PAKISTAN Special

By: Shaukat Qadir

India would be better off trying to negotiate a state of peaceful coexistence with Pakistan, rather than follow a course that is bound to be self-destructive

Finally, some American analysts have acknowledged that New Delhi is actively involved in destabilising the Pakistani province of Balochistan. They have also come to the realisation that it is also funding some of the Taliban.

Foreign Affairs, a journal published by the Council for Foreign Relations in Washington, has published this discovery, supported by the large variety of speakers at a round table conference held recently in Washington.

The speakers at the conference included Christine Fair, a senior political analyst formerly at the RAND Corporation; Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution; Sumit Ganguly, an Indian-born American citizen; and Ashley Tellis, the author of “India’s emerging nuclear doctrine”, published by RAND in 2001.

When Ashley asked me to comment on his work, I wrote back: “You have provided India with a nuclear doctrine that no one in India could have come up with, and have legitimised it through the RAND.”

With such participants, the conclusion is indisputable, but the US chooses to consider the evidence inconclusive. Though not when the evidence is against Pakistan!

I am prepared to believe that Pakistan, through Bangladesh, is involved in supporting insurgencies in India. The reasons are obvious: India is a far larger country, with greater resources and, in due course, is likely to outstrip Pakistan, economically and militarily, unless bled constantly.

Indian involvement to destabilise Pakistan is less easily understood, except as a tit-for-tat response, because it cannot take possession of Balochistan, and if Pakistan implodes India will face disastrous consequences.

A tit-for-tat response has its own logic and, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, many Indian analysts, convinced of the Indian military’ inability to gain a decisive victory against Pakistan, suggested this policy.

One of them, Bharat Karnad, ex-member of the Indian national security advisory board, even sent me his article for ‘comments’. However, if the outcome of such a policy is as obviously self-defeating in the long run; perhaps India would be better off trying to negotiate a state of peaceful coexistence with Pakistan, rather than follow a course that is bound to be self-destructive.

I am a reluctant believer in conspiracy theories, but the writings of Charles Ferndale, Norman Finkelstein, Uri Avnery and Israel Shahak — not to mention Noam Chomsky — have half-convinced me that central to the Israeli Zionist — mind you, all Jews are not Zionists; Jews have their extremists, just like Muslims and Christians and Hindus have theirs — survival theory is that no regional power in its vicinity should be capable of confronting it militarily. Thus Iraq’s nuclear capability had to be destroyed, Iran prevented from getting there and, since Pakistan is already there, it must be destroyed from within. If this be so, theorists contend that the US and India are unwitting pawns in the hands of Israeli Zionists.

That would explain a number of inexplicable pieces of information. However, many of these could also result from the ineptitude of the CIA, a conclusion I strongly subscribe to, as well as policies for short-term political gains by Indian politicians. Take your pick.

The vast, silent, and irrelevant majority amongst the Mehsud tribe have no love lost for Baitullah, the undisputed Taliban leader of their tribe. I am reliably informed that he is rolling in dollars and has access to highly sophisticated light weaponry. Now he could have got these from a number of sources; India, Israel, Iran, Russia, or even the US.

I am also reliably informed that Baitullah Mehsud is in possession of highly sophisticated communication equipment and what are presumably homing devices. That narrows the field a little: Israel, the US, or Russia.

I am also, not so reliably, informed that there are strong rumours afloat that Baitullah Mehsud has been in touch with the CIA.

We know for certain that the Pakistan army has been asking the US for help in ‘taking out’ Mehsud and has on at least four different occasions provided the US with accurate information of his location over a period of twelve to twenty four after the US was informed, but he was never targeted.

We also know that US drone attacks have been more successful in the last few months and that their kill ratio of militants to innocent people has increased dramatically in favour of militants killed.

However, if my information is correct, that there are less than twenty hard-core Al Qaeda personnel present in each tribal area, not a single one of them has been successfully targeted. In fact, almost all of the militants killed in the Mehsud area were lowly soldiers, many of them Uzbeks and, according to some Mehsuds, some of those killed included those who disputed Baitullah’s leadership.

With a puzzle as disconnected as this, the dotted lines can be connected in many different ways to lead to widely divergent conclusions. I will leave it to the readers to arrive at their own conclusions. However, I will adjure them to bear in mind that the US refused to target Baitullah Mehsud on a number of occasions, despite Pakistani requests and accurate information on his location for many hours, and that no really high value target has ever been hit in the Mehsud area.

Each time a hit on a high value target has been claimed, it has been refuted within hours, sometimes days, occasionally even months later.

I leave it to you to dot the lines, but this time I am almost certain that there is a conspiracy; let each of you decide where it leads.

 

P.Symonds has been just to the point while exposing US' designs and stretegy. You see how it all fits in. You see what's behind all the hu ha about terrorism. You unleash terror so you get away with terror. Age old imperial game but this time Washington’s moves will not go unopposed...

BY: Peter Symonds

Comments by China’s ambassador in Islamabad last Thursday highlight the reckless character of the Obama administration’s escalating intervention in Pakistan. By pressuring Islamabad to wage an all-out military offensive against Islamic insurgents in the Swat Valley and neighbouring districts, Washington is not only destabilising Pakistan but raising tensions in a highly volatile area.

Speaking to Pakistani business leaders, Chinese ambassador Luo Zhaohui pointedly voiced concern about the growth of “outside influence” in the region. He singled out the US in particular, saying that China was worried about US policies and the presence of a large number of foreign troops in neighbouring Afghanistan. While reiterating China’s support for “the fight against terror,” Luo declared that US strategies needed some “corrective measures”. He added, “These are issues of serious concern for China.”

Luo’s unusually blunt remarks came just one day after US President Obama spoke to his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao. While a number of issues were discussed, the escalating war in Pakistan was clearly high on the agenda. This first publicised phone call between the two men came as Obama met with the Afghan and Pakistani presidents over US strategy in the two countries. While Hu reportedly offered his cooperation, Luo’s comments express China’s underlying fears over growing US influence in South Asia.

Last week’s tripartite summit in Washington signalled a major upsurge in military violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Under intense pressure from the US, the Pakistani army has launched a large-scale offensive against militants in the Swat Valley in which hundreds have already died and hundreds of thousands of civilians have been forced to flee. The summit, however, involved more than discussions on military cooperation, outlining comprehensive plans for the closer economic and strategic integration of the two countries into an American sphere of influence.

China, which has longstanding ties with Pakistan, is obviously disturbed by these developments. As Ambassador Luo told his business audience, more than 60 Chinese companies are involved in 122 projects in Pakistan. He noted the “close liaison” with Pakistan over the security of over 10,000 Chinese engineers and technical experts in the country. In fact, Beijing has previously insisted on reprisals over the abduction and killing of Chinese citizens by Pakistani militants as well as military action against Islamic Uighur separatists from western China taking refuge in Pakistan.

More fundamentally, Beijing regards Islamabad as a crucial partner in its own regional strategy. China devoted considerable resources to building up Pakistan as a counterweight to India after the 1962 Sino-Indian border war. Pakistan is the largest purchaser of Chinese arms and, according to the Pentagon, accounted for 36 percent of China’s military exports between 2003 and 2007. Chinese technical assistance was critical to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs.

In return, China received the green light to build a major naval/commercial port facility at Gwadar, a coastal town in Baluchistan. The port is the linchpin of Beijing’s “string of pearls” strategy to establish access for its expanding navy to a series of ports along key sea routes across the Indian Ocean—above all, to protect oil and gas supplies from the Middle East and Africa. For its part, the US, which regards China as a rising economic and strategic rival, is determined to maintain its military, including naval, predominance.

US-China tensions over Pakistan only highlight the deeply destabilising role of Washington’s aggressive intervention, firstly in subjugating Afghanistan, and now in seeking to bring Pakistan more directly under its sway. The escalating conflict in Pakistan is a direct product of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, which the Bush administration forced Pakistan to support under the threat of becoming a military target itself. Widespread opposition inside Pakistan and Afghanistan to US actions has fuelled a growing insurgency that threatens not only the US occupation of Afghanistan, but a full-scale civil war in Pakistan.

US imperialism, under the Obama administration, is determined to exploit the very disasters it has created in order to advance its strategic interests throughout the broader region, especially in energy-rich Central Asia. By doing so, Washington is fundamentally altering the precarious strategic balance and threatening to draw the other major powers into the vortex.

China is not alone in its fear of US designs in Central Asia and the presence of large numbers of foreign troops in Afghanistan. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US has been seeking to establish military alliances and economic ties with the newly established Central Asian Republics. Washington exploited its invasion of Afghanistan to establish military bases in Central Asia for the first time. Afghanistan and Pakistan also provided a potential alternate pipeline route to extract energy riches from the region. In response, China and Russia, which both regard the region as their backyard, came together in the Shanghai Cooperation Group to counter expanding American influence.

Neighbouring India is also watching events in Pakistan with trepidation. While quietly applauding Washington’s pressure on Islamabad to wage war against “terrorism”, New Delhi is concerned that Pakistan’s closer incorporation under the American umbrella may lead to the downgrading of the US-Indian strategic partnership, which only developed in the late 1990s. The weakening of rival Pakistan, against which India has fought three wars, is no doubt welcomed in New Delhi. But its replacement by a US client state, or worse its collapse into chaos, would only confront the Indian establishment with new uncertainties.

The entire region remains a potential powder keg. The Cold War certainties that divided the world between the Soviet and Western blocs have been replaced by new tensions and rivalries. Tentative steps by India and Pakistan to resolve their longstanding disputes, especially over Kashmir, have all but stalled. Efforts by China and India to improve relations have moved slowly. Each continues to eye the other with suspicion and to intrigue at each other’s expense in Nepal, Sri Lanka and Burma.

The most explosive ingredient in this volatile mixture is the attempt by US imperialism to use its military superiority to offset its long-term economic decline. Far from easing tensions, the installation of the Obama administration marked an aggressive new turn in the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan aimed at advancing US ambitions. Last week’s comments by China’s ambassador are another sign that Washington’s moves will not go unopposed.