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.

By: Dr Akmal Hussain

The speech by Sufi Muhammad, leader of the Tehreek-e Nifaz-e Shariat-e Muhammadi, before a huge crowd in Mingora (Swat) last Saturday, represents a critical moment in the crisis of the Pakistani state. It clearly laid out the ideological framework within which the Taliban seek to achieve power and establish governance in Pakistan.

The Sufi specified the following six important postulates, which made clear the strategic objective of overthrowing the existing constitutional order of Pakistan:

1. He asserted that sharia (as interpreted by the Taliban) is seen as divine law.
2. He defined a Muslim not just in terms of someone who believes in the Oneness of God and the fact that Muhammad (PBUH) was the last prophet of God, but as one who supports and helps to implement the sharia.
3. He stipulated that the existing democratic order was an “un-Islamic system of the infidels” and that supporting such a system was a great sin.
4. The persistence of the “un-Islamic system of the infidels”, in his view, would destroy Pakistan and that he and his supporters would defend the country in the sense of attempting to establish their version of the sharia.
5. The superior courts of Pakistan were seen as part of the un-Islamic system of infidels and therefore rejected as institutions where legal appeals against qazi courts were to be made. Instead, he claimed that such appeals would be made before the soon to be formed institution of Darul Qaza.
6. The Nizam-e Adl (the system of justice established in Swat) as an application of the Taliban version of sharia under the “peace deal” was seen by the Sufi as only the first stage of the implementation process of sharia. According to him, sharia would be completed when it encompassed the institutional structures of Pakistan’s polity, economy and education.

These six postulates taken together constitute an ideological clarion call to all Muslims to join in the struggle of the Taliban to overthrow the existing democratic constitutional order in Pakistan for the establishment of their version of an Islamic state.

In this sense, Swat, like the other areas in the NWFP occupied and governed by various Taliban groups, is a base area from which the ideological, political and military struggle to establish a Taliban state in Pakistan is to be conducted.

Of course, the government regards the compromise in Swat as a “peace deal”, even though the TNSM has clearly stated that they will only provide peace if their version of sharia is implemented. The question is: Will they stop at Swat or pursue their broad strategic goals in the rest of Pakistan once Swat is secured?

Clearly there is a high quality military mind behind the Taliban strategy. In the first phase, large swathes of FATA were captured and a system of governance established by the Taliban at the level of a system of justice, the provision of livelihood for the poor, and a system of recruitment and military training. In the second stage, they enlarged their territorial control over some of the settled areas of the NWFP.

At the same time, guerrilla raids were conducted on key targets in the major cities of the country. The purpose was to undermine the confidence of the citizens in the ability of the state to fulfil the most basic function in terms of which it seeks legitimacy: protection of life of its citizens.

In the third stage, there is a shift from the valleys to the urban centres where strongholds have now been established. These strongholds of urban guerrillas are located in major cities such as Peshawar in the north, Lahore in the east, Multan and Karachi in the south and Quetta in the west. Pakistan is encircled by urban guerrilla forces poised to unleash mayhem of an intensity and scale unprecedented in Pakistan. If and when this happens, it could be a prelude to takeover.

The events in Swat fit a pattern of strategy that is slowly being unveiled. Only time will tell whether the Swat deal will give “peace in our time” as Chamberlain put it or will constitute what Churchill called the “end of the beginning”.

For many Pakistanis who are now leaving the country, this is the beginning of the end. It is time for the government, the military and the people of Pakistan to grasp the significance of the historic speech by Sufi Muhammad.

BY: SOBIA ADIL

Pakistan today experiences an increased level of conflict and a perception is being built to undermine its military capability.

In this context, America's approach needs to be seen in the context of its long-term strategic interests in the region, which forces it to engage with Pakistan. However, to achieve this it pursues a policy of controlled chaos enabling it to keep the option of political and military intervention alive.

In the case of Pakistan this shifting of conflict and creation of chaos serves the interests of most of the regional stakeholders and power-brokers operating inside Afghanistan. The coalition finds benefit in reduction of military operations on its side. Afghanistan finds it beneficial because the world's attention is diverted towards Pakistan. India is obviously happy, and so is Russia, while Iran is content since because its potential economic competitor – Pakistan – is handicapped by persistent security concerns.

In this regard the worrisome aspect is that while the US can pinpoint even a needle on the ground from space, it never finds sufficient evidence of miscreants hostile to Pakistan. One never reads about any Predator strike in terrorist sanctuaries in Swat and Bajaur. Neither has one heard of any blocking position by coalition and Afghan forces opposite Bajaur, where the militants flee and find sanctuary. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the conflict in FATA and elsewhere in the NWFP is being aided and abetted by Washington.

Another contributing factor is the increased presence of US Special Forces in the region and the presence of mercenaries in the garb of contractors and representatives of NGOs operating on both sides of the border. These elements provide security to individuals/organisations. They are reported to be extensively employed in conjunction with SOCOM (Special Operations Command) and the CIA. These former soldiers are mercenaries not constrained by any rules of engagement. Around 30,000 work in Afghanistan and many operate near and around FATA.

Yet another contributor worth evaluating is the arrangement of sustaining coalition forces in Afghanistan. On average, around 2,000 trucks travel every month through Pakistan and this operation is managed by the US Embassy through private contractors. The contents of these trailers are not known to Pakistan. The arrangement is a security hazard, to say the least.

The solution to extremism is not a military one and instead requires a long-term approach which can change hearts and minds. Of course, this requires patience and resources – America doesn't have the former while Pakistan does not have the latter.

Those who advocate more vigorous military action in FATA should understand that this will only complicate matters. The Karzai government and the coalition have of late sought to engage with the Taliban in Afghanistan and we must try and do the same on our side of the border. To win peace we should undertake selected operations against hostile foreign elements, and that too only if the coalition gives us matching support from the other side of the border.

By no means is one advocating any disengagement with America, for it is a relationship that is significant and must be pursued. However, what is needed is critical evaluation of the relationship and the drawing of a red line, so to speak, which Pakistan should refuse to cross since it will be at the expense of its own national and security interests. Furthermore, the engagement should not be limited to one with a primarily military nature and should be extended to cooperation with civil society, Pakistani think tanks, political institutions, the media and in the form of increased people-to-people contact.

BY: SHIREEN M MAZARI
The big picture for Pakistan should be more visible now in terms of what the US agenda is for this country. But that agenda has been carefully operationalized since the opportunity presented itself to the US in the form of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 – in which, by the way, no Pakistani was involved. Some of us have been highlighting that agenda for some years since, and also pointing out how complicity of our leadership was a requirement for that agenda to continue moving ahead. And what is that agenda?

Clearly, it involves the US creating space within the tribal areas to move in militarily and eventually restructure the whole Muslim nuclear entity of Pakistan. Attacking civilians and thereby creating chaos and panic which would inevitably lead to a mass displacement and add to the pressure on the central government in Islamabad. Also, knowing full well – after all if we can conclude that such killings will create more space for extremists and terrorists, one can assume the US analysts and advisers must have done the same – that by unleashing a war against our tribals and abusing our sovereignty they will create more space for the terrorists; and thereby more reasons to further destabilise us from outside while we face increasing attacks from our home-grown terrorists. Let us not fool ourselves – the US is no friend but a powerful enemy and its ultimate aim is to defang us in terms of our nuclear assets. Already the statements have become more honed in terms of our nuclear assets – both directly, in terms of a bizarre fear that our nukes will fall into "terrorist" hands even though it is the US that seems to have a problem of loose nukes (remember the US planes flying with such weapons only last year?); and, indirectly, by having their politicians and some international agencies build up a crescendo of Pakistan being the most dangerous country in the world and a new "war zone".

That was the first phase of the plan for Pakistan. As the US war on terror has unfolded in our part of the world, we have suddenly seen the emergence of a Tehrik-i-Taliban, Pakistan and countless other militant groups – some of whom were raised and funded by the CIA in earlier years and may well have sustained that linkage. The most aggressively loyal Pakistanis of the tribal belt have now been turned into challengers of the writ of the Pakistani state. Is it not worth understanding why and how? We are being forced into accepting the US war now as "our war" although in reality while we are facing a severe threat from extremists and home grown terrorists, our fight against these forces has to be different from the US war on terror. That is still not our war but is in fact fuelling and aggravating our terrorist problems.

Now the US has moved to phase two where it is actually seeking direct intervention on the ground before it finally puts international pressure on us to hand over our nuclear assets – showing the world how Pakistan has indeed become a "war zone" in which the international community must intervene to take charge of the nuclear assets. Of course, the US would then offer to head such a mission. Seems far fetched? Then recheck what has been happening in terms of US policy vis a vis Pakistan since 9/11 and the statements emanating from the US at the official and media levels.

As for us Pakistanis, we are being confronted with a two-front war: against a qualitatively new terrorist threat in terms of suicide bombings and the growth of a violent extremism; and, against an indirect war being conducted by the US against our long term survival as an independent nuclear state. But, as I stated at the beginning, none of the US agenda would be feasible without the support of the Pakistani rulers. Unfortunately this support has been there from the start but now it has reached new proportions.

During the Musharraf government we were given many briefings to the effect that the US and NATO/ISAF could only intrude aerially into our space with our permission. As a perturbed pilot informed me the other day, he was shocked to learnt that apart from the UAVs flying into Pakistani air space, NATO and ISAF aircraft are flying round the clock tactical missions in Pakistan. Apparently, they have been cleared by our controllers' to fly tactical in FATA, "Pukhtunkhwa" and Balochistan. The Musharraf government had also given unprecedented access to the US in terms of bases and intelligence. But our democratic leadership has gone even further in affecting unilateral compromises, including it now appears permission to hit and kill our own people, which impact our very survival as an independent nuclear entity.

Regardless of how our own Goebbels tries to explain away the Zardari interview to the Wall Street Journal, the quotes speak for themselves and nor has a correction been sought or offered on either side. First there is the absurd style of reference President Zardari uses when talking of Pakistan and its institutions as his personal fiefdom, "my F-16s", "my security personnel" (that is the military) "my war" and so on. And of course he wants the world to "give me" $ 100 billion!

More damaging though is his declaration that not only is he "an American friend" but that the US is carrying out Predator missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government's consent. His logic for insisting the US support his government also undermines Pakistan because he seeks to show that if he falls our nukes will fall into terrorist hands. Is this how he protects our national interests? Now if his wish of accessing our strategic institutions with his cronies and the like is fulfilled, we may as well hand over all our assets to the US – and now, by default, given the Indo-US strategic partnership, to India.

But then, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and it seems our president has no understanding of our history since he declares grandly, "India has never been a threat to Pakistan". Please, Ms Rehman, at least teach him some basic history and you do not have to use Pakistani sources either! As for his comment on the Indo-US nuclear deal – which even more rational US analysts have decried as a factor in upping the nuclear arms' levels in South Asia, our ignorant President sees it merely as the "largest democracy" in the world "getting friendly" with the "oldest democracy" in the world!

In fact, he sees his own country simply as a backyard to serve Indian development. As for the poor Kashmiris, they have been labelled "terrorists" for seeking liberation from Indian occupation! To our shame, a Pakistani ruler's effigy was burnt for the first time since 1979, in Baramulla town in Occupied Kashmir with 400 Kashmiris defying curfew to express their anger at the Zardari labelling of the Kashmiri freedom fighters as "terrorists". So far, Zardari has certainly been good news only for the US and India!

If Musharraf was forced to compromise with the US – although now his compromises appear miniscule when compared to what the present government is giving to the US – to ostensibly sustain himself in power then what is our present leadership so worried about in terms of the US? Are there still some dangerous skeletons despite the NRO that the US can utilise to keep the democratic dispensation in line with its eventual goal of ending the nuclear Pakistani state as we know it?

If the present trends continue we may well eventually confront a civil war across the country. This is exactly the situation the US is seeking to come in fully and set up its own quisling set up. As we and the US know, there have always been many in our leadership only too willing to play that role. As for the present leaders, their embarking on the road to power may well have been prepared in Washington, but it is Pakistan's realities that will ensure their stay in or removal from power. Can they manage to get out of the US embrace to see their own realities?

Yet another brilliant article by Dr Mazari, highlighting how a compromise of Pakistan's sovereignity is being very brazenly facilitated by incompetent Pakistan governmet. How the new prime minister and his cabinet views these advancements and what is their aproach towards checking this dangerous trend is yet to be seen. Indicators are not very encouraging, though. It is obvious that these dwarfs are only busy killing their time in tackling the matters of a lesser importance and are incapable of objectively assessing the present threat to Pakistan's very existence.

BY: SHIREEN M MAZARI
While the nation continues to watch the "back and forth" drama over the restoration of the judges issue, increasingly aware of where it will all end; and while the poor look beyond the judicial issue to the basics of survival in the face of rising costs of staple food and utilities; scant attention is being paid to the rapid threats to the country's sovereignty that are emerging from different quarters that are linked together in an overarching strategic partnership – that is India and the US with the UK an avid supporter. If one only examines events that took place April 23 to April 29 and connects them up, it becomes clear that either by default or by design Pakistan is in danger of losing its sovereignty.

To begin with, take the incident of April 23 when NATO forces (actually US forces) along with some Afghan soldiers attacked FC posts in Bajaur Agency. What is intriguing is the way in which this direct assault on the country's sovereignty was explained away. First we were told that it was a misunderstanding. Then some of us were told that in fact this action was in response to firing from across our side of the international Pakistan-Afghan border.

However, on exploring further it transpires that the firing from our side took place a day earlier so the violence from the US troops was not an immediate response to the firing -- although it is difficult in any case to actually assess the exact spot of the initial firing given the nature of the border. Instead, this was a pre-planned operation, conducted a day later, targeting our FC posts at a time when there were a few FC personnel on duty, and involved 600 US troops along with Afghan soldiers as well as helicopter gunships and tanks! Also, the attack continued for a fair length of time so that the FC was able to call in reinforcements -- again not simply an immediate response to fire from militants! Instead, it seems the US military deliberately targeted our paramilitary forces – to teach them some sort of "lesson".

Interestingly, this attack came a few days after reports that US commanders were seeking to widen their attacks inside Pakistan . Worse still, some of our border posts were occupied by the US-Afghan combine -- but we kept quiet and there was no contemplated retaliation. Why?

Now we hear that the peace talks with our tribal people are breaking down. Clearly a mischievous hand can be discerned, especially when one sees the bizarre story of a handbill being circulated in Peshawar inviting people to join the Taliban. The Taliban have denied the authenticity and, on this count, they are probably right because the language being used -- for instance the words "Janat ka direct ticket" -- is more in line with western advertising ruses than Taliban language! Also, the mobile number given in English makes little sense as does the fact that the handbill is in Urdu rather than in Pushto. It would appear the timing is directly an effort to sabotage the ANP's political strategy of dealing with the tribal issue and it does not take too much intelligence to understand who is indulging in such dirty tricks.

To add to efforts at our demoralisation, last week also saw the French Prime Minister declare that Pakistan will "fall" if France leaves Afghanistan ! Honestly, is this what we are being reduced to? Nor is this all. British Foreign Secretary, Milliband, who seems to find no other place to give him the sort of feel-good sense that Islamabad does, has decided to explain to the world on our behalf that "Pakistanis voted for democracy nor Talibanisation"! So are we supposed to feel more confident about ourselves after this statement?

But the British must be feeling pleased with us these days because in another clipping of our sovereignty we have now allowed the British to deploy an airline liaison officer at Islamabad airport -- in other words, the state of Pakistan has delegated its powers to Britain to block the departure of passengers from Islamabad to the UK! Is this a reciprocal renunciation of a chip of our independence? Are we going to be allowed to have similar privileges at British airports to block the travel to Pakistan of undesirables from Britain -- especially "sleeper" terrorists? Of course not! This also happened in the seven-day time period being discussed here, which seems to have been particularly good for those seeking to undermine our sovereignty as a nation.

For it was also in this period that we had former Indian National Security Adviser, Mishra, suggesting that India become part of the US-EU or NATO combine to fight terrorism in Pakistan ! This is like Pakistan suggesting we help India fight terrorism in its northeastern provinces or Hindu extremism in Gujarat ! But we do know that the US is seeking to bring India militarily into Afghanistan and one really wonders when we will react strongly to these efforts -- when it is already too late? Incidentally, the US continues to adopt its arrogantly imperial approach towards Pakistan and now we hear that despite paying the market price for the F-16s, we are not going to get the cutting edge technology India will get with its F-16s. Clearly the F-16 saga will not alter, but let us hope we are not reduced to wheat and soya beans again!

Of course, we are still going the extra mile, unilaterally, to support India on all fronts. We have now agreed in principle that India can export wheat to Afghanistan through Wagah – opening up the long sought after land route by India . Hopefully, this decision will include certain safeguards like ensuring that the transportation from Wagah to the Afghan border is done by Pakistani transporters and that India pays a transport levy. Since the decision has been taken on principle, one must wait to see how it is operationalised, but to allow India physical access through Pakistan 's sensitive areas surely cannot be contemplated. Will India allow us to transport foodstuff to Nepal through the land route from across India ?

At least some political leaders are showing a commitment to reciprocity with Mr Nawaz Sharif demanding a linkage between the Sarabjit case and the case of Pakistani prisoners languishing in Indian jails. No one seems to have shown any sensitivity to this issue at all. Even more critical, commutation of Sarabjit's death sentence to life imprisonment should first be linked to an overall decision by the state to commute all death sentences and, in fact, move to end the death penalty which does not deter most murders and only penalises the poor -- many of whom are wrongly condemned for lack of a good defence. After all, if an Indian who killed innocent Pakistanis is to live why not the poor Pakistanis rotting on death row? Is a foreign life worth more than a Pakistani life for us?

Imagine if so much of our sovereignty was chipped away in a mere seven days, how much of it has already been lost after our embrace of the US-led "global war on terror" post-9/11! Has it all been willingly done?

By GEN. (Retired)MIRZA ASLAM BAIG

The Pakistanis have foiled Washington’s plan for regime change in Islamabad . Now we have to move fast to foil a second conspiracy against Pakistan taking place in Afghanistan against our homeland. The Americans have established a huge intelligence network there to target Pakistan and a few other countries in the region. They have turned our northwestern neighbor into a free-for-all territory for smugglers, narcotic dealers, conspirators, intelligence agencies and NGOs, to operate with impunity. Pakistan has to destroy the anti-Pakistan base of operations in Afghanistan .

The people of Pakistan have succeeded in defeating the 'conspiracy for regime change' in Islamabad through their landmark mandate of Feb. 18, which, hopefully, would lead to the establishment of a sovereign parliament.

This parliament will be faced with the daunting task of defeating another dangerous conspiracy emanating from Afghanistan, which started with the occupation of Afghanistan in October 2001, when a large intelligence setup was created at Jabal-us-Seraj, north of Kabul , to provide the much needed intelligence to the occupation forces.

The areas in the north from Herat to Mazar-e-Sharif to Badakhshan are virtually under the control of the warlords.

In the south, areas bordering Pakistan are practically controlled by the Taliban, in addition to a 'free for all' territory for the smugglers, narcotic dealers, conspirators, intelligence agencies and the NGOs, to operate with impunity.

U.S. and India signed the Strategic Partnership Deal in 2005, with the declared objective of containing and curbing the rising military and economic power of China and the increasing threat of Islamic extremism in the region.

In this respect, both countries achieved harmony of interests in pursuit of these objectives. However, as the military situation worsened, attention got focused on the establishment of a large intelligence network in Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan and other neighboring countries such as, China, Russia, Central Asian States and Iran.

It was at this time that the U.S. State Department declared that “Afghanistan, which has been part of Central Asia geopolitically, henceforth will be considered as part of South Asia .”

The implicit purpose was to bring Afghanistan within easy reach of India to use it as a base for intelligence operations against the neighboring countries.

We in Pakistan have enough information to identify this intelligence network inside Afghanistan , to accurately determine the dimensions of this Great Game.

The nerve center is at Jabal-us-Seraj, manned and operated by CIA, RAW, Mossad, MI-6 and BND (German intelligence). It’s a huge setup with concrete buildings, antennas and all the modern electronic gadgetry one can conceive of.

Country-specific outposts there are:

• Sarobi and Kandahar against Pakistan 
• Faizabad against China
• Mazar-e-Sharif against Russia and Central Asian states
• Herat against Iran

As far as Pakistan is concerned, Sarobi is the nerve center, headed by an Indian General officer, who also commands the Border Road Organization (BRO). Its forward bases are Ghazni, Khowst, Gardeyz, Jalalabad, Asadabad, Wakhan and Faizabad.

BRO has built an all-weather road from Sarobi to Asadabad to Faizabad. Sarobi network, targets the province of NWFP , Pakistan . Dissidents from Pakistan are trained at Sarobi for missions inside NWFP.

Wakhan is infested with dozens of electronic outposts covering Pakistan, China, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan .

Against Balochistan province, Kandahar has its forward bases at Lashkargah and Nawah. The dissidents from Balochistan are trained at Lashkargah for undertaking missions in Balochistan as well as in support of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). One of their tasks is to target the Chinese working in the province, particularly at Gwadar, Sandak and Hab.

The American anchorages on the Pakistani coast at Jiwani and Kalamat (The facilities at Jiwani and Kalamat were provided by Pakistan as logistic support bases to the Americans for operation in Afghanistan, but the same are now being used, to destabilize Balochistan and Iran.) jointly plan operations with BLA inside Balochistan.

They also use the Pakistani outposts at Mand for operations inside Iran . The American warships in the Arabian Sea and their intelligence base in Muscat provide the backup support.

The setup at Faizabad (Badakhshan) is against China and holds over 400 personnel mainly Muslim soldiers, engineers and workers from India . It serves as the training camp for the Chinese dissidents from the Xinjiang province of China . Indian Ulemas impart motivational education, giving the impression that the entire outfit at Faizabad was run by Pakistanis. The recently acquired facility for military deployment by India across the border in Tajikistan at Kalai Kumli adds a meaningful capability to India to operate inside Tajikistan, as well as Uzbekistan .

Against Russia , the intelligence base at Mazar-e-Sharif is run jointly by CIA, RAW, Mossad and BND. Chechen dissidents and agents from Turkmenistan are trained for operations in these countries. Rasheed Dostam and Ahmad Zia Masood are very active supporters of such activities in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan .

Against Iran, the forward base at Herat and Farah are manned by CIA, RAW and Mossad for subversive activities inside Iran . Jointly operating from these bases and the bases inside Pakistan, such as Kalamat, Jiwani and Mand, they have been able to undertake terrorist action inside Iran , killing a number of security forces personnel. The terrorist organization named Jandullah has been used for conduct of such operations inside Iran .  

The Karzai government in Kabul has granted all the main outposts of this network the status of diplomatic 'Consulates' to provide diplomatic cover for their activities, resulting into the worst kind of 'Terrorism Through Consensus' by the so-called civilized nations, in occupation of Afghanistan and the brutal violation of Afghanistan's sovereignty for this purpose.

It is surprising that after so much of suffering, as a result of this conspiracy, the government of Pakistan has woken up now to say that foreign hands are involved in the recent bomb blasts and suicide attacks. To defeat this conspiracy is the daunting task the new government and the sovereign parliament would be facing and we all hope it will stand up to the challenge.  

Mirza Aslam Baig is a former chief of army staff of the Pakistani Armed Forces.

This article is published with permission and courtsey of http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/

This paper was written by Mahnoor Khan, a Karachi based educationist sometime back. Now that a lot has rapidly changed in the political arena in Pakistan, it's contents still remain a lot relevant for how the elected assembly tackle with the issues highlighted therein remains to be seen..

 BY: MAHNOOR KHAN

Context:  It has been frequently asserted in national and international media that the imposition of emergency by General Musharraf has been unanimously opposed in Pakistan . While there have been unprecedented protests from diverse groups, the outrage is by no means as widespread as one would expect. Here are just some of the arguments that protestors hear from their friends and colleagues:

1)      Why are you supporting corrupt judges? All the lawyers are politicized and doing this for their own publicity and power.

2)      What are you trying to achieve? Do you want corrupt politicians like Benazir or Nawaz Sharif?

3)      The media was overstepping its boundaries, and the judiciary also became too interventionist. So both were asking for a clampdown.

4)      Musharraf has been a great leader. Yes, he is making mistakes, but he is still our best and only option.

5)      Protests will just cause more instability.

6)      Things will return to normal, so we should just wait and pray for the best.

These are overt and subtle ways in which the emergency is effectively legitimized by the Pakistani elite. In the following piece, I have attempted to articulate my own stance on the issue, and address some of these arguments.

The “Missing People” Case and Judicial Courage:  In February of this year, my ride home from work one evening was interrupted by a sizeable demonstration on Shahra-e-Faisal. The protest – as a radio channel informed me – was against the unlawful abduction and detention of “missing people” by our notorious agencies, and was being staged by hundreds of family members and activists who had traveled to Karachi from distant areas of Sindh. As I waited in my car for the demonstration to pass, I wondered: why is the tragedy of forced disappearances not sparking the outrage that it should? Why wasn’t this protest widely publicized, and supported by the so-called civil society? And what was I doing about this? But of course this line of questioning never continues for long. I brushed off my guilt by resorting tothe classic “what can I possibly do” and “there is no hope” cynicism, unconsciously told myself that I am working for important (and more convenient) causes like education and health so I do have some sense of social responsibility, put on some music, and eventually drove off.

I kept following the issue though. I had already been reading about disappearances regularly in Dawn and Herald since 2003. Even Amnesty International, The New York Times, and the Guardian had established how more than 500 Pakistanis had simply been abducted by our intelligence outfits with no case and no trace. That under the garb of the “war on terror”, there was a systematic campaign to capture critics – not militants – but politics activists, students, poets, journalists, social workers, and academics belonging in particular to Sindh and Baluchistan. That instead of recognizing and addressing the exacerbated grievances of people under a neoliberal military-intelligence alliance, the state had decided to crush any expression of grievance with sheer inhuman violence. Some released detainees had harrowing tales of torture to tell. Even those who protested for the sake of their missing ones were humiliated and intimidated – recall the picture of the 17-year old son of a detainee whose shalwar was lowered by the police during a public protest in January this year, before being arrested.

One becomes conditioned to overlook the entire picture when reading about such atrocities on an everyday basis. And so I read about all this with a sense of real but remote “oh, it’s just so sad” concern. Over the course of this year, however, I became more interested in the issue of missing people. This, unfortunately, was not due to any change in my own conscience, but because the issue itself had become more visible – thanks to the legal petitions that the tormented families as well as the HRCP had filed. And the judiciary was responding.

Our state institutions have become so inept, exploitative, and unjust that when an institution finally does its job, we think it has become too “independent” and “active.” We conveniently forget that defending the constitution and fundamental rights is the core purpose of the judiciary around the world. And we fail to even acknowledge – let alone celebrate – the courage with which the expelled judges were withstanding the coercive pressures and bribes from various corners, in order to question long-standing injustices such as political persecution, shady privatizations, and illegal building practices. Which state institution has had the courage to tackle these issues? Most importantly, the judiciary was questioning the unconstitutional and outrageously criminal activities of our intelligence agencies, of which the plight of missing people is but one manifestation.

I will say it clearly: the renewed democratic spirit of the judiciary had been a source of relief for me. I, as a human being and as a citizen, did not have the time, interest, and decency to actually stand up for the sake of social and economic justice. But it was heartening to see that at least one state institution was working towards progressive change in this country. As the law of indifference goes, though, I only observed this process from a distance. And again, from a distance, I witnessed the lawyers’ struggle to contest the high-handed manner in which the Chief Justice was removed. I, surely, did not have the time or the courage. Plus, with all the pomp of the Chief Justice’s rallies, it was convenient not to take a stance. Indeed, why ever take a stance? It is so much easier to sit back, criticize, and be cynical. And to ease your conscience, tell yourself that your business is helping the poor, or that you do not-so-political charity work.

But now, with the emergency – with the wholesale slaughter of the judicial process and the violent suppression of civil society – I think it is simply imperative for me to take a stance. An informed stance. Yes, of course, like all state institutions, the legal institutions are also ridden with misconduct and corruption. At many critical junctures, the judiciary itself has contributed to the undermining of the Constitution.  But in recent years, it is only the judiciary that has had the courage to show that it has at least some sense of social and political responsibility. If it was so corrupt and power-hungry, why would it take up cases that challenge the elite and military-dominated status quo in the country? Following its own history, it would succumb to bribes and threats, and play along. But it didn’t. And the missing people’s case is the prime testimony to this courage.

The missing people’s case also underlines something that is often ignored in analyses of the emergency: the suppression of activists, journalists, students, and academics is not something new and sudden. Yes, the scale is large, and for the first time, elite human rights activists and professors have also been arrested. But we must not forget that this has been a long-term trend, and that a systematic campaign to capture critics has been an appalling state policy for at least four years now. Newsline, Herald, HRCP, national newspapers as well as international media have repeatedly covered the brutalities of this policy. While media channels may have exploded in Pakistan, let’s not forget that the South Asian Free Media Association named Pakistan the worst country in terms of the harassment of journalists in 2006. Hence, the current suppression of the media is also a stark manifestation of a continuing tendency.

Military Extremism and Musharraf’s Islamization:  Why are we so keen to assert that the media and judiciary have overstepped their bounds, but not recognize the extremism and interventionism of the military and the intelligence agencies? I will readily acknowledge that the media and judiciary have severe failings that need to be addressed. But how can we ignore that there is a fundamental asymmetry of power between a military-intelligence establishment on one hand and the media or the judiciary on the other? The Supreme Court and media can be massively irresponsible and corrupt, but they will never have the capacity to amass wealth and power, and terrorize citizens like the military-intelligence alliance that currently rules the country. Who will hold the latter accountable?

The military has become the biggest corporate entity and interest group in the country, and inserted itself in literally every economic, social and political institution including textbook boards, universities and highway authorities. All this has not been achieved “cleanly,” but involved massive corruption, intimidation, and back-door deals. It is different from regular “fill up the bank account” looting since it involves the setting up and expansion of a huge empire that grabs land, monopolizes markets, and dominates political and social institutions. This extent of political and economic dominance will live on regardless of the fate of today’s dictatorship. Amongst other devastating consequences, it has also severely affected the professionalism of the army – as argued by several analysts and retired military officers.

Repeated military rule in our country has not only stifled the process of democratization but also helped to promote religious extremism. Yes, Musharraf is no Zia, and as a person, may indeed be a secular guy believing in “enlightened moderation”. But this is no justification for overlooking the critical role that both the military and intelligence agencies have played in creating and supporting Islamist militancy. Have we forgotten that it was in Musharraf’s regime that a religious alliance was brought into power for the first time in Pakistan ’s history – and allowed to form a government in NWFP – while allsecular-nationalist parties had been suppressed and even banned from rallying? And this was not a coincidence. The military-mullah alliance is not a myth – it is a long-standing relationship that became particularly strengthened in the Afghan War (1978-1989) when the ISI, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. government directly trained and equipped thousands of Pakistanis (not just Afghanis) to become militant jihadis. The Pajero-driven, gun toting mullah emerged during this period, and has continued to be patronized by agencies to fight our dirty wars in Afghanistan, Kashmir, as well as within Pakistan .

Since 2002, the formal establishment of a religious alliance in NWFP has paved the way for legitimizing a conservative and repressive Islam. NWFP may not have had a very liberal society, but the intimidation of barbers, tailors, X-ray assistants, CD sellers, female health workers, NGO activists, and administrators of girls’ schools is a recent phenomenon that is directly linked to the support of religious elements by our militaryintelligence establishment. JUI was never even on the political map till it got political legitimacy by the army. And it is the ISI’s support of the Taliban and religious parties that has emboldened the likes of Sufi Muhammad and Fazlullah. We must ask: why is it that reporters associated with KTN, Sindh TV, and Intikhab have been abducted and tortured, while Fazlullah’s FM radio was allowed to operate freely?

The biggest travesty is that Musharraf is using the self-perpetuated threat of religious militancy to justify his rule, claiming that he will be the force of stability. This is simply a contradiction in terms. Musharraf’s rule has made us second only to Iraq in terms of bombing operations and suicide attacks; hence, he is not even able to hold his ground in his own terrain which is national security and defence. What more has to happen for us to recognize that Pakistan has been destabilized for a long time now, and that the unquestioned and unaccounted practices of the military and intelligence are hugely responsible? Some people say: ok, so the army and agencies created the Pakistani Taliban, and now that the fundamentalists are on the offensive, only the army can reign them in. Such an approach is even more misguided, as it will only worsen the oppressions of military rule. Further, years and years of breeding religious militancy and encouraging Islamist politics will not go away with bombing Waziristan and Swat. We need a long term strategy involving rehabilitation, economic incentives, and political negotiation. Just like we are still struggling with Zia’s Islamization, we will be fighting Musharraf’s Islamization for a long time to come.

The Meaning of Democracy:  Because of the repressive tactics that the army routinely employs, military extremism and absolutism has remained publicly invisible to a large extent. Does this mean we ignore it? Supporters of Musharraf’s regime argue that he gave us economic growth. Does this justify the militarization of state, economy, and society? Does this validate systematic oppression and violence? I couldn’t bear the television coverage of the Lal Masjid episode, does this make the silencing of critique under PEMRA acceptable? I have personally experienced the gender biases and callousness of our courts, does this mean that the entire Supreme Court should be disposed off?

This is the time to make distinctions. We need to recognize that the current struggle is about protecting the Constitution, and about resisting the wholesale annihilation of the rule of law. It is not a personality contest between Musharraf, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Protestors are not impulsive fools who love Benazir or Nawaz Sharif – they are as disillusioned with “democratic” regimes as anyone else. Does this mean that we should now give up all hope and respect for political process? Do we simply accept the kingdom of a military dictator? We want a ready-made, perfect leader to lead us, but are unwilling to allow her or him to emerge because we keep accepting rampant abuses of the political process. The lesser-of-the-two evils argument just does not work: a military dictator is not accountable to anyone, will entrench the interests of the army, and will eventually show his true colors. And political history around the world has shown that a military dictator claiming to bring in “democracy” is a contradiction in terms. A political party still needs to get re-elected, and a rule that says no leader can be Prime Minister twice will ensure that new leaders will come up. The political spectrum is not even as limited as we think it is. There are several regional parties, the Labor Party, and the Tehrik-e-Insaaf which can promise to play a strong role in the future. But parties like the JUI and PML (Q) will only strengthen the forces of religious and military extremism.

Let’s assume that all parties are corrupt. Let’s think about how India had an emergency under Congress in the 70s, and a systematic genocide of Muslims under BJP. Let’s remember how the U.S. under Bush is continuing to devastate Afghanistan and Iraq . Does this mean that the militaries in the two countries should take over for the sake of “stability?” Democracies do not work perfectly anywhere, yet they are the most common form of governance because they come the closest to ensuring both accountability and stability.

Ultimately, democracy is not about procedural elections, but about the substantive principles of liberation, egalitarianism, and justice. The democracies of the world have gotten to where they are because of citizens’ engagement. Self-determination and democracy was not given on a platter by monarchs and colonizers – every victory was a result of protests, struggles, and social movements. Let’s not simplistically equate any political party’s reinstatement with a “transition to democracy.” In our country, the transition was already happening thanks to the renewed strength of our Supreme Court. It is the continuing struggle to resist the emergency, restore the Constitution, and reinstate the Supreme Court that is the actual stuff of democracy – it’s democracy in the making – and we need to support it in every way that we can. And if and when we succeed, the struggle by no means is over. Military dominance, political corruption, religious extremism, media sensationalism, and judicial negligence will not magically disappear. Instead of dwelling in self-serving apathy and cynicism, we, as citizens, need to constantly play our part in reforming the status quo and striving towards a better future for our country. That is everyone’s responsibility, not just of judges, military officials and politicians.

Cynicism is the Opium of the Elite:  As elites, consumed by our work and social lives, we have been too depoliticized and disconnected to care. We don’t even follow the news regularly, and may not know how the judiciary was upholding several causes of social and economic justice. There have been hundreds of petitions of aggrieved citizens who requested the Supreme Court to hear their voices, or take suo moto action, because they had no other recourse. And the judiciary was listening. It might have been corrupt, brash and naïve, but it showed concern. And unlike the shameless legislature, executive, and most of the citizenry, the lawyers and judges who have been hounded for months are still bravely refusing to accept an elitist and military-dominated status quo. What power are they getting by risking their lives and the security of their families? Why, for once, can we not think about their struggle with the seriousness that it demands?

It’s all too easy to disparage protesting students as well by saying that they are immature, trying to act cool and pseudo-revolutionary, or just joining the bandwagon. Why are we so bent on dismissing them instead of giving them credit? If students are protesting at an unprecedented scale, surely there must be something about the situation that is sparking this agitation? They are not protesting for party politics, nor simply because their own professors have been arrested. They are genuinely frustrated, and refuse to watch tyranny take root. Life and politics is messy and confusing, so they obviously do not have all the answers and are also uncertain about what the future will bring. Yet, despite tremendous fears in these times of repression, they have the integrity and courage to take a stance.

And like them, we all must take a stance. This is not the time to dilly-dally and say: “I don’t support the emergency but the protests are not worthy enough a cause” and “I think the repression is inhuman but we have to see what choices we have as a nation.” As Howard Zinn said in the People’s History of the United States, it’s where you put the “but” that makes unjust use of power and violence possible. One can instead say, “Musharraf did many good things for the country but a violently enforced military mullah- intelligence alliance with no respect for rule of law and civil liberties is simply unacceptable.”

One can criticize any stance – which is only a way to not take any stance at all. It is always convenient to sit back, observe, and be critical and cynical as if that makes us all intellectual. This is the surest way to escape ever standing up for anything, and masking one’s own ignorance, and unwillingness to engage. But silence is a form of political action, and it has strong consequences especially in these severe times. By not standing up and vocalizing our discontent with this kind of draconian action, we are implicitly telling the regime (and all subsequent regimes) that it is ok for them to do whatever they please, and we will sit idle like innocent bystanders. Our fatalistic (“whatever will be will be”), over-critical (“I don’t agree with anything”), and cynical (“this is such a crazy farce”) postures are not only unfair to those who are willing to struggle and sacrifice, but they in effect help to sustain the status quo.

If we are scared of instability due to protests, and Musharraf’s departure, we must ask ourselves: what is our definition of stability? Is rising military and religious extremism not enough? Is the decimation of the highest judicial institution not enough? Are over 5,000 indiscriminate and unlawful arrests not enough? What about the anti-terrorism and sedition cases against innocent people? Are the laws for court-marshalling citizens also acceptable, so the army-intelligence regime can simply press “delete” on citizens like it did on the Supreme Court? Is the “Musharraf is necessary” theory so unfalsifiable that no amount of violence and human rights abuse will move us into action? Do we believe in any values, and have we ever stood up for anything? Does it really have to be the intimidation or arrest of a loved one that shakes us out of our apathy?

If we don’t have the courage to protest ourselves, we should at least not trivialize and ridicule the efforts of those who do. Better still, we should express our solidarity, lend support, and actively shape this defining historic moment. We always have a choice.

BY: MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY 

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has created conditions which contribute to the ongoing destabilization and fragmentation of Pakistan as a nation. The process of U.S.-sponsored "regime change,“ which normally consists in the re-formation of a fresh proxy government under new leaders has been broken. Discredited in the eyes of Pakistani public opinion, General Pervez Musharaf cannot remain in the seat of political power, but at the same time, the fake elections ported by the "international community" scheduled for January 2008, even if they were to be carried out, would not be accepted as legitimate, thereby creating a political impasse. There are indications that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was anticipated by U.S. officials: "It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies have been maneuvering to strengthen their political control of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the ‘war on terrorism’ across the region. Various American destabilization plans, known for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of Pakistan 's military... The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There were even reports of “chatter” among U.S. officials about the possible assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well before the actual attempts took place.

Political Impasse: "Regime change" with a view to ensuring continuity under military rule is no longer the main thrust of U.S. foreign policy. The regime of Pervez Musharraf cannot prevail. Washington's foreign policy course is to actively promote the political fragmentation and balkanization of Pakistan as a nation. A new political leadership is anticipated but in all likelihood it will take on a very different shape, in relation to previous U.S.-sponsored regimes. One can expect that Washington will push for a compliant political leadership, with no commitment to the national interest, a leadership which will serve U.S. imperial interests, while concurrently contributing under the disguise of "decentralization,” to the weakening of the central government and the fracture of Pakistan 's fragile federal structure. The political impasse is deliberate. It is part of an evolving U.S. foreign policy agenda, which favors disruption and disarray in the structures of the Pakistani State . Indirect rule by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus is to be replaced by more direct forms of U.S. interference, including an expanded U.S. military presence inside Pakistan … This expanded military presence is also dictated by the Middle East-Central Asia geopolitical situation and Washington's ongoing plans to extend the Middle East war to a much broader area. The U.S. has several military bases in Pakistan . It controls the country's air space. According to a recent report: "U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units" (William Arkin, Washington Post, December 2007)… The official justification and pretext for an increased military presence in Pakistan is to extend the "war on terrorism.” Concurrently, to justify its counterterrorism program, Washington is also beefing up its covert support to the "terrorists." 

The Balkanization of Pakistan: Already in 2005, a report by the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the CIA forecast a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan "in a decade with the country riven by civil war, bloodshed, and inter provincial rivalries, as seen recently in Balochistan." (Energy Compass, 2 March 2005). According to the NIC-CIA, Pakistan is slated to become a "failed state" by 2015, "as it would be affected by civil war, complete Talibanisation, and struggle for control of its nuclear weapons.” (Quoted by former Pakistan High Commissioner to UK , Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Times of India, 13 February 2005): "Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the Central government's control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi ," the former diplomat quoted the NIC-CIA report as saying. Expressing apprehension, Hasan asked, "Are our military rulers working on a similar agenda or something that has been laid out for them in the various assessment reports over the years by the National Intelligence Council in joint collaboration with CIA?" (Ibid)  Continuity, characterized by the dominant role of the Pakistani military and intelligence has been scrapped in favor of political breakup and balkanization… According to the NIC-CIA scenario, which Washington intends to carry out: "Pakistan will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive policies, lawlessness, corruption, and ethnic friction." (Ibid). The U.S. course consists in fomenting social, ethnic, and factional divisions and political fragmentation, including the territorial breakup of Pakistan . This course of action is also dictated by U.S. war plans in relation to both Afghanistan and Iran … This U.S. agenda for Pakistan is similar to that applied throughout the broader Middle East Central Asian region. U.S. strategy, supported by covert intelligence operations, consists in triggering ethnic and religious strife, abetting and financing secessionist movements while also weakening the institutions of the central government…The broader objective is to fracture the Nation State and redraw the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Covert Support to Balochistan Separatists: Balochistan's strategic energy reserves have a bearing on the separatist agenda. Following a familiar pattern, there are indications that the Baloch insurgency is being supported and abetted by Britain and the U.S… The Balochi national resistance movement dates back to the late 1940s, when Balochistan was invaded by Pakistan . In the current geopolitical context, the separatist movement is in the process of being hijacked by foreign powers… British intelligence is allegedly providing covert support to Balochistan separatists (which from the outset have been repressed by Pakistan 's military). In June 2006, Pakistan's Senate Committee on Defence accused British intelligence of "abetting the insurgency in the province bordering Iran "  

Ten British MPs were involved in a closed door session of the Senate Committee on Defence regarding the alleged support of Britain 's Secret Service to Balcoh separatists (Ibid). Also of relevance are reports of CIA and Mossad support to Baloch rebels in Iran and Southern Afghanistan … It would appear that Britain and the U.S. are supporting both sides. The U.S. is providing American F-16 jets to the Pakistani military, which are being used to bomb Baloch villages in Balochistan. Meanwhile, British alleged covert support to the separatist movement (according to the Pakistani Senate Committee) contributes to weakening the central government. The stated purpose of U.S. counter-terrorism is to provide covert support as well as training to "Liberation Armies" ultimately with a view to destabilizing sovereign governments. In Kosovo, the training of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in the 1990s had been entrusted to a private mercenary company, Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI), on contract to the Pentagon… The BLA bears a canny resemblance to Kosovo's KLA, which was financed by the drug trade and supported by the CIA and Germany 's Bundes Nachrichten Dienst (BND)… The BLA emerged shortly after the 1999 military coup. It has no tangible links to the Baloch resistance movement, which developed since the late 1940s. An aura of mystery surrounds the leadership of the BLA. Washington favors the creation of a "Greater Balochistan" which would integrate the Baloch areas of Pakistan with those of Iran and possibly the Southern tip of Afghanistan, thereby leading to a process of political fracturing in both Iran and Pakistan … "The U.S. is using Balochi nationalism for staging an insurgency inside Iran 's Sistan-Balochistan province. The ‘war on terror’ in Afghanistan gives a useful political backdrop for the ascendancy of Balochi militancy". Military scholar Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, writing in the June 2006 issue of The Armed Forces Journal suggests in no uncertain terms that Pakistan should be broken up, leading to the formation of a separate country: "Greater Balochistan" or "Free Balochistan .” The latter would incorporate the Pakistani and Iranian Baloch provinces into a single political entity… In turn, according to Peters, Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP) should be incorporated into Afghanistan "because of its linguistic and ethnic affinity.” This proposed fragmentation, which broadly reflects U.S. foreign policy, would reduce Pakistani territory to approximately 50 percent of its present land area. Pakistan would also lose a large part of its coastline on the Arabian Sea …                                                                                                  

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers… This map (as described), as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles…   "Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted, before he retired to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon’s foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy." (Ibid)               

"Strong Economic Medicine": Weakening Pakistan's Central Government: It is by no means accidental that the 2005 National Intelligence Council (NIC)-CIA report had predicted a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan pointing to the impacts of "economic mismanagement" as one of the causes of political breakup and balkanization… "Economic mismanagement" is a term used by the Washington-based international financial institutions to describe the chaos which results from not fully abiding by the IMF's Structural Adjustment Program. In actual fact, the "economic mismanagement" and chaos is the outcome of IMF-World Bank prescriptions, which invariably trigger hyperinflation and precipitate indebted countries into extreme poverty… Pakistan has been subjected to the same deadly IMF "economic medicine" as Yugoslavia: In 1999, in the immediate wake of the coup d'etat which brought General Pervez Musharaf to the helm of the military government, an IMF economic package, which included currency devaluation and drastic austerity measures, was imposed on Pakistan .

Pakistan 's external debt is of the order of US$40 billion. The IMF's "debt reduction" under the package was conditional upon the sell-off to foreign capital of the most profitable state owned enterprises (including the oil and gas facilities in Balochistan) at rock bottom prices . Musharaf's Finance Minister was chosen by Wall Street, which is not an unusual practice. The military rulers appointed at Wall Street's behest a vice-president of Citigroup, Shaukat Aziz, who at the time was head of Citi-Group's Global Private Banking. Citi-Group is among the largest commercial foreign banking institutions in Pakistan .  There are obvious similarities in the nature of U.S. covert intelligence operations applied in country after country in different parts of the so-called "developing World.” These covert operations, including the organization of military coups, are often synchronized with the imposition of IMF-World Bank macro-economic reforms. In this regard, Yugoslavia 's federal fiscal structure collapsed in 1990 leading to mass poverty and heightened ethnic and social divisions. The U.S. and NATO sponsored "civil war" launched in mid-1991 consisted in coveting Islamic groups as well as channeling covert support to separatist paramilitary armies in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia. A similar "civil war" scenario has been envisaged for Pakistan by the National Intelligence Council and the CIA: From the point of view of U.S. intelligence, which has a longstanding experience in abetting separatist "liberation armies,” "Greater Albania" is to Kosovo what "Greater Balochistan" is to Pakistan's Southeastern Balochistan province. Similarly, the KLA is Washington 's chosen model to be replicated in Balochistan province.

The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto: Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi , no ordinary city. Rawalpindi is a military city host to the headquarters of the Pakistani Armed Forces and Military Intelligence (ISI). Ironically Bhutto was assassinated in an urban area tightly controlled and guarded by the military police and the country's elite forces. Rawalpindi is swarming with ISI intelligence officials, which invariably infiltrate political rallies. Her assassination was not a haphazard event. Without evidence, quoting Pakistan government sources, the Western media in chorus has highlighted the role of Al-Qaeda, while also focusing on the possible involvement of the ISI… What these interpretations do not mention is that the ISI continues to play a key role in overseeing Al Qaeda on behalf of U.S. intelligence. The press reports fail to mention two important and well-documented facts: 1) the ISI maintains close ties to the CIA. The ISI is virtually an appendage of the CIA. 2) Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. The ISI provides covert support to Al Qaeda, acting on behalf of U.S. intelligence. 

(This paper was originally published in Jan 2008.The contents of this article are entirely writer’s own views and PAKISTANSpecial Team may not agree with some or all for obvious reasons.) 

Following paper is a preamble to recommendations by DR BHASHAYAM KASTURI and PANKAJ MEHRA for Indian covert action against Pakistan, already published by PAKISTAN Special this month.

Readers can go through and link both articles in the light of present turmoil in Pakistan and draw their own conclusions. Your views and comments are welcomed.

India, in the late 50s and 60s with the help of the CIA aided the Tibetan rebellion, providing training facilities in India . The 1962 border war with China led to the establishment of several organisations that are today under the Cabinet Secretariat, the Special Frontier Force (Establishment 22 at Chakrata) and Special Services Bureau. Additionally, a group was raised with the objective of carrying out aerial reconnaissance of China and Tibet , the Aviation Research Centre (ARC). One source suggests that at Charbatia in December 1964 a U-2 aircraft was deployed for operations over Tibet . The Tibet operation continued till the early 60s when the CIA, withdrew its operations on Indian soil and moved to Nepal .

Then in the late sixties, the need for an organisation tasked with gathering external intelligence led to the formation of RAW, and the Directorate General of Security was transferred from IB to RAW. As the Bangladesh crisis arose, RAW was given the task of gathering intelligence and undertaking covert missions, including pro-insurgency. This is the most successful operation till date, publicly written about, carried out, involving the training of the Mukti Bahini of East Pakistan and their role in helping the Indian military intervention.

The operation involved getting the freedom fighters in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh ) together and training and arming them. This was essentially a Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) operation, with the Indian army providing the training infrastructure. The Mukti Bahini was formed in January 1971 and for the next ten months people who came across the border were selected for training. By September-November 1971, these forces were infiltrated into East Pakistan for covert missions, including sabotage of lines of communication and command and control centres.

When war did officially break out on 3 December, the Mukti Bahini was ready, (just like the French resistance in 1944, when Operation Overlord the invasion at Normandy began). The Mukti Bahini helped Indian troops find their way, harassed Pak troops and generally made itself a nuisance. Naval Mukti Bahini divers planted mines in the harbours around Bangladesh and sunk many merchant and warships, playing a crucial role in blockading the ports. Another facet of covert action was witnessed in the trans-border attacks carried out by the Special Frontier Force (SFF) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Thus a combination of para-military action in the form of the Mukti Bahini and direct covert action using special forces, complimented the main military action in the 1971 Bangladesh war. The benefits accruing from coordinated covert action allowed implementation of foreign policy to secure national interests namely liberation of East Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh .

Subsequently measures taken to integrate Sikkim into the Indian Union by the RAW proved crucial. One authority states that RAW performed the task of counter-intelligence in Sikkim preventing foreign agencies from getting a foothold in the sensitive Himalayan kingdom and allowing it to accede to India . But soon after the successful mounting of Bangladesh and Sikkim operation, leading to the latter’s integration as a state in the Indian union, came the Sri Lanka operation. This pro-insurgency operation launched by Mrs Gandhi during her second term in office, meant to train Tamil separatists followed the same lines of the 1971 case. Equipping and training of insurgents from across the Palk Straits took place on Indian soil, in the state of Tamil Nadu and in places as far as, Chakrata and Dehradun. With the active support of the state and central government, Indian intelligence agencies took up the task with gusto. But what was missing was the broad institutional oversight so essential for tying up the loose ends. Foreign policy makers and defence planners were scarcely aware of what was happening as political masters changed and priorities shifted.

Secrecy is undoubtedly called for in operations of this sort. But as the Iran-Contra affair in America showed, in the Sri Lanka operations also one part of the government did not know what the other was doing. In the Indian case, while RAW knew what it was doing politically, neither it nor the government was unable to fathom the potential for trouble that was generated by this operation. This was because the mission sought to achieve too much at one time. The number of groups being trained were one too many and difficult to control. No accountability existed and eventually not enough attention was paid to the risks of losing control over the insurgents. Thus by the time Mrs Indira Gandhi was killed in 1984, and Rajiv became prime minister the priorities changed and so did policy towards Sri Lanka .

In politico-military terms, covert action eventually proved to be of little use when the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) went into Sri Lanka in 1987. For the simple reason that intelligence on the insurgents trained by India was not forthcoming. Additionally, the intelligence agencies continued to covertly continue political dealings with the insurgents to suit their ends, even during the IPKF’s stay in Sri Lanka . This undermined the foreign policy goal of sending a peacekeeping force to restore peace in Sri Lanka . The problem was that too many prime ministers were involved in the Sri Lanka episode, resulting in several conflicting decisions. Also involvement of state leaders like MG Ramachandran created more complications for command and control.

Intelligence agencies have been involved in various covert acts, both within India and in the surrounding region. Intelligence agencies often make alliances and then forget to inform their cousins resulting in confusion. In February 1998, the Armed Forces intercepted ships at sea off the Andamans killing six people and arresting 73 others. This was essentially a "sting" operation carried out by MI in collaboration with their Burmese counterparts. But the result was a big hue and cry.

In April, the leader of the National Unity Party of Arakans (NUPA) wrote to the Defence Minister that the men abroad the ship were in fact Arakanese revolutionaries who were cooperating with the Indians. He wrote, "The Indian military intelligence had okayed our voyage and that is why we entered Indian territorial waters to avoid the Burmese Navy." The issue is whether it was a case of military intelligence not giving the information to its forces in the field in time or it was a case of giving up its people. Maung wrote, "We were cooperating with each other. The Indians asked us for help to track down gunrunners carrying weapons to Northeast India and we helped them. So it came as a shock to us that our ship, about which the Indians were given full information, should be attacked." The point here is that at one level India is willing to help the pro-democracy movement in Burma, but due to the insurgents buying arms from South-East Asia and this having a direct influence on the insurgent movement in India’s north-east it becomes necessary for the army to curb such activity. The dichotomy in policy towards the region is a reflection of the lack of understanding how to secure vital interests in the north-east.

It needs recalling that in the 80s, RAW supported tribal and ethnic factions fighting the SLORC in Myanmar . One of the factions supported by India was the Kachin Independence Army. The Kachins, known more accurately as Jingphaws or Marus, account for some 3 per cent of Myanmar ’s ethnic population. They inhabit the north-east of the country and have the reputation for resorting to arms to assert what they believe are their rights.

A senior officer in RAW deputed to Bangkok in the 80s, made contact with Burmese underground leaders in the hope of gaining some information. Then this officer decided that the KIA could be beneficially used to channelise information. And RAW could aid them with money and arms. Having made contact, the idea was to get members of KIA into India for training and contact creation. After the controlling officer returned from Bangkok , infiltration of KIA cadres was started. They came as students, youths touring India and helpers, sent for training to Chakrata and other locations in north and north-east. Arms and other material began to filter through to camps in North Myanmar and this reached its peak in 1991-92. Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram provided exfiltration sites, while some material went via Bangkok . This was the post election period when Aung Sang Suu Kyi had won but was not allowed to take power by SLORC. All this was stopped by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, as part of his "Look East" policy.

Looking back, one may well ask what purpose did this operation serve? What national interests or foreign policy goals did it serve? Keeping in mind the dimension of policy in the 80s, that of coercive diplomacy there is little doubt that the Government thought it fit to aid all rebels across the borders, wherever it suited us. But on many an occasion it backfired, as it did in Sri Lanka .

There is one other aspect of covert action that requires highlighting in the present study. Nation-states also engage in action within the territorial confines of the country for politico-military aims, such as pro-insurgency or counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism. Since the institutional framework for covert action exists in most countries in the South Asian region, indulging in domestic covert action is a continuing tool for governments. In India for instance, it was suggested that SSB was used to raise and train the Bodos in the late 80s in an effort to counter other groups in the region. Their employment to fulfil political goals has affected their organisation and performance and impinges on their role, which is really to engage in "stay-behind" operations.

The ISI has been involved in covert action in various parts of India since the 80s. The main focus has been on Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir. Infiltration of arms and drugs into India , along with men to stoke insurgencies has been common. For Jammu & Kashmir, the ISI has a special cell to fuel the insurgency. It has been responsible for the setting up and maintenance of training camps in POK and Pakistan , the provision of arms and equipment, infiltration and exfiltration of both recruits and trained militants into the Valley. The entire plan to infiltrate Kashmir and launch a covert low-intensity war there has been described in the part fact, part fictionalised Operation Topac in 1989. The Pak strategy has followed the lines suggested in this analysis.

The Kashmir operation was an offshoot of the US-Pakistan fight against Soviet Union . The CIA backed the Mujahadeen, via the ISI. The latter siphoned off money and weapons meant for Afghanistan to stoke the insurgency in Kashmir . But infiltration into the Valley has been taking place on a low key since the early eighties, first of Kashmiris who were alienated from India and currently of Pak mercenaries, including criminals and foreign soldiers of fortune from Afghanistan and further afield. This occurred through training camps in POK and Pakistan proper.

The enormous powers enjoyed by ISI were brought to the notice of Robert Gates in May 1990 on a visit to India and Pakistan . Benazir Bhutto apparently expressed her helplessness to Gates, in controlling the training camps run by ISI in POK and Afghanistan used for anti-India operations. Even accounting for an element of exaggeration, the illustration speaks much for the ISI’s independence. Being a military controlled organisation, covert operations are tightly controlled. A more recent statement by Benazir Bhutto portrays an intelligence operation that has run amok and that one wields enormous power within Pakistan .

Most intelligence organisations the world over have a department or section for active measures. Recruitment and training is often based on special operations lines involving, parachuting, electronics, weapons and languages. Area orientation and mobility along with, light but powerful weaponry for fire fighting is essential for covert operations teams. The use of covert action to support national foreign and security policy has been commonplace amongst intelligence agencies round the world. Their success or failure has often depended on the command and control, and the level of involvement of political controllers. India ’s experience shows that results have often been positive when proper attention was paid to proper control and coordination. When this has not been possible misuse of covert assets has taken place. This combined with the duplication of covert efforts has reduced the impact of such action on national security.