship that was fragile right from its onset seems ready to crumble. Pakistan and the US are at verbal daggers drawn and one cannot help but worry where the current trend will take us. Statements being issued by the US have taken on an accusatory tone and those given by Pakistan to counter them are of denial. However, it is the extreme change in stance that should really be making Pakistanis unsettled. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has, in no uncertain terms, declared Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) as a body that uses militants - the Haqqani network - as an instrument to wage a proxy war against the US. He has, in a statement to the US Senate Armed Services Committee, condemned Pakistan’s ISI for “exporting” terror. These are strong words. They are stronger still if you consider that Mike Mullen has been a staunch advocate of keeping Pakistan close as an ally and acknowledging it as a friend of the US, especially in these dire times. It is Mike Mullen who has been at the forefront of keeping the Pak-US alliance intact, especially through his relationship with COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and his many meetings with the Pakistani military commander.
However, now Mullen is at the forefront of accusing Pakistan’s ISI of playing double games. He has unequivocally stated that Pakistan is now staring at the very real possibility of isolating itself from the international community and limiting its influence in the region. Statements from the likes of Interior Minister Rehman Malik denying these charges and nudging the Americans to “prove” their allegations are tantamount to giving them a reason to go on an all out offensive. No one is now ready to believe that Pakistan’s military-intelligence establishment has not played a double game with the US and, some would say, the Pakistani nation. Couple that with Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar’s taut response to Mullen’s statement that the US stands to lose an ally by alienating Pakistan - to the US’s own cost - and you have the stage set for a confrontation.
Whilst Rehman Malik may deliver his usual spiel about “boots on the ground” not being allowed, the US does not need Malik’s permission. One can see just how important the issue of our sovereignty was when the May 2 operation was conducted in Abbottabad:. Our intelligence had not a clue till the Navy SEALS had entered and taken out their target. Once boots on the ground do arrive, there will be no more room for manoeuvre. Even if the prospect of American troops within our borders seems far farfetched, there are many ways the US can harm our national interests. Besides the possibility of stepping up drone attacks on more than just directed targets, the US may carry out its own military operations in the border areas if they locate the Haqqani network and other such militants. When we fail to justify being called an ally of the Americans, they will take matters into their own hands. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani needs to consider which sovereignty he is talking about when he issues statements about it not being compromised. The US Congress has already attached conditions to the next tranche of aid, one of them being our ability to tackle the Haqqani threat.
We are dancing on the edge of a precipice and seem ready to fall over. We must revisit our position before we reach a stage in this war where the US looks at us in hostility. Keeping up support for our so-called proxies to limit Indian expansion is a bet we have lost, according to Mullen. It is time we realise that our time for dual policies is up and that the game is reaching a worrisome end - for us.

Palestinian statehood bid

US President Barack Obama’s rejection of the Palestinians’ statehood bid at the UN was hardly a surprise. Long before he took the podium to address the UN General Assembly (UNGA), it had become obvious from guarded official and not so guarded unofficial comments that the US, as usual, was going to stand by its ally Israel, right or wrong. To stave off a looming diplomatic disaster, since the Palestinian bid has evoked a great deal of sympathy and support from the UNGA, Obama and the Israeli government coordinated wonderfully in suggesting bilateral talks were the only path to a solution that offered the Palestinians a state in return for security for Israel. Have bilateral, trilateral or even multilateral talks yielded anything in the last two decades? Not for the Palestinians, although Israel has used stalling tactics to buy time and create new ‘facts on the ground’ (e.g. expanding Israeli settlements on the West Bank). Arguably, Israeli intransigence and repression have rendered the Oslo Accords dead in the water. Since these were premised on a ‘two state solution’, that has left Israel holding all the cards, occupied and expanding territory, a US-supplied arsenal that would be the envy of any great power, and a blank cheque from Washington for all other, economic, etc, needs.
Obama has predictably disappointed his liberal supporters the world over. The Cairo speech attempting to build bridges with an alienated Muslim world is a distant memory, while the Israeli lobby and the foreign and security policy establishment has encircled Obama and forced him to relinquish any notions of ‘change’ he may have carried initially into office. Between Washington and Tel Aviv, therefore, it has been business as usual, with nary a hiccup, the mild but quickly quelled disagreement over new settlements being drowned in the roaring reception Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was accorded in the US Congress on his last visit.
The Palestinian side was expected to submit its statehood recognition request to the UN Security Council (UNSC) today, although reports were swirling that the US might conjure a last minute reprieve for itself and its satrap. This could only mean some carrot (and perhaps stick) to cajole the Palestinians to retreat, even though threatening noises from the US Congress to cut off US aid to the Palestinian Authority seem to have had the opposite effect of what was intended. If the Palestinian bid proceeds as planned, and the US vetoes it in the UNSC, the Palestinians can still salvage “observer state” status by approaching the UNGA. That too would amount to a diplomatic and political advance for the Palestinian cause. Whether the bid succeeds or not, it has already put the US and its cat’s paw Israel on the diplomatic mat. Ironically, while the Palestinians suffer daily repression, evictions and humiliation at the hands of the Israeli state, the oppressor seeks ‘security’ for itself! To equate the pin pricks of the occasional crude rocket attack from Gaza with the bloody track record of the Zionist entity would be laughable were it not such a grave and continuing tragedy. The Arab world’s repeated betrayals of the Palestinian cause have left Israel sitting pretty and the Palestinians having perforce to rely on themselves. Unfortunately, the split between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas has weakened the voice of the Palestinians. It would be in their own interest to subsume their internal differences to the greater good of their common cause, although that seems unlikely at present.
Pakistan must support the Palestinian statehood recognition bid to the fullest extent. If the Muslim world and other countries that adhere to international norms of justice add their voices to the growing chorus demanding an end to Israel’s depredations and occupier logic, perhaps the Palestinians may still have their day in the court of the world’s peoples.

Back to square one

Sunday marked the tenth anniversary of the dastardly terrorist attacks on American soil, which resulted in the death of almost 3,000 people. US President Barack Obama and former president George W Bush went to the site of the September 11 attacks and paid tribute to the victims. A terrorist attack in any part of the world must be condemned unequivocally. The world stood by the Americans in their hour of grief. They all agreed that the perpetrators of these heinous attacks must be punished but there was a difference of opinion even then on how the US should go about it. That 9/11 changed the world is common knowledge. What remains to be seen is whether the measures used to avenge 9/11 were appropriate or not.

With hindsight we can say that the US invasion of Afghanistan following Mullah Omar’s refusal to hand over al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was akin to killing a fly with a sledgehammer. The fly got away from Tora Bora, only to be found almost 10 years later in Abbottabad. But the virus it left behind is something that leaves no country in the world unaffected. What went wrong in these 10 years that led the world from being with the US to an increasing anti-Americanism worldwide, especially in the Muslim world? To say that this is only because of religious affiliations is wrong. The sense of solidarity in the Muslim world is largely cultural, not religious. What imperialism has done to the third world is a historical fact and continuing reality. The memory of humiliation awakens and is refreshed every day for the victims of imperialist interventions (past and present). The anti-colonial movements were led by the local elites, who turned out to be a disappointment for their followers later on. Even revolutionary nationalist movements failed as their leaders turned out to be corrupt and morally bereft. Extremists filled the vacuum of a lack of leadership in the Muslim world and used religion to advance their agenda. Following the US invasion of Afghanistan, the extremists got an added advantage: now they had reason to justify their fanaticism. The means applied to resolve the al Qaeda conundrum were used without weighing the consequences, intended or unintended. On the eve of 9/11’s tenth anniversary, 77 American soldiers were wounded in Afghanistan as a result of a suicide bombing. It shows how the US is back to square one: the promise to usher in a new dawn of democracy in Afghanistan turned out to be nothing but a damp squib. The western forces now have to negotiate with the Afghan Taliban in order to ensure some semblance of normality post-troops withdrawal (a precarious enterprise at best).

While paying tributes to the victims of 9/11, the world should not have forgotten millions of innocent lives lost in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other countries. They were the consequent victims of this war. They too were human beings, they too had families, yet the world does not mourn or commemorate their deaths. Pakistan’s Foreign Office said that Pakistan is severely affected by terrorism. Despite our security establishment’s double-edged policy of supporting the jihadis and the Taliban, the real victims of terrorism are the common citizens of this country. There is a need for introspection for the western world as well: those responsible for war mongering and war crimes are still free. George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Tony Blair, among others, should be punished for their crimes. But it seems that our world is not based on the rule of law; justice is only of and for the powerful.

9/11 and all that

On the tenth anniversary of 9/11 today, much introspection is taking place on the meaning and impact of that seminal event. Despite successes against al Qaeda, in particular the degrading of its terrorist capabilities by taking out Osama bin Laden (OBL) and many of the top leaders of the organisation, cautionary voices can be heard arguing that the struggle against terrorism is far from over and there is little room for complacency. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pointed to a credible, new, but still unconfirmed threat to the US on the eve of the anniversary. Ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair too chimed in with the statement that the post-9/11 battle was not over. Some context needs to be recalled.

The decade 1991-2011 could be looked back at with the benefit of hindsight as arguably providing the momentum that led to 9/11 in the midst of historic changes and developments. The first Iraq war of 1990-91 saw foreign, particularly US forces, deployed for the first time on Saudi soil. This event is widely believed to have alienated OBL from his home country and its monarchy, and impelled him to seek ways and means to combat American worldwide hegemony. This project led him from Sudan back to his original battlefield against the Soviets, i.e. Afghanistan, now ruled by the Taliban. From his base there, OBL stands accused of planning 9/11. The American response in the shape of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq crippled the neo-con American century project, in the process eroding due process and civil liberties at home and abroad, the latter witnessing the recourse to rendition and torture of suspects. However, whatever success or lack of it attended the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they had the unintended consequence of spreading the al Qaeda franchise further abroad, increasing the threat of the terror network beyond its original support base. Western interventionism found a new lease of life (which continues), while the checks and balance provided in world affairs by the USSR-led communist camp during the cold war ended with a whimper when the Soviet Union imploded in 1991. The assassination of redoubtable Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud in Afghanistan just two days before 9/11 has been considered by many as the prelude to and preliminary strike by al Qaeda in preparation for the 9/11 attacks. The purpose perhaps was to ensure the strengthening of al Qaeda’s hosts, the Taliban’s grip on Afghanistan.

While there is little quarrel with the assertion that 9/11 changed the world almost beyond recognition, it is perhaps too early to grasp all the ramifications of that change. After all, if the cautionary voices mentioned above are correct, and there is weighty evidence that they are, the struggle against the ideology that al Qaeda represents is continuing, even while it spawns affiliates and draws to its banner a diverse array of religious extremists worldwide. Of all the countries most affected by 9/11 and its aftermath, in order of destruction, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan probably enjoy pride of place. We in particular have been hoist by our own petard, our support to the export of jihadi extremism having returned to haunt us with a vengeance. While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are seeing an incremental drawdown and withdrawal of foreign troops, the problems they leave behind will not so easily go away. In particular, Afghanistan’s endgame is poised delicately at the cusp of a possible return to the corridors of power, albeit partial, in Kabul of the Taliban. This spells risks not only for the Afghan people, but also for Pakistan’s security if the nexus of the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban strengthens the latter’s ability to operate from Afghan soil against Pakistan’s security. Ironically, our military establishment’s quest for that will-o-the-wisp, ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan, may end up in the strategic pit of increased threats to Pakistan’s own security.

Democracy in the dock

It seems that Pakistani politicians have a profound love for theatrics. Zulfiqar Mirza’s explosive press conference on August 28 made headlines but the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) responded to Dr Mirza’s hard-hitting allegations with restraint, which was quite a departure from the MQM’s usual method of rebuttal. MQM leader Faisal Sabzwari responded to Dr Mirza’s press conference on August 30. That was not the end of it. On Tuesday night, MQM leader Mustafa Kamal held another press conference and appeared on a private television channel later to deny all allegations levelled at the MQM by Dr Mirza. “The negative and biased thinking and acts of accusing the MQM and Quaid-i-Tehreek Altaf Hussain of indulging in anti-Pakistan activities should be stopped forthwith in the interest of the country and its people,” said Mr Kamal. He was of the opinion that Dr Mirza’s views were not part of the Pakistan People’s Party’s (PPP’s) official policy, something the PPP has also said in its defence. Mr Kamal came down hard on the media and human rights organisations for fanning anti-MQM sentiment. The MQM also criticised President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Asma Jahangir for her statement: “The MQM is the inventor of extortion while other parties followed it.” Ms Jahangir did not just single out the MQM, she also blamed other parties like the MQM-Haqiqi, the PPP and the Awami National Party (ANP) for the violence in Karachi. The MQM has a monopoly of power for the longest time in Karachi; to the extent it still wields considerable power in urban Sindh, particularly in Karachi. But now other political players are trying to garner support in order to rout the MQM. This has led to turf wars, which in turn leads to target killings and general unrest in the city.

The MQM’s response to the allegations was far from satisfactory. The Supreme Court (SC) should evaluate the evidence and decide once and for all whether these are mere rumours or there is any weight in what Dr Mirza said. The PPP, for its part, needs to conduct an operation across the board despite the fact that it might end up annoying its former and incumbent coalition partners, the ANP and the MQM. By carrying out an operation in Lyari, the PPP has already irritated its own constituency but it should not shirk its responsibility of restoring peace in the metropolis.

In all this war of words between politicians, what is being missed is an important factor. All this will benefit undemocratic forces waiting in the wings to discredit the politicians. Director-General (DG) Rangers Major-General Mohammad Ejaz Chaudhry informed the SC that the situation in Karachi was worse than that of Waziristan and a military solution was only temporary. For lasting peace, a political solution was needed. The DG Rangers is right in asking for a political solution because in Waziristan, there is one enemy: the jihadist Taliban. In Karachi, there are many shades of militants who belong to different ethnicities. When the economic and financial hub of the country descends into chaos and anarchy, politicians as a class run the risk of being rendered irrelevant in the march of history in a direction we are all too familiar with. Instead of providing a chance to the army to intervene in Karachi, all democratic forces must come together and reach a consensus on how to control the situation. Our politicians must not forget that the army would not just stop at Karachi; it might want a bigger share of the pie if things get out of hand.

Al Qaeda arrests

The Pakistan military announced on Monday the arrest of senior al Qaeda leader Younis al-Mauritani along with two other top operatives, Abdul Ghaffar al-Shami and Messara al-Shami, from Quetta. The arrests were the result of an intelligence-led operation that included elements of the FC. Younis al-Mauritani is said to be head of al Qaeda’s international operations, charged with planning and preparing attacks on the US, Europe and Australia. Such attacks would have included US economic interests such as gas/oil pipelines, power generating dams, and strikes against ships/oil tankers using explosive-laden speedboats in international waters.

Interestingly, the arrests have not only been lauded by the White House as a shining example of the common anti-terrorist goals and cooperation between Pakistan and the US, they have also been held up by Pakistan’s ISPR as resulting from the close cooperation between the intelligence services of the two countries, particularly the ISI and CIA. Now public memory is notoriously short, but not so short as to have forgotten how since 2011 dawned, the two countries, and in particular the ISI and CIA have been at loggerheads, first manifested in the Raymond Davis affair, later peaking after the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama bin Laden. In this space, we had argued consistently for both sides to draw back from the brink of a seemingly hopeless incremental breakdown in relations amidst mutual mistrust, suspicions and accusations. This position was not motivated by any illusions about the two countries’ interests or their convergence/divergence. Instead it was based on the bigger picture in the struggle against terrorism, in which the stakes for both sides were so huge as to require statesmanship and restraint if the terrorists were not to have the last laugh. It is therefore gratifying to see that the logic of the situation appears finally to be reasserting itself and both sides have not only generously lauded each other’s contribution, but also the cooperation that made this breakthrough possible. The terrorists of all hues and persuasions would love nothing more than if the US and Pakistan alliance against them breaks down, naturally to their benefit. The hope is that both sides have drawn the appropriate lessons from the near debacle in their relations provoked by the adverse developments earlier this year and will use that wisdom to further the common goals of defeating the terrorist menace.

Of course there is no room to be lulled into complacency at this positive turn. The reason is the convergence (since 9/11) of interest and policy between Washington and Islamabad regarding al Qaeda and the divergence regarding the Afghan Taliban. Even under General Musharraf, Pakistan led the way in cracking down on al Qaeda and was central to the arrest of many of those who masterminded the 9/11 attacks. However, it must also be said that there has been an inherent divergence in the approach to and policy towards the Afghan Taliban. Whereas Washington has tended to see the Afghan Taliban as merely an extension of their main target – al Qaeda – Islamabad, and particularly Rawalpindi has had a different take. While our military establishment was rooting out al Qaeda from Pakistani soil and transferring all operatives captured to the custody of the US over the last 10 years, it was at the same time providing safe havens and operating bases to the Afghan Taliban to fight the US and Nato forces operating in Afghanistan. And all this while acting as the main logistical conduit for the western forces in Afghanistan and also paying lip service to common goals and strategy! The duality of approach of the Pakistani military establishment, which continues to date, is at the heart of the friction in the relationship between the two allies.

A return of Taliban rule in Afghanistan would be a disaster not only for the suffering people of that country, it would arguably be a disaster for the region and the world. One, our homegrown Taliban movement would be free to operate from Afghan soil against the Pakistani state (something they have already begun through cross-border attacks from bases in Afghanistan). Two, who will guarantee that the Afghan Taliban will not allow their old ally al Qaeda to once again find a foothold on Afghan soil? And who will rescue the Afghan people from the medieval rule and practices of the Taliban again, given war weariness in the west?