July 05, 2008

THE forces of occupation operating from Afghanistan attacked Pakistani territory on the night of June 10 in Mohmand region of Federally Administered Tribal Area. At least eleven paramilitary soldiers lost their lives and 40 were missing. There were many civilian casualties as well.

On June 23 last year, the US-led Nato forces had attacked Pakistani territory in Shawal valley killing the entire family of Pikhawar Khan who could not bear the loss and took his own life the same day. Many others also died along with his family.

In another strike, more than sixty people, all civilians, died at the hands of US and European forces occupying Afghanistan. The number of Pakistanis who have been brutally killed by the western forces goes into hundreds. It is now a routine affair for US and Nato aircrafts to intrude into Pakistani airspace with impunity. Missile attacks against the Pakistani population are extremely deadly and have instilled fear and anxiety in the local population.

In the past whenever such aggression was committed against Pakistan the previous government either tried to black-out the news or played it down. On a few occasions, it went to the extent of claiming responsibility for these deadly attacks. The eyewitnesses, however, remained unconvinced and pointed their finger at the foreign troops. Such crude attempts to provide cover to the forays of the occupation forces have proved counter-productive as they reduced the credibility of the government while at the same time giving rise to public anger.

Contrary to past stances, the government this time registered its protest. There was also a strong reaction from the civil society. It should, however, be remembered that in spite of stronger reaction from Pakistanis the Pentagon continued to insist that its forces were justified in acting the way they did. There was no indication of regret or guilt which was disappointing for an average Pakistani.

The question is why are the US and Nato forces resorting to such naked aggression at this point in time?

One explanation is that the resistance against the occupation is gaining greater strength with every passing day. Reasons for this development are to be found in the internal situation of Afghanistan and the ethos of Afghan people. Since the occupation of Afghanistan by the US-led coalition, the country has been bleeding constantly. The foreign troops have shown little regard for Afghan lives. They have killed with impunity. A few months after taking over Afghanistan the US planes had attacked a wedding party killing the bride and the groom and scores of others celebrating the occasion. On another occasion children playing football were attacked and killed by a US aircraft. These are acts of daily occurrence there.

The violation of human rights at Bagram and other prisons could only add to public anger against the western forces. Last year in utter disregard for religious sentiments of Afghan people; the forces of occupation distributed footballs inscribed with the Kalima. Many mosques and madressahs have been destroyed by US forces. Another nation would have probably been intimidated but Afghan ethos is different. These actions which were designed to break the resistance proved to be counter productive and it has developed into a resilient and full fledged war of liberation.

The US has been ignoring the internal causes and focused rather exclusively on external factors. They believe that without support from pro-Taliban elements in Pakistan the resistance movement would not have gathered momentum. The memories of 1980s still haunt the US policy-makers when they used Pakistan to fight the Soviet forces occupying Afghanistan. In their calculations if Pakistan’s role was instrumental in defeating the Soviet forces it must be of the essence today as well. What is being overlooked by them is the fact that during the 1980s it was the official policy of Pakistan to support the resistance movement while now the government stands committed to support the forces of occupation.

The US is publicily opposed to the peace moves currently undertaken by the government and tribal elders. The US administration voiced their so-called concerns directly to the government, even threatening to cut off financial assistance.

The US has long-term objectives in the region, one of which is to strengthen Afghanistan at the expense of Pakistan. They assume that Afghanistan can be more easily used against rival powers. However Pakistan would be less vulnerable to these pressure tactics if it succeeds in achieving the confidence of tribes living in the Fata region as well as the people of the NWFP and Balochistan.

A number of steps need to be taken if Pakistan desires to prevent or resist the US/Nato aggression. Naturally no Pakistani would like to provoke a military confrontation with the Nato forces, but neither should these forces be allowed to trespass into Pakistan with impunity. Pakistan could reduce its cooperation with the US in selected areas. The oil, food and equipment for the Nato forces pass through Pakistan. The US should realise that Pakistan risks the displeasure of local people by allowing this facility to them.

Secondly, the peace process should not be jeopardised. These talks have been undertaken with the tribal leaders in order to establish peace in the tribal belt as well as the rest of Pakistan. It has had very positive impact so far. There is need to follow the Mahsud model in other parts of the tribal belt. The process should also be extended to the settled areas.

The Afghan foreign minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta while criticising the peace moves launched by Pakistan declared them to be against the interests of Afghanistan. If Afghanistan’s interests are served by having turmoil in Pakistan, then few Pakistanis would be ready to buy that model.

One may recall that the Afghan administration and the western occupation forces have themselves been holding a dialogue with Taliban. There is, therefore, hardly any justification for them to oppose the peace process launched by Pakistan. The current turmoil in the tribal belt is the result of Nato policies in Afghanistan and their frequent attacks against civilians in the border areas. Another factor that has complicated the relationships between various tribes was the policy pursued by Musharraf government which used tribes to fight against other tribes.

The democratically elected government has a challenge which though difficult is not insurmountable.

The writer is professor, department of social sciences, Institute of Business Administration, Karachi.