An unwise pursuit

The POST, Sun, May,04, 2008.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Some American analysts never cease to amaze me with their wild and dangerous panaceas for complex situations in various parts of the world. They rarely advance rationale recipes to effectively minimize the intensity of likely adverse impact and to radically improve the situation. Invariably it appears that their emphasis has remained and continues to remain on suggestions that often lead to the employment of punitive rather then advancing innovative and constructive approaches. Admittedly one cannot blame them for churning out such stories/articles that would encourage violence, but one can always highlight the weakness of their assertions.

One such article that has recently caught the eyes of many Pakistani analysts is the publication of an article in The Washington Post by one of its senior editors Jim Hoagland. The article entitled ‘Try Pakistan First’ was recently published that invoked reaction and anger among many analysts who began to wonder what exactly prompted the writer to advance such an advice to the American decision makers through the columns of a prestigious American newspaper. One expects the senior columnist to be more responsible in their approaches as they are regularly read by many in various parts of the world.

The article suggests the opening of a third front despite being fully cognizant of American deep involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan along with their inabilities to control either of the situations. Somewhat similar line has also been expressed by another article in the same paper. The writer of ‘Try Pakistan First’ appeared to have argued that Pakistan’s new coalition government appears to have opted for cutting back on what he called Musharraf’s already feeble efforts to curb the movements of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other Islamic extremist forces that operate in Afghanistan from sanctuaries in the remote tribal frontier regions of Pakistan and in order to win war in Afghanistan, it is necessary to win the war inside Pakistan where things have gone from bad to worse for US policy. In support of his argument he stresses that officials in Islamabad hints that flights over FATA by US unmanned aerial vehicles based in Afghanistan may soon be forbidden.

He further wrote that ‘These Predator missions gather intelligence and strike enemy target with precision. Their loss would be a major setback for the United States’. In addition he stressed that reports that the government is shelving counterinsurgency efforts in FATA in favor of dealing with Islamic militancy ‘through dialogue and development. He quotes that this shift has resulted in a truce with Taliban forces and hence the release of Sufi Mohammad. Neither of these developments was able to elicit some comforting vibes from him.

It is not too difficult to comprehend the dangerously alarming depiction painted by some American writers who rarely either fully understand the ground realities or swallow the real weaknesses of their own approaches. Perhaps it would be appropriate for such writers to seriously read the recently published in The Washington Post an article by the newly elected Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. This article clarifies quite categorically that Pakistan will fight terrorism but in its own way.

The article does not ignore the existing threat of terrorism but stresses that its elimination would be accorded highest priority by the incumbent regime. ‘We intend to vigorously continue the war against terrorism with the support of the people. Pakistan must fight terrorism for Pakistan’s sake. Past efforts have suffered because of the view that Pakistan sought to combat terrorism only in response to international pressures. Our strategy against global terrorism will be multifaceted. We will combine the use of force against terrorists and civil dialogue with those who, because of religious or ethnic considerations were misled into supporting extremists’ he wrote.

Another American writer Trudy Rubin in her article recently published in Philadelphia Inquirer appeared to reflect a relatively more positive approach. According to her interpretation the virtue of Pakistan government’s plan is that it aims to enlist Pakistanis themselves in the effort to stabilize the Tribal areas by offering the tribes an alternative to war, it exposes and isolates the militants who prefer violence. If the militant reject the truce, it would give the government a solid argument for using force. This interpretation seems to reflect much better understanding of the ground realities.

Instead of advising the American administration to try Pakistan first with a specific stress that Pakistan is more dangerous for world peace than Afghanistan and Iraq, it would not be out of order to subject their own past policies to critical analysis. The current problems in FATA are the direct result of American policies in the region. One need not to go into the detailed analysis of what happened in 1979 and subsequent years and how the American involvement demonstrated its ups and downs, but there is not doubt in anybody’s mind, either within or outside the region, that a substantive share in current troubles is the product of their policy pursuits. To suggest positive measures with the aim to improve the situation would always remain a preferred approach than approaches encouraging more violence in one form or the other.

The Pakistani Prime Minister’s approach as reflected in the above mentioned article certainly appears to be constructive as well as realistic. He wrote, ‘we intend to restore order and to give the people an option other than collaborating with murderers whose sole goal is chaos and anarchy. We will welcome our tribes back into society while respecting their conservative interpretation of Islam, as long as they give up violence and refuse to acquiesce to intimidation of terrorists’.

Undoubtedly it is in the interest of every concerned and affected individual to curb violence and inject the much desired stability in FATA. Not only it is necessary to segregate the militants from a vast majority of peace loving tribesmen in the region but it is also imperative to work in collaboration with other interested parties. In this connection both Afghanistan and US can help. However they must realize that undertaking any punitive approach could cause further complications and intensify the violence level to undesirable heights. Therefore suggestion like opening a third front must be viewed as ludicrous and be avoided at all cost.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.