Obama - Sharif talks: Dog-whistle politics

By Aik Awaz - One Voice

In light of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s second official visit to the US since 2013, the media was abuzz with speculating what the agenda of the meeting would be. With Obama’s decision to retain troops in Afghanistan till 2017, this meeting gained even more significance as the decision meant that the two countries will continue spearheading the fight against terrorism in the region for the foreseeable future. While some experts felt that nuclear escalation in the region and relations with India would form the core of the agenda, others pointed out that a stable Afghanistan would be Obama’s only concern towards the end of his tenure; however, a compilation of ten issues that Obama needs to address published on the Huffington Post really took the cake. Penned by Malik Siraj Akbar, who would more than qualify as an ‘expert’ given his credentials dismally failed to live up to all the accolades he has received as a journalist. While the internet is flooded with articles that criticize just for the sake of criticism and further a certain agenda, this one stood out for the lack of depth and understanding with regards to the very basic issues it raises.

While all of the ten points aren’t worthy of being addressed, a couple them deserve to be countered as they have been circulating in the realm of social media for quite a while. Starting with Pakistan’s complacence when it comes to taking action against outfits such as the LeT, it is as simple as chalking out a strategy and prioritizing according to exceptional circumstances. Pakistan’s armed forces have been deployed in tribal regions to eradicate the networks of al Qaeda and the TTP, and taking into consideration the volatile situation of the region and arrival of ISIS in Afghanistan, the forces will be stationed in the region till at least 2019. Pakistan faces a long-term struggle against terrorism and more importantly against extremism, but Mr. Siraj should be aware of the fact all the militant outfits cannot be dealt with a mere swoosh of the wand.

Mr. Siraj feels that “Obama must urge Sharif to repeal, or at least reform, the infamous blasphemy law, which is mostly used against religious minorities.” Apart from the fact this issue would not even be considered as part of the agenda by the Obama administration, it seems that the author is oblivious to the on-ground realities and widespread extremism in the country. Misuse and exploitation of the law has been a recognized issue before Nawaz Sharif came to power again in 2013, and such reform cannot take place in vacuum unless a shift comes about in the way the Pakistani society views the law. That shift has been taking place gradually though, the recent judgment of the Mumtaz Qadri trial and even more recent statement by the Supreme court stating that calls for improvement of the Blasphemy law are not objectionable point to the fact that small but significant steps are being taken to improve the implementation of the law. 

With regards to the situation in Baluchistan, there has never been any doubt that the Baloch people harbor legitimate grievance. However, there is no denying the fact that external involvement in the province has been a serious obstacle in the path of the Pakistani administration that has attempted to adopt more inclusive measures to address and tackle the prevailing issues in Baluchistan. Moreover, one would wonder why Obama would choose to address this issue, while he chooses to regard the Kashmir issue as an internal one. 

The author also touches upon other issues such as the Cybercrime Bill, sectarian violence, and the ‘return’ of the death penalty. With regards to the cybercrime bill, there have been concerns over the intrusion of privacy and curtailing of dissent; however, President Obama would think twice before raising this issue because of the countless number of fundamental human rights violations that have taken place under the Patriot act (NSA being exposed by Edward Snowden). Moving on to sectarian violence, as mentioned previously, extremism is more of a threat to Pakistan compared to terrorism; precisely because the latter can be curbed using force while the former cannot. Mr. Siraj confidently states, “Sharif, the only politician to run the country for a third term, has made no policies to curb violence and hatred against religious and sectarian minorities nor does it appear on his list of things to do in the future.” It could be the case that the author is unaware of the recent operation that wiped out the top leadership of LeJ recently, or the fact that the federal government last month announced the commencement of an operation in Southern Punjab targeting exclusively sectarian militants. At last, no one claims that military courts are an ideal situation; but taking into account the lack of judicial reform that has taken place, the backlog of pending cases in civilian courts, issues with regards to the witness protection act etc, it is understandable as to why military courts are being considered as an option in such exceptional circumstances. As far as the death penalty is concerned, President Obama would know better than to point a finger towards Pakistan as states such as Connecticut are debating over its merits, and more importantly the simple fact that it is an internal issue. 

Considering the fact that the Huffington Post has an ever-growing active community and was also ranked #1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank according to traffic in 2012, perhaps it would serve the renowned news aggregator well if more stringent standards were put in to place to prevent the publishing of half-cooked agenda driven write-ups.

TTP's breakup a cause of concern

ZoneAsia-Pk

Pakistan’s on-going war against terrorism – the final push – has so far claimed more than 910 militants in North Waziristan and decimated hundreds of militant camps. When Operation Zarb-e-Azb was launched, defence analysts from across the board exhorted the government to take a hands-on approach and work with the Army to develop a multi-pronged strategy to defeat extremism, separate from terrorism, but as big a threat as the latter.

Yet the government initially appeared not only reluctant to endorse a boots-on-the-ground approach but also quickly became sucked into a political imbroglio that shifted the entire country’s attention away from North Waziristan and the internally displaced persons in Bannu, to the Capital. Efforts to engage all state institutions in a political drama only served to exacerbate the government’s own position and paved the path for deep-state to raise eyebrows over the government’s legitimacy.

In the backdrop of the on-going military operation, a national political crisis, regional politics immersed in Machiavellian histrionics and the international security situation held hostage by the Islamic State, a breakaway faction of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan announced itself as the true vanguard that would bring Shariah to Pakistan.

Many quarters have felt that the formation of Jamatul Ahrar signifies a victory of sorts – Pakistan’s largest militant threat developing defections from within shows weakness and a dissonance that can allow the Army and government to end the TTP question once and for all. Fragmentation can only mean smaller weaker targets, easy to take out. The first sign of defeat for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was when it broke into factions, maybe the stratagems that ended Sri Lanka’s 30-year-old war could also put an end to militancy in Pakistan.

However, this needs to be examined in a larger context and it might just be too soon to bring out the champagne.

The TTP claims a certain a ideology. Their’s is a war to reassert orthodox Islamic values in their own vein of interpretation. The seed of war here stems not from social injustice, a sense of deprivation or against foreign occupation – the seed is an idea. When the government decided to hold talks with the TTP, there was an outcry from within TTP structures that believed that there could no compromise on ideas – that would be compromising divine mandate.

It was in the midst of these talks that dissenting groups from within the TTP held attacks under the banner of Ahrarul Hind to jeapordise negotiations. The bombing of a district sessions court in Islamabad and the decapitation of Pakistan Army soldiers was their handiwork. Brutal at best, one could compare their line of ideology and strategy with the IS. The only difference was that all factions claimed allegiance to Mullah Omar, head of the Afghan Taliban under the Al-Qaeda umbrella.

The Jamat, with all the media-savyness of former TTP spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan, claims the support of 70 to 80 TTP commanders. In an hour and a half long video, Maulana Qasim Khorasani (former TTP commander of Mohmand Agency chapter and inline to succeed Hekimullah Mehsud) announces that the TTP has fallen prey to self-seeking individuals (cue Mullah Fazalullah and all the commanders who pushed for talks). Their war is to build a global Caliphate and they will start from Pakistan. The group demonstrates no qualms about violence, they justify it through religion.

Ehsan, in a statement released last week, mentioned that while they were allied with the Afghan Taliban, the IS provided a good example as to how they planned to operate.

This should not serve to alleviate fears regarding militancy in Pakistan, this should serve to alarm. The group is headed by emir Maulana Qasim Khorasani, and Ihsan is its spokesman. Jamaat-ul-Ahrar’s shura, or executive council, includes: Omar Khalid al Khorasani, the powerful commander from Mohmand; Mansoor Nazim Shura and Maulana Haidar from Arakzai; Maulana Adbullah from Bajaur; Qari Ismail from Khyber; Qari Shakil Haqqani from Charsadda; Mufti Misbah from Peshawar; and Maulana Yasin from Swat. The Jamat includes Taliban factions from the tribal agencies of Mohmand, Bajaur, Khyber, and Arakzai, and the districts of Charsadda, Peshawar, and Swat.

By providing these groups an alternative to peace talks, we see the emergence of a new umbrella organisation, seemingly as big as the TTP if not bigger (if Ehsan is to be believed). The group claims that it will stop at nothing to achieve it’s goal of Islamic dominance in the world and they were willing to sacrifice for it.

This leaves the government with no excuse. The Pakistan National Security Council needs to come into action and develop a strategy to deal with new emerging threats. What with the announcement of an Al-Qaeda wing in India, these threats cannot be taken lightly. In a region where physical borders are more than just porous, collective action by the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India is the need of the hour. There is no question of complacency here.

Past, Present and Future

Spearhead Analysis

The ancient Greeks believed that you walk into the future with your eyes fixed on the past. They obviously meant that lessons need to be learnt from the past so that the same mistakes are not made again and again. This is particularly true for states that not only end up with faulty policies but persist in following those policies even when it has been proved beyond doubt that those are disastrous policies. For more than two decades the US persisted with a failed policy in Vietnam till it had to beat a panicky retreat. Now from within the US and the UK credible voices are telling us that the invasion of Iraq was based on fabricated stories of WMD and Al Qaeda connections that were simply not there — the result has been the Arab Spring. In Afghanistan too nothing was learnt from the defeat of the former USSR and a policy of backing one ethnic group against another laid the seeds for prolonged conflict with serious consequences for the region.

Iraq was held together by an Iraqi who understood his people and the dangers of a sectarian conflict sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Iran. He kept Al Qaeda away and did not venture towards WMD as he did not want to provoke Israel and the US. He did have a powerful Army and he had oil. The US invasion of Iraq has unleashed a violent Shia-Sunni conflict as a sequel to the violent upheavals in Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Syria. The ISIL-the Islamic Army in the Levant — has announced an Islamic State in parts of Syria and Iraq under its control. The Kurds are vying for independence and Israel supports their quest. The future looks bleak as the US steps in with support for the Iraqi military — and indirectly for Iran and Syria. The future looks bleak except for the fact that the young revolutionaries who brought in mind boggling changes through the Arab Spring will not accept relics of the past as their leaders.

In Afghanistan the US backing of the former USSR linked Northern Alliance against the Pashtun south and its strategic shift towards India in South Asia created the uncertainties that led to Pakistan’s policy that addressed its own concerns and fears. Now, trillions of dollars and thousands of lives later the US is again leaving Afghanistan, and Afghanistan not withstanding its newly minted army, stands on the brink of a north-south divide as the Taliban go on the offensive and the election result becomes controversial. Pakistan has launched a well-timed military operation to clear its western FATA areas to prevent a South Afghanistan-FATA nexus that leads to an ISIL type Islamic State with spillover into Pakistan. Pakistan’s quest for internal and external security must be fully supported in regional and extra regional interest.

Much will depend on how much has been learnt from the recent past and how the present evolving situation is assessed to forge policies for the future. The US should harness Iranian and Chinese concerns and fully support Pakistan’s land air offensive to destroy the Taliban — not just militarily but with economic and political resources. This will also involve restraining India and encouraging it to improve relations with Pakistan. The ongoing Pakistan-Afghanistan interaction is a step in the right direction and must also be supported as these two countries have seen three decades of violence because of the policies of external powers and they have the most to lose if they do not cooperate in their own interest. The same is true for India and Pakistan future relations. The future can be bright if the right policies emerge from the debris of the past.

(Spearhead Analyses are collaborative efforts and not attributable to a single individual)

www.spearheadresearch.org