Posts Tagged ‘Pakistan’
Pakistan set to Take the U.S. ‘Beyond the Vietnam Experience’
Since assuming office in January this year, President Obama made it clear that Pakistan was an area of grave concern for the U.S. counter-terrorism efforts around the globe. Review of strategy in Afghanistan led to the now famous acronym Af-Pak: an approach signifying the conjoined nature of problems and solutions for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Obama Administration was making a sincere attempt at resolving the Afghanistan crisis. Strategists in Washington and other Capitals across the globe welcomed (with skepticism) the new alignment of priorities and strategy proposed by the Obama administration. But it is now turning out that the Administration is in for an undesirable realization: if Afghanistan was viewed as re-living Vietnam, Pakistan is sure to take the U.S. beyond the “Vietnam Experience”. Click to continue…
A.Q. Khan - From Release to Reverence
After his widely criticized release, Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan is now on his way to regain his place as the country’s revered hero. Commenting before the formal release of A. Q. Khan in February this year, U.S. State Department Spokesperson Gordon Duguid referred to Khan as a “serious proliferation risk.” In the first exhaustive interview since his release, Dr. Khan not only denounces the international community’s anxiety over Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation record but also emerges as the great patriot who sacrificed his freedom for the country’s sake.
[Photo Courtesy: CHUP]
Dr. Khan had confessed transferring nuclear secrets to other countries (Iran, Libya and North Korea) in 2004. President Musharraf had pardoned Dr. Khan but the latter was under house arrest since his confession. The Islamabad High Court declared the detained nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan a “free citizen” on February 7, 2009. The release of Dr. Khan was contingent upon a secret the ‘agreement’ reached between him and the government. Despite several attempts, the U.S. Government has still not been able to question Dr. Khan about his role in the illegal nuclear proliferation network.
Dr. Khan was introduced on the program as a scientist to whom “Pakistan owes its impregnable defense.” In his interview, Dr. Khan confirms to the role of China in developing Pakistan nuclear technology and admits that the Pakistani bomb was ready in 1984. The influx of American aid into Pakistan following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had necessitated postponing the testing of the bomb in 1984. Dr. Khan has regretted his confession earlier and clearly stated in the interview that he was pressured and threatened by President Musharraf into delivering the confessional statement. Dr. Khan refers to his involvement in illegal proliferation of nuclear technology as “mere accusations”. Further defending Pakistan’s nuclear program Dr. Khan claims that there is no possibility of proliferation or leakage from Pakistan nuclear facility. His admission that Pakistan was in favor of Iran acquiring nuclear technology as means of building an ‘Islamic pressure group’ to counter international pressure could rekindle international concerns with about the ‘Islamic Bomb.’
The problem lies not only in Dr. Khan’s past but also his present disregard for what the international community thinks. In response to a question about how the international community would perceive his release, Dr. Khan voiced his irritation by saying, “Let them talk. Are they happy with our God? Are they happy with our Prophet? Are they happy with our leaders? Never, so why should we bother what they say about us? I would be more worried about what you (Pakistani journalists) say about me, not what Bush says or what Dick Cheney says. I don’t damn care.”
Hopefully the Pakistani Government will care more about the concerns of the international community with regard to nculear proliferation.
Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment Ordinance: A Change in Nomenclature Only
The Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Ordinance 2009 was approved by Pakistan’s Federal Cabinet last week. The Ordinance is directed towards granting internal political autonomy to the Northern Areas of Jammu and Kashmir. The Ordinance, however, falls short of local demands and is only a change in nomenclature rather than genuine political reforms.
The 1949 ceasefire line resulted in the division of J&K with Pakistan gaining control over some portion of the disputed territory. Pakistan administered region of J&K was subsequently divided in 1970 into two administrative zones: Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) and Federally Administered Northern Regions. AJK is constitutionally not a part of Pakistan and is governed by an elected President, Prime Minister and Legislature. Northern Areas are under the direct control of Islamabad and is ruled through a Northern Area Council headed by Pakistan’s Minister for Kashmir Affairs. Click to continue…
K.P. Nayar takes us inside India-Pakistan Statement at Shar-el Sheikh
K.P. Nayar’s excellent piece takes us inside the Sharm-el Sheikh Statement.
For those who missed out on what Sharm-el Sheikh was, though it seems improbable to do so, here is brief backgrounder: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Yousaf Gilani met at the sidelines of the NAM Summit at Sahrm-el Sheikh last month and issued a Joint Statement. Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and co-operate with each other in the Joint Statement issued at Sharm el Sheikh. There was also agreement to share real-time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threat. The Joint Statement further added that “action on terror should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed” and that “terrorism is the main threat to both countries.” India also sought to address Pakistan’s anxieties on Baluchistan by emphasizing non-involvement in the internal disturbances.
Here is how the Government of India conducted itself in the first major bilateral interaction after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. The following piece appeared in the August 25th edition of The Telegraph.
A typical conversation with an Indian ambassador, or any Indian diplomat for that matter, in the last five weeks began with the diplomat asking in obvious disbelief: “How did this happen?”
The “this” in the question is a reference to the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement of July 16, which put it on record that Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani “mentioned” to Manmohan Singh “that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas”. The implication was that the threats came from India in the form of cross-border terrorism. Click to continue…
Red Corner Notice Aganist ‘Sayed’: Reality Check
India, the political leadership in particular, is very excited about the Red Corner notice against Hafiz Saeed and Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi issued by the Interpol on Tuesday. External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna has even declared the move as a vindication of India’s investigation into the Mumbai terror strikes. India comprehends, or at least portrays, the move as sign of international pressure on Pakistan. The UPA will use this Red Corner Notice as one of its major achievements in counter-terror diplomacy vis-à-vis Pakistan. The excitement has undoubtedly overtaken any fact-checking by the Government of India.
The bio of Hafiz Saeed on the Interpol website is not completely similar to the one sought by India. The name on the Interpol site is Hafiz Saab Sayed and nationality is Pakistan. This is a common name in Pakistan and does not necessarily imply the same person that India is seeking. The most glaring mismatch is with regard to the photo and institutional affiliation of “Hafiz Saeed”. The Interpol site has not mentioned Saeed’s linkage to either the LeT or JuD. The photo is marked as “unavailable.” The lack of clarity on such critical details has been completely overlooked by the Government of India.
Moreover, it needs to be highlighted what a Red Corner Notice implies. These Interpol ‘Red Notices’ represent only a tiny fraction of the number of red notices issued by Interpol. The persons concerned are wanted by national jurisdictions (or the International Criminal Tribunals, where appropriate) and Interpol’s role is to assist the national police forces in identifying or locating those persons with a view to their arrest and extradition. Thus the national police, that is police authorities in Pakistan, will be responsible for arresting Saeed. Following this the Interpol also mentions that people against whom such notices are issued are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The Pakistani authorities have already declared Saeed not guilty of involvement in Mumbai attacks. Does India expect that a re-run of that process would yield a different result? Since there is no extradition treaty between India and Pakistan, Hafiz Saeed will not be handed over to India.
So is the Interpol Red Notice against ‘Sayed’ really so exciting? Why are the reactions by Indian leadership reflexive rather than being measured and calculated?
After Bilwal Bhutto, it’s now Bakhtawar and Asifa
Last week I posted a video of Bilwal Bhutto’s speech which had left me speechless. Now there is some confusion added to that state of speechlessness. Benazir Bhutto’s daughters Asifa and Bakhtawar have also delivered public speeches recently.
This ‘speech trio’ has raised two thoughts in my mind. The first is the relevance of speeches for Pakistan’s current political state. In terms of content and connectivity all the three speeches were a flop. The audience applause appears fabricated given its occurrence at most bizarre points during the speeches. It seems highly unlikely that the people of Pakistan would relate to these ‘young leaders’ (though I fail to understand who are they leading, if anyone) speaking with a heavy English accent and dispassionately glorifying their parents.
Second, it appears to me that the speech campaign was choreographed by President Zardari to prove that he is the best of the Bhutto clan at the given moment. The public appeal of the Bhutto family cannot be underestimated in Pakistan. President Zardari has attempted to counter opposition by displaying the caliber, or the lack of it, of the other members of the Bhutto family. Asifa Bhutto’s speech in particular is like a no objection certificate for President Zardari’s leadership.
The three speeches, rather than marking the entry of the young Bhuttos into Pakistani politics was a statement of abdication in favor of their father and President Asif Ali Zardari. All that was lacking was better screenplay to make the dramatization appear somewhat realistic.
Bilwal Bhutto’s Obvious Pretence
I was almost speechless after hearing Bilwal Bhutto’s August 4 outburst. I guess ctitics of President Zardari, including myself, will be happy that he took over the reigns of Pakistan People’s Party from Bilwal even though under the garb of guardianship.
India Should Designate a Special Envoy for Pakistan
Former President of United States Bill Clinton has re-defined the face of diplomacy by 
securing the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. Relations between the U.S. and North Korea have been at an all time low following the recent missile tests by the latter. Despite a strained relationship, Bill Clinton, supported by the U.S. diplomatic machinery, was successful in initiating the confidence building process with the North Korean leadership. Can India learn a lesson from the incident? Is it possible for India to designate a Special Envoy or diplomatic mission to break ice with Pakistan? Click to continue…
Pakistan and Counter-Terrorism: Inability or Unwillingness?
Pakistan’s recent military offensive against the Taliban has earned the country some 
international support for its counter-terrorism efforts. There is hope that the democratic government will be willing and committed to fighting terrorism. However the events of the past week have raised a disturbing concern in my mind. Pakistan has, beyond doubt begun combating terrorist elements operating on its soil; but at the same time Pakistan’s counter-terrorism strategy is selective and self-serving. In a matter of few days the Government of Pakistan has re-arrested Sufi Muhammad and released Hafiz Saeed. To me this is not a simple case of supporting terrorism against India but has deeper implications. It’s about Pakistan’s reluctance and not inability to combat terrorism. The Sufi-Saeed case points to three trends in Pakistan’s ‘counter-terrorism efforts’: no person-specific operations, inconsequential arrests on mild charges and treating terrorism as legal problem. Click to continue…
‘Humor Censorship’ in Pakistan
One of the long standing criteria for distinguishing dictatorships from democracies was the degree of press freedoms. A free press is considered to represent the popular voice and keeps a tab on all branches of the Government. A recent directive by the Government of Pakistan has added a new dimension to this discourse. What about freedom of expression through email, blogs and text messages? How would you respond if your expression of humor is censored? For those who find this strange should thank their stars if they are not residing in Pakistan. And for those who are living in Pakistan remember this before you crack a joke next time: Pakistanis who send jokes about President Asif Zardari by text message, email or blog risk being arrested and given a 14-year prison sentence. Click to continue…