New US Strategy & its implications

Muhammad Tahir Iqbal

A positive kind of variation is seen in Islamabad in the wake of the declaration of Obama's new strategy for the restive region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was queer to see at first that the speech was hailed by the Presidency and PM Yousaf Raza Gillani perhaps without having smattering of what it compounded for Pakistan. But later the foreign office and its minister aptly exposed serious reservations for the new Af-Pak strategy. Pakistan was again termed as the epicenter of terrorism. A strong determination was shown to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" the terrorists' hide-outs inside Pakistan's turbulent border areas. The new strategy promises $1.5 billion a year over the next five years. This is named as Kerry-Lugar bill as it was moved jointly by Senator Kerry, a Democrat and Richard Lugar, a Republican. The other legislation RoZ (Reconstruction Opportunity Zones) is intended for Pak-Afghan border areas carrying the seemingly improbable idea of construction of roads, schools and hospitals. Such an idea look far fetched. The most sinister part of this strategy was when the US president announced that now there would be no more "blank cheques" for Pakistan. The reference implies that the package of $7.5 billion spanning over the period of five years would entail certain conditions, only to mention a few, which would require Islamabad not to support any person or groups involved in activities meant to hurt India and to allow the US investigators access to people suspected of involvement in Nuclear Proliferation---a clear clue to Dr. Abdul Qadeer. The conditions attached are hard to be digested by Pakistan as rising eyebrows have started voicing apprehensions and misgivings. The Indian inclusion in the contact group is something that is by no means agreeable to Pakistan. The contact group comprises the regional countries that would assist to assuage the escalating tension in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. So diplomatic efforts are obstructively there to upgrade and promote the status of India in the region. Background interviews floated by the National Security Advisor, Gen James Jones and the Af-Pak envoy, Richard Holbrook have highlighted India as a significant player of the region that can contribute a 'positive' role in the war on terror. President Obama, who had earlier shown his bent to resolve the Kashmir-dispute during his election campaign, has taken a u-turn in this regard, so much so that the National Security Advisor Gen James Jones has clearly maintained in his recent appearance that the US will not get involved in settling Kashmir-dispute despite its desire to lessen the tension between India and Pakistan. This new approach manifests that Indian administration is well on board to play its 'positive' part despite clear indications that India's objectives in Afghanistan are not merely humanitarian as exposed by Mr. Ganguly, a professor of Political Science at Indian University, who says, India is working on "a pincer movement designed to relieve the pressure off Kashmir". Chritine Fair, an eminent US journalist, has also revealed in one of the most prestigious journals, "Foreign Affairs" that the missions undertaken by Indian consulates in Afghanistan (Jalalabad and Kandhar) and Iran (Zahidan) fall far beyond the issuance of Visas. She adds that it would be unfair to completely disregard Pakistan's regional perceptions arising from the doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations along the border areas. She further unveils that Indian officials have told her privately that they are pumping money into Balochistan and that Kabul encourages India to engage in provocative activities in Pakistan. Given the revelations of India's alleged involvement in fanning insurgency in Pakistan and the US administration's clear u-turn from the Kashmir-issue, Pakistan needs to spotlight the gravity of the problems; and Foreign Minister has conveyed Pakistan's concerns at diplomatic level in his latest press conference with Senator John Kerry. Now the US must analyze and comprehend Pakistan's concerns given the fact that Pakistan has been made most important stakeholder in War on Terror and its contributions as a front-line ally cannot be overlooked in this perspective. It is noticeable in this context that Senator John Kerry was more focused, polite and reserved in his latest tour to Pakistan than Richard Holbrook and Admiral Mike Mullen were. During Holbrook and Mike Mullen's visit to Pakistan on 6th of April, the former tried to downplay the ISI issue in front of a select group of reporters; Admiral interpolated at the point to say that there are challenges associated with ISI. But when the same question of vilification campaign against ISI launched by the US administration was put to John Kerry, he simply said that the US did not look down on Pakistan as characterized by the press, rather Washington took it as a "friend and an ally". But to win this war on terror as pledged by Washington, a more concentrated and comprehensive outlook is needed to look into the causes of this increasing extremism and its off-shoots---militancy and terrorism. Merely hitting the targets of militants' hide-outs and their activities would not serve the purpose. If the remains of al-Qaeda can be approached to ease the tension at Falluja; and if Israel can have a chat with Hezbollah, why this strategy is not adopted in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Here each peace deal with the militants is opposed and every card up in the sleeves is played to disrupt and dismantle the process of peace-negotiations. Until the root causes of growing militancy are properly addressed by due deliberations, extremism along with militancy would never end up. Every predator shooting drones makes more enemies from the common public who bear the brunt of the assaults than friends. Why is there absence of techniques having the potentiality to befriend the ones who are at least not Taliban? All the people residing in the border areas are not the likes of Taliban. But the casualties suffered by them leave no option for them than to recruit for Taliban and then they in turn avenge upon Islamabad by indulging in suicide attacks. The recent series of attacks by militants in Islamabad and Lahore can be quoted in this regard. Mr. Traub, a US scholar who writes for the New Yorker magazine and The New York Times has also indicated the same problem. He says that predator-drone attacks along the border "drive the Taliban eastward and deeper into Pakistan". A recent report conducted by the Pakistani authorities show that there have been 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009. Among these 60 drone-attacks, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing just 14 al-Qaeda leaders besides killing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. Now the question germinates if killing 14 militants has served the purpose or it has engendered the escalation of the extremism and militants. The ones losing their kiths would have no resort than to mount on Islamabad. Notwithstanding all that, Obama's new strategy for the region was destitute of even the mention of drone attacks and its repercussions. There is no doubt that Obama's new strategy has soured the US-Pakistan ties. Even the US think-tanks and media have started believing that the differences erupt from two major issues: India's role in Afghanistan and the drone attacks at suspected terrorists targets inside Pakistan. Notwithstanding the concerns from Islamabad, an alarming and eye-opening report in New York published lately says that the US intends to step up its use of drones to strike militants in Pakistan's tribal areas and might extend their scope to a different sanctuary deeper inside the country. Pakistan is standing at a critical crossroads where there is a need to devise a clear and comprehensive strategy at internal and external level to counter the menace of country's biggest security threat---terrorism. At internal level, the strategy has to be crafted at three levels: political, administrative and ideological. At political level, the government must take initiative to convene an 'All Party Conference'. Genuine efforts must be made at political level to negotiate with all the party-leaders and thereby create a general awareness among the public. If people can be motivated to come out of their thresholds for the independence of judiciary, they can again be motivated to play their due roles for the cause. At administrative level, a special Anti-Terrorism Office can be established in Islamabad. It should have its sub-centres at provincial capitals too. A system should be devised that should monitor, track and combat terrorist-related activities through a highly professional team of police, intelligence experts, investigators and psychologists. At ideological level, there is a need to bring revolution at the level of ideas. An awareness campaign, in this respect, can be launched by media personnel, writers and analysts. The nation is still not clear as to whose war is this. Part of the section of society is still ambiguous about the role of Taliban in the region. There is a need to spur awareness among the common people. The opaque versions of the stories must be laid open to a common man in the street. In this way, whatever efforts are taken by the government to stem the flow of militancy would have general public's support. And the government will also move forth confidently and effectively to eradicate the menace of terrorism. At external level, the government has to play its role at diplomatic level and register its strong concerns to international players and especially the US. The regional players should also be taken on board. The US should be realised to respect the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan. But on top of it, we would be in a strong position to carry our points at international level if we are internally strong. tahir_iqbal78@hotmail.com