PAKISTAN Special

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: SHAFQAT MEHMOOD
The easiest explanation is that Al Qaeda or Pakistani Taliban killed her and this is what the government has been pedaling. In twenty four hours, it not only determined the exact cause of Benazir Bhutto death but also solved the case. Baitullah Mehsud, we were told, is the culprit and there are tapes to prove it. I wish the interior ministry had shown similar efficiency in protecting her.

While these explanations are convenient let us look at Mr Mehsud's motives. There is little doubt that Benazir Bhutto hated Al Qaeda/Taliban and had vowed a relentless struggle against them. But, how was this any different from what Mr Musharraf has been saying and doing. What extra measures would she have undertaken that are not being used now. The only instrument available to her for crushing the extremists was Pakistan army and it is already engaged in a war against them. What was the extra that Ms Bhutto would have brought to the table that scared Al Qaeda/Taliban so much that they were determined to eliminate her?
Let us be clear. The October 18 attack on her procession, the day she arrived back in Pakistan from exile, was a serious assassination attempt. She survived because the armored truck protected her. What her killers learnt from this was that while a bomb may fail because of the protective measures, it disables the vehicle and makes it necessary for the target to be shifted to another vehicle. The process of shifting, which in Karachi was actually filmed by a TV crew, and further transportation in a non-amour plated vehicle, became the weak link in the security measures.

On December 27, the murder attempt included a suicide bomber, plus one or more shooters. In fact, for such a serious attempt, up to a dozen people may have been involved. Even if she had not come out of the hatch to wave to her supporters, they would have exploded the bomb and then attacked her while she was being shifted and transported in an unprotected vehicle. Her coming out just made it easier for the killers and the sequence was reversed. They were determined to get her this time.

I am not ruling out the Al Qaeda/Taliban as the suspects but the relentless desire to kill her requires a bigger motive than the fear of a focused drive against them. The state is already taking them on and I don't believe holding its punches. What else could Benazir have done? It is this that makes the easy explanation of their involvement suspect. They may have wanted her dead but it was probably in a general sense, just as they want all their opponents dead. Their going after her again and again lacks a specific focused motive.

If not the Pakistani Taliban, then who else? For this, one has to look at a bigger scenario that may sound conspiratorial but dealing with a tragedy like this, everything needs to be discussed. There is a body of opinion in this country that believes that United States is looking for an opportunity to take out our nuclear programme and dismantle the effective strength of our armed forces. Some columnists keep harping on this and one Ahmed Quraishi articulated this in an article that has been widely circulated.

His thesis is that movement against Musharraf after March 9, was sponsored by the US and everyone was paid including lawyers, journalists, judges etc. He further goes on to add that the real target was not Mr Musharraf but the Pakistan Army and by extension its nuclear arsenal . Also please remember that while referring to this period, Mr Musharraf keeps talking of conspiracy without actually explaining what it was. I don't know how much he subscribes to the Quraishi view, but the ire against Geo is allegedly because it tows the American line. Sponsored articles on the net actually accuse the channel of being directly in the Americans pay and of working against the interest of Pakistan.
This worldview that America is out to destabilize Pakistan and take control of its nuclear weapons, is bolstered by the statements of US leaders and reporting in the American media. Newsweek famously declared Pakistan the most dangerous country in the world, and op-ed articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times have called for US troops to go and 'secure' Pakistan's nuclear weapons. One piece by Frederick Kagan was particularly absurd and spoke in detail about how a million troops would be required for the invasion.

Other articles in prestigious papers also talk of how Mr Musharraf would not allow American special forces to operate in Pakistani tribal areas. Some hint at the involvement of the Pakistan army in the nuclear proliferation activities of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. Almost everyone talks of Pakistan as a failing state with nuclear weapons. The implication being that the west can't sit back and let this dangerous place slide into chaos. In other words, the sum total of American opinion reaching Pakistan, fuels the paranoia that is already present in certain circles within the country.

Ms Bhutto stepped into this cauldron by saying all the things that would make the paranoiacs mad. She said that under certain circumstances she would allow the American forces to target terrorists in the tribal areas. She said that she would make Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan available to the International Atomic Energy Commission for questioning. Both these statements touched very sensitive nerves. She also spoke often to American diplomats and officials of the state department and they in turn made no bones of the fact that she was their favourite candidate for Prime Minister.

Her American connection thus became her bane as far as the paranoiacs were concerned. As Benazir's political fortunes rose, they saw her as a Trojan horse for American interests who would allow American forces ingress into Pakistan and expose our nuclear program. These people saw her as a clear and present danger to the very survival of the country and a big enough reason in their mind to eliminate her. This is why they tried again and again until they succeeded.

The difficult part to prove is who 'they' are. I find it hard to believe that Mr Musharraf or our state institutions are involved in any of this. They may have had misgivings about her but that did not extend to seeing her as traitor or someone who would compromise our national interest. In any case, the Prime Minister would only have been one element of the tripod of power and they could checkmate her as and when they desired.

If the state establishment is not involved then who? It has to be the shadowy groups who have connection with the state but operate independently. They also have 'soldiers' in the shape of elements who worked closely with them in the past during the Afghan and Kashmir proxy wars. While the state has stopped sponsoring them, they have not disappeared. It is they who I believe are prime suspects in the tragic murder of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto.