Implications of joint operations in FATA

THERE have been media reports lately saying that the American and British commandos have entered Pakistan tribal territory on the basis of a secret understanding between the American administration and the Musharraf regime to prevent the Al Qaeda and Taliban militants from regrouping for guerilla attacks on their forces in Afghanistan.

While utmost secrecy is being maintained at official level in order to avoid embarrassment for the government at home, the American and British commandos are being assisted by the Pakistan armed forces, militia and local police. The present operation in the tribal territory is a continuation of the 17-day Operation Anaconda in early March in eastern Afghanistan in which the US forces claimed to have killed 800 militants and also suffered fatalities and loss of warplanes and helicopter gunships — a fact they have tried unsuccessfully to conceal from the American public.

The American and British expeditionary forces have changed their tactics from a major battle to sporadic encounters. Divided into units of three or four, the American commando force thus seeks to avoid or limit casualties in its ranks in the event of ambush attacks.

The latest operation was launched against a Miranshah madrassah by the US commandos assisted by Pakistani troops and Tochi Scouts who laid siege to the seminary building on April 26. That Islamabad’s collaboration in the US action was whole-hearted can be seen in its despatch of two helicopters to reinforce the siege at Miranshah. Even though nothing incriminating was found in the madrassah, no apology was offered for the inconvenience caused to the faculty and the students.

The local tribesmen are said to be indignant over the outrage and have vowed to resist the US and foreign elements if they make incursions into the tribal territory. However, they have assured Islamabad that they would cooperate with Pakistan militia and armed forces in any operation against wanted militants fleeing Afghanistan.

The jirga in North and South Waziristan has decided to prevent any fugitives from entering the area and in case any local resident gave asylum to the outlaws, his house would be demolished and a heavy penalty imposed on him. There cannot be a better guarantee against the Federal Administered Tribal Area (FATA) being used as a sanctuary by militants. The Miranshah incident is not an isolated example of blatant foreign intervention in Pakistan’s domestic jurisdiction. The incident was repeated when the US commandos showed up during a clash between the Pakistan militia and armed forces and the local tribesmen over a raid on a house to arrest a person who had criticized the involvement of US commandos in operation in the tribal area.

Earlier, on March 28 simultaneous raids were carried out in Faisalabad and Lahore by the American FBI and local police against suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban activists. In Faisalabad the raiding force was divided into twenty teams, each led by two FBI commandos. They broke into a house in Faisal Town and in the ensuing encounter two militants were killed. The joint team raided six places in the city and arrested 46 people, including 19 foreigners. The whole operation was shrouded in mystery and the arrested persons were taken to the CIA centre and then removed to some unknown place. Later, however, sixteen persons were released.

Some of those freed told the harrowing tale of their passports, mobile phones, watches, property documents and important records and valuables having been taken away by the raiding party. They were blind-folded during their arrest and dumped in front of their houses after their release. They have not yet got back their confiscated articles because the police deny any responsibility for the confiscation.

The Pakistan Human Rights Commission has condemned the involvement of foreign agencies in apprehending suspects and has demanded that the Pakistani authorities alone should deal with such matters according to the law of the land. On the other hand, the authorities in Pakistan have been saying contradictory things on this issue. Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar told the Washington Times over the telephone that there should no problem for the US forces along the Pakistan-Afghan border to cross into Pakistan. Soon after, Mr. Sattar retracted his statement.

Interestingly, the Pakistan Foreign Office, categorically declared that neither the US had sought permission for sending its troops into Pakistan nor would Islamabad allow them to do so in pursuit of Al Qaeda and Taliban militants. The Interior Minister, Lt. Gen Moinuddin Haider, argued that Islamabad’s surveillance of the border was so efficient that there was no chance of Osama bin Laden or Mulla Omar being in Pakistan. Therefore, the American troops would not be allowed to search for them.

But the officials of the ministry of interior conferred and collaborated with the FBI in cracking down on suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban men. Not only did the FBI commandos raid the hideouts of the suspects in Pakistan but they took away a number of persons, including Pakistanis, to Guantanamo naval base in Cuba. This may open the door for unlimited foreign intrusion into Pakistan. Already India has invoked this precedent in demanding the extradition of twenty suspects, including Pakistani nationals, without having recourse to extradition procedures.

Islamabad should make a clear distinction between sharing intelligence with foreign agencies on a reciprocal basis and allowing outsiders to enter the country looking for those wanted by them. It may be recalled that the Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, had turned down the request of Washington to associate the FBI/CIA with the investigation of a bomb attack on the US base in Al-Khobar some years ago. Nor did Riyad accuse Tehran of complicity in that incident despite American pressure.

Further, Islamabad should not lose sight of the country’s security interests in the face of the concentration of the Indian army on its eastern border, poised for an assault at any time. In this scenario would it be wise on the part of Islamabad to deploy sixty thousand troops along the Durand Line to help Americans hunt for the fugitives in the sensitive FATA region?

Why Bermuda?

AMERICAN companies are fleeing to offshore paradises at an unbelievable rate.

The latest is the Black Sheep Tool Co., which decided to move their main headquarters to Bermuda. At a stockholders’ meeting I talked to Winston Bottoms, the CEO of Black Sheep.

“Why Bermuda?” I asked.

“We surveyed all the offshore locations and discovered Bermuda is a perfect place to keep our money. The weather is excellent, the people are friendly, and everyone speaks English. We also liked the fact that they play cricket.”

“Besides all this, you must have another reason to move your headquarters to Bermuda.”

“Bermuda has the best golf courses in the world.” I said, “There are some nasty rumours that you went to Bermuda so you wouldn’t have to pay American taxes.”

“That’s a lie. When we decided to go there we didn’t know it was a tax-free zone. We want to pay taxes and would if we didn’t owe our first allegiance to our stockholders. We saved them $100 million a year.”

“But if companies don’t pay taxes, how will the government afford all the programmes Congress and the president have initiated?”

“They should do what we did and tighten their belts.”

“What about Homeland Security? Shouldn’t you at least contribute something for that?”

“We support the battle against terrorists. We give out American flags to our employees, and they get Memorial Day off.”

“All right, so you’ve moved your headquarters to Bermuda. How many people man the main office there?”

“One person. All he has to do is go to the post office once a day to pick up the cheques from the mainland and then deposit them in the offshore bank.”

“One person?”

“We’re trying to keep the costs down. When the news broke that we had located in Bermuda, our stock went up 45 points. Wall Street likes offshore companies.”

“Are you planning on going to Bermuda soon?” I asked.

“Yes. We’re going to open a discount tool store on Front Street in Hamilton. The trip is deductible.”

“How can it be deductible if you pay no taxes?”

“Our accountants have it figured out.”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

India’s brinkmanship

WITH their military forces deployed and poised for combat, India and Pakistan are one faulty step away from yet another armed conflict that may plunge South Asia in a devastating war with unpredictable consequences. And, despite the hostilities, Kashmir dispute shall continue to haunt both the antagonist states because it is a folly to use military means for settling political disputes.

Blame the hibernating United Nations Organization where Kashmir dispute lies in a cold storage since 1948. Censure the five permanent members of the United Nations Security council and other power barons of this age that act only when their own interests are involved. Criticize India and Pakistan, if you may, for the impasse. But, why should the people of Kashmir suffer for the inaction and apathy of others?

The right of self-determination of people cannot be denied by thundering guns, pointed bayonets and human torture as is being done by India in Kashmir. State-sponsored oppression and deprivation of rights have compelled subjugated Kashmiris to rise against India that needs an excuse to grab Kashmir. Human suffering and norms of democracy are irrelevant for the occupation power. Genocide is the name of the game against Indian minorities — Dalits, Christians, Sikhs and Muslims — who are treated as second-rate citizens by the followers of Hindu extremism under the slogan of Hindutva.

December 13 incident in the security perimeter of Indian parliament in New Delhi had all the ingredients of a stage-managed drama. India quickly launched a premeditated plan and mobilized its military forces to accomplish its hegemonic dream against Pakistan. The role model chosen was the US action in Afghanistan and Israeli offensive against the Palestinian authority. The thesis was based on getting external sympathy — Pakistan was accused of fighting a ‘proxy war’, promoting ‘cross-border terrorism’ and providing ‘shelter to 20 persons’ wanted by India for crimes allegedly committed some years ago. Pakistan is coerced to accept Indian demands or face a ‘decisive phase.’ Such naked arrogance puts Hitler to shame.

The ruling hawks in Vajpayee’s cabinet, who had earlier torpedoed an agreed Indo-Pakistan joint statement at the Agra summit, put Gandhi’s India on a warpath.

A cornered Vajpayee weakened by electoral defeats in four states started jingoistic speeches and his chief minister in the state of Gujarat indulged in the ethnic cleansing of the Muslims in a country that claims to be secular. The popular catchword ‘war against terrorism’ is used for maligning Pakistan and dumping the burden of India’s domestic failures at the doorsteps of the ISI.

Bilateralism has failed in settling Kashmir dispute largely because India’s intentions are offensive. It wants to isolate and weaken Pakistan and crush resistance struggle in Kashmir with the force of arms. In India’s calculation global pressure will force Pakistan to abandon political and moral support to the freedom struggle in Kashmir. The international scenario provides it a chance to put Pakistan in a corner and isolate it. The military mobilization is a part of the plan.

India is a traditional spoiler of peace in South Asia. Its neighbours have faced its wrath and are aware of its political ambitions. Outside powers may have reasons for establishing friendly and strategic relations with India for political, economic, strategic and other purposes. This country may have no objection to this provided their policies do not impinge on the interests of Pakistan. This country expects that the South Asian policies of foreign powers will be fair, realistic and equitable and not slanted or biased against Pakistan. The region needs a level playing field for all countries in South Asia.

America enjoys a unique position today. It is expected of President Bush to address legitimate concerns of the weak, uphold human rights, prevent genocide of minorities and invariably speak from a high moral ground. He will enhance his credibility by stating that India and Pakistan have equal rights to defend themselves and that the subjugated people of Kashmir have a nobler right to decide their own destiny — a right denied to them by India.

This country shares US concern about extremism and it has demonstrated its resolve in words and deeds. To show that the US does not have double standards, it may immediately put ban on terrorist organizations in India (RSS and others) that play Holi with the blood of the minorities under official patronage. India’s opposition demands a ban on such extremist outfits. America’s gentle condemnation of human rights violations in Kashmir and apologetic censure of human carnage in Gujarat show its bias.

President Pervez Musharraf is committed against exporting terrorism and he has firmly announced that no cross-border movement is taking place across the Line of Control. Pakistan is willing to the stationing of impartial UN monitors along both sides of the LoC. Despite this, those who keep Pakistan on the defensive and advise it to ‘do more and show results’ demonstrate their own tilt that amounts to encouraging India to commit aggression. One Indian writer claims that Indian pressure on Pakistan promotes America’s strategic interests, a statement that is neither confirmed nor denied by Washington.

The US-Russian decision to let President Putin take a lead in defusing tension between India and Pakistan is a meaningful development. Pakistan supports the pro-

posal and President Musharraf will travel to Almaty in search of peace. A repeat of Tashkent Declaration could be a feather in the cap of President Putin. Diplomatically, Indian position of no-talks with Pakistan is untenable. Realism demands that all outstanding issues be solved through negotiations. Russia is a close friend of India. India’s lack of enthusiasm shows that New Delhi is not interested in peace with Islamabad.

War can start by design or miscalculation. India’s war plan in Kashmir and elsewhere is partly disclosed by the recent induction of its fresh formations in the IHK and their location.

It is as easy to start a war as it is difficult to manage it according to a set plan. The crisis management ability of India was exposed during the Kargil skirmishes when panic gripped New Delhi. Indian purchase teams dashed abroad buying ammunition, high altitude boots and clothing and coffin boxes.

War, a serious business, will hurt both the countries. Diplomacy deserves international support to subdue passions and promote peace. It is time for good sense, realism, sanity and wisdom to get the better of all policy makers to avert a disaster. Pakistan may keep playing cool. But it takes two to make love or fight. While hoping for the best Pakistan should plan for the worst. Should a war be thrust on this country against its will, those at the helm of affairs must ensure that the loss of any territory is equally matched with a corresponding gain elsewhere.

The colonial era is dead and buried. This world is imperfect but even in this flawed globe, democracy and freedom is the birthright of all human beings. The toiling people in Kashmir demand freedom. The freedom lovers all over the world owe it to over 70,000 Kashmiri martyrs to ensure that their sacrifices are crowned with success.

The writer is a retired general of Pakistan army.

United in disarray

THOUGH it was defined by the signing of two new strategic agreements, President Bush’s tour of Europe has been accompanied by a chorus of lament, on both sides of the Atlantic, about a growing divergence of policies and interests.

Even as NATO sealed a new accord with Russia, the alliance was being declared dead by politicians and commentators who fault Europeans for failing to contribute sufficiently to its military means, and fault Americans for failing to enthusiastically include Europe in the Afghanistan campaign.

No major disputes surfaced between Mr. Bush and his hosts in Berlin, Paris and Rome, yet many Europeans and Americans nevertheless were left with a sense that basic political bonds have slipped; that between the Bush administration’s rejection of international treaties strongly backed by the Europeans, and Europeans’ reluctance to support aggressive action against Iraq and other members of Mr. Bush’s axis of evil, the Cold War partners are inexorably headed toward divorce.

There is reason to worry. But it’s worth noting also some cheerier signs that Europe and the United States are not necessarily doomed to estrangement. Foremost is that, while analysts fret about NATO imploding, NATO is meanwhile expanding. In addition to the new agreement with Russia, which includes Moscow in alliance decision-making while providing a necessary opt-out mechanism, NATO is headed toward what Mr. Bush called a “decisive” move to invite in “all of Europe’s democracies that are ready to share in the responsibilities NATO brings.”

As many as seven countries in Central and Eastern Europe will get invitations at a summit meeting in Prague this November. Pessimists worry that these changes will further politicize NATO at the expense of military effectiveness. But expansion will help preserve the U.S.-European relationship in two vital ways: by modernizing the alliance so that, like Europe itself, it transcends the former Cold War divide between East and West; and by ensuring that the United States will retain a formal and institutionalized place in guaranteeing the security of that more integrated continent.

Most of the anxiety about divergence between Europeans and Americans has to do with security threats on other continents, or global problems. But that anxiety itself reflects something of an advance, since for decades the allies did not even try to resolve their considerable differences on matters ranging from the wars in Southeast Asia to those in Central America. That they do so now reflects a worthy ambition for “new missions”; the angry arguments may be less the sounds of demolition than of new construction.

President Bush, often accused of unilateralism, in a speech in Berlin last week strongly underlined his commitment to the idea that NATO “must meet the challenges of a larger world, and . . . meet them together.” European governments, which themselves resisted this idea just two years ago, formally ratified it at a NATO meeting earlier this month.

Some European and American officials have been saying that the greatest threat to the alliance may be the hardening of a conventional wisdom that relations have never been in greater disarray.—The Washington Post

A fixation for legitimacy

MILITARY dictators have a strange fixation for legitimacy. They arrange fictitious election or hold rigged referendum to don the clothes of a democrat. It is popular support they seek and it is the lack of that support which makes them go over the make-believe exercises of acceptability.

General Pervez Musharraf, who held a dubious referendum to instal himself as Pakistan’s president for five years, is hell-bent on proving that a preponderant majority returned him. Doubts expressed through people’s monitoring agencies and foreign press reports must have hurt him so much that he devoted quite a bit of the May 27 speech to explain that his win was genuine.

The speech, awaited keenly in the context of the standoff between India and Pakistan, did not have to have details of whether the referendum was genuine or whether the irregularities committed were due to the over-enthusiasm of his followers. More than the referendum, people all over the world wanted to know how and when he would stop cross- border terrorism. He knew the importance of the speech because he had arranged for its simultaneous translation into English.

But instead of telling what he had done to check terrorism, he said that there was no infiltration. Can you believe it? Only concrete evidence on the ground can give him credibility. But then his style is that of bluff and bluster from the days of the coup after the Kargil war he had orchestrated. The speech did not contain even those assurances which he had specified in his January 12 speech. He repeated the same old promises: not to allow Pakistan as a base for terrorism; action would be taken against jihadis; India must not take Pakistan lightly. What does it all add up to?

The world expected humility, not haughtiness from him. Instead, he displayed his clenched fist at the end of his speech. As a military man, he should know what war means. In this case, it may take a nuclear turn. His speech does not seem to have gone down well even with the Pakistanis who want peace and the end of military rule.

The point of the speech was Musharraf’s fervent appeal to the nation to unite around him. That is all he wants. He said he would again invite those political parties that had stayed away from his earlier consultations. He is trying to get the approval of the Pakistanis for the military rulers now in control, using the “challenge by the enemy” as an argument. “I am the one who counts, you better accept me.” This is what he is saying.

I wonder whether Musharraf’s search for legitimacy is the primary reason for his aggressive posture towards India. It sells in Pakistan. He reiterates “diplomatic and moral support” to Kashmir. He has had three missiles tested when the clouds of war hover over the subcontinent. He convenes numerous meetings with religious leaders (very few political leaders of substance come to meet him). He releases most jihadis from jail. He allows terrorists’ camps to come up again. Where is his promised fight against terrorists? He has to prove that he is doing his best to curb fundamentalism.

I wish I could trust Musharraf as some Pakistani editors do. His last speech gave me the impression that he was telling the terrorists that it was an exercise he had to go over because of outside pressures, particularly of Japan and America, which gave substantial economic aid to Pakistan. Probably, Islamabad has not been able to assess the depth of anger in India. There will be no opposition to any action that New Delhi takes. A war-like atmosphere has come to prevail, even though many realize the futility of a conflict. True, there is no veering away from conciliation if the long-term consequences of war are taken into account. But without the stoppage of infiltration the disaster is inevitable.

If Musharraf’s statement that infiltration has stopped turns out to be correct on the ground — Defence Minister George Fernandes says it has not — India has promised to take the initiative to send a positive message to Pakistan. Then a dialogue between the two countries can follow so that the process of normalization begins.

It is a pity that all the big powers, particularly the US, have not been able to make the assurance given to India good. After the attack on parliament on December 13, they gave an undertaking to New Delhi that they would see to it that there was no cross-border terrorism if it were to show restraint. It did. The terrorists’ attack on the families of soldiers near Jammu indicated that the international community had failed to influence Islamabad in any way.

Even if there is any infiltration, New Delhi should use all other avenues — diplomatic ones primarily — to see that cross-border terrorism stops. War is no option and it should not be seriously considered. Pakistan’s enmity against India is nothing new. We have avoided war for more than 30 years. Why should we feel helpless now? There are many alternatives to war. Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh has admitted this in a well-handled press conference. Musharraf should also refrain from stoking the fires of enmity.

His two military predecessors, General Ayub Khan and General Ziaul Haq were no friends of India. They were a bit different from him. Ayub too rigged elections against Fatima Jinnah, sister of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. But he did not keep his nation on the brink as Musharraf does all the time. Zia also made himself Pakistan’s president. But he did not irritate people in India. In fact, he initiated a new diplomacy whereby he would come to India when it played cricket or hockey against Pakistan. More than that, he did not send the terrorists into India.

Ayub did not want to send infiltrators across the border in 1965. When I met him many years ago, he said that the 1965 war was “Bhutto’s war.” Bhutto had misled him. However, he did not put much faith in the Kashmiris’ capacity to revolt, although he was proved wrong later.

Zia was the initiator of the National Security Council idea, now flaunted by Musharraf. In an interview to me, Zia defended it on the ground that he wanted to institutionalize the intervention by the military. It should be able to take reins of the administration whenever it felt that democracy in Pakistan had gone off the rails. I told him that the military had come in whenever it had felt like it, then why have a formal council? He said he wanted it to be legal.

Musharraf may make the council part of the Constitution, which he amends at will. But the difference between Musharraf and his two military predecessors is that they were less belligerent in tone and style. Zia played the religious card in his country and trained jihadis and others who are playing hell in and outside Pakistan. But during his stay of 11 years in power, he saw to it that there was no war between India and Pakistan.

Both Ayub and Zia even signed agreements which spelled out steps to bring normality between India and Pakistan. It is, however, another matter that none of the steps were implemented. That way Musharraf is more transparent than his predecessors. It looks as if he does not want to sign any agreement with India (he didn’t do so at Agra) until he is sure that it can be implemented. He can, however, make a beginning by not indulging in rhetoric and by seeing that terrorism does not have its epicenter in Pakistan.