Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Posts Tagged Shia

PAK TRIBUNE: Pakistan’s vulnerability to terrorism

Pakistanis Must Choose To Resist Terrorism, Especially the Terrorism of the State

30122012

Unknown-11

paktribune

 
 

 

 

 

The policy of ‘fielding’ these non-state actors against the foreign policy initiative at lessening tensions in the region is riddled with bad faith. 

Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister Amir Haider Hoti says Pakistan should undertake “do-or-die” action against terrorists who “want to destroy our state and society” from their sanctuaries inside the country. His words challenge the state of Pakistan:

“We are on the defensive in our streets and alleys, and they (terrorists) are at ease in their sanctuaries. We should evolve a national consensus on a comprehensive strategy for defeating terrorist outfits. We appeal to all political parties to take a clear stand on this issue (terrorism). If the experience of the recent past is anything to go by, terrorists will not forgive any political or religious party, even those who have literally acted as supporters of terrorists and apologists. It will be an exercise in futility to appease terrorists”.

Party chief Asfandyar Wali Khan has tried to rationalise the anti-drone policy his party was compelled to back, to be inside the national consensus against America, built inside parliament in Islamabad: he opposes the drones — because they violate the sovereignty of the state — at the same time as he opposes the continuation of Taliban sanctuaries in the ‘ungoverned spaces’ of the country. The fact is that the US is retreating on the drones and may ultimately face internal American objection to them, while the Taliban flourish not only in their sanctuaries in the Tribal Areas but also in big cities inside the ‘governed spaces’.

Pakistan does not have a credible policy on the Taliban. Its approach is riddled with contradictions. The Pakistan Army, which ‘guides’ the foreign policy enclave in Islamabad, says it is not ready to challenge the sanctuaries. The world — including the 42 states that sent their troops to Afghanistan under Chapter Seven of the UN resolution — wants to help Pakistan in its confrontation with terror. But the strategy evolving in Pakistan is more focused on the situation inside Afghanistan where India is seen as a security challenge amid still-unproved allegations that the Baloch insurgency is orchestrated by New Delhi. Meanwhile, terror has moulded the attitude of the political parties who should have persuaded the army against its dangerously isolationist mindset: they want to make concessions to an entity that is actually planning a ‘revolutionary’ takeover of a nuclear-armed state.

The ANP is targeted because it contests Pakhtun nationalism with the predominantly Pakhtun Taliban on the basis of Pakhtunwali. The Swat trauma proved to the Pakhtun nation that terror can tame the tribal spirit and that the pain of seeing their sons killed can persuade the people to obey all kinds of commands. The terrorists use a policy of positive discrimination to command the direction of politics in Pakistan: they will not target those who favour ‘talks’ rather than ‘action’ vis-à-vis Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. Their latest message clearly exempts parties that are friendly to the Taliban on the basis of the logic that terror is emanating from a reaction to the American presence in the region and that being anti-American will appease the terrorists.

The Taliban are not alone in their sanctuaries. Their support among the erstwhile ‘non-state actors’ trained by the state of Pakistan, in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, as instruments of foreign policy, riding on asymmetrical warfare is deep seated and growing. The so-called Punjabi Taliban are terror’s foot soldiers, produced by our madrassa network in support of privatisation of war on the basis of their doctrine of jihad. The policy of ‘fielding’ these non-state actors against the foreign policy initiative at lessening tensions in the region is riddled with bad faith.

The ANP’s cry from the heart will resound in 2013 when things get worse for Pakistan. But Pakistan’s isolationism — concealed behind rabid anti-Americanism — will not allow other political parties to rally around the ANP and confront the most palpable threat to the existence of the country. The Pakistan Army can take on the Taliban but it will need international help. The capacity of the state to cope with terror is at its lowest ebb.

, , , ,

No Comments

The unbending Iran

The unbending Iran 

Zafar Hilaly

The writer is a former ambassador.

At the level of the common man there has never been much interest in what is happening in Iran. For that matter, among the well off too, there’s little curiosity about the possible impact of developments in Iran on our polity or that of the region. When I asked someone, well read on world developments, ‘How’s Iran?’ without batting an eyelid, he replied, ‘Well, a better place to visit than here, but not as good as Turkey,’ a response which illustrated complete disinterest and ignorance of the turmoil that has gripped Iran.Perhaps one reason why Iran gets scant coverage in our media, in contrast to the morbid interest in whatever happens in India, is that there is no real enthusiasm among the overwhelming number of our populace for the Iranian connection. We share a religion but really little else, whatever our history and culture buffs may say.And if historically the two countries were closely interlinked all that seems eons ago and, frankly, neither has worked hard to draw closer to the other, certainly not since the Iranian revolution. That’s a pity because developments in Iran will impact powerfully on Pakistan and far more so than what is ever likely to happen in Delhi.The revolution, for example, not only transformed Iran but also Iran-Pakistan relations. From being close allies we became mere acquaintances and during the Afghan jihad fought a fairly intense proxy war.Moreover, although we didn’t realise it at the time, the domestic impact of the Iranian Revolution on Pakistani society was even more profound. All of a sudden we became a battle ground for the perennial struggle between the Shia and Sunni groups, with Saudi Arabia backing the latter and Iran the former and that battle has intensified and turned bloodier as the years have passed. However that merits a separate discussion. Here I will focus on the possible repercussions of the current standoff between the US and Iran over the nuclear issue.Consider that sanctions imposed on Iran are exacting a heavy toll on the everyday life of the populace and the economy. The value of the Iranian rial has fallen by 40 percent; prices of commodities are doubling, in some cases, by the day; medicine and food stocks are low and are not being replenished as fully or as quickly as needed and the government is finding it hard to sell its oil. In fact, already there are isolated reports of children suffering on account of lack of medicines. However, Iran is not bending.If the US-Iran standoff drags on, the most obvious fall out will be the arrival of Iranian refugees fleeing hunger, although that need not be more than a trickle because of the distances involved. However, if war breaks out followed by the kind of saturation bombing of Iran, which some predict will be necessary to destroy Iran’s well protected nuclear installation and the supporting infrastructure, then the number of those fleeing will rapidly escalate.However, what Pakistan has to fear more from an American/Israeli onslaught on Iran is not so much the presence of refugees but the angry reaction of Pakistan’s own large Shia population in whose hearts Iran has a very special place.Already incensed by the regime’s failure to protect them from being slaughtered by what most Shias now say are Saudi sponsored Wahabi extremists at home, or to bring the murderers to justice, there is every chance they will vent their spleen against the government and demand that Pakistan denounce the UN sanctions regime, break off relations with the US and open the borders with Iran to enable them to go to Iran and help fight the aggressors.And, in the mayhem that will ensue, sectarian killings may surge. Actually the whole thing may take on an ugly sectarian hue. Pakistan, therefore, has more interest than most in what transpires between the US and Iran in the weeks and months ahead. So will there be war?What is certain is that an encircled Iran has to defend itself. No other power will come to its aid. Thus the rationale for the pursuit for a nuclear option by Iran is not a product of the paranoid fancies of the mullahs. Finding themselves in a similar position in relation to the Arabs, the Israelis went nuclear. And so did Pakistan, when confronted by giant India. In a rare moment of insight, a US State Department official also conceded: “Any government in Iran, even a secular western-oriented one, would continue the quest for nuclear weapons” (October 2003).And why not? To Iran’s east is Pakistan, dominated by an establishment that is in hock to the west and considered an unreliable friend of Iran. To the south, on the peninsula of Qatar, is the US Central Command, with hundreds of planes, thousands of missiles and a whole fleet of vessels, including aircraft carriers, prowling the waters of the Persian Gulf. In the west is nuclear armed Israel; and in the north is Russia. Worse, near Iran’s borders in Afghanistan are thousands of American troops and special service forces, fully equipped to spring into action at the given signal.It would be strange, therefore, if Iran sought to strengthen its position and, if not actually build nuclear weapons, then acquire the option to do so within a fairly short time. Iran has seen how non-nuclear Iraq was invaded and flattened by the US, whereas nuclear armed North Korea was left alone. In fact, rather than threaten North Korea, like it has Iran, the US is eager to talk to Pyongyang.For the US, control of the oil spigots of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran is an imperative need. So too, safeguarding of 20 percent of world oil supplies which flow through the Strait of Hormuz. The US has trillions of dollars to lose each year if the price of oil rises, as it could if the control of oil were in the purview of a hostile Iran because that would not only wreck the American/western economy but bring about an apocalyptic change in America’s style of living. And one way of preventing that disaster is to eliminate the Iranian regime for which America now has a pretext and UN support. Surely, say the erstwhile Bush neo cons, it’s a prospect too alluring to pass up.Significantly, the US has ramped up its demands on Iran. Claiming that on one occasion Iran had indeed deceptively withheld data (for which it made amends) Washington wants to be completely reassured about the safety of Iran’s nuclear programme. Actually, it wants nothing less than the complete cessation of all nuclear activity, including a dismantling of the already established facilities. In other words, if you cut out the spin, nothing Iran does or the guarantees Iran offers will suffice and no matter what inspection regime Iran accepts, Iran’s entire nuclear programme has to be demolished.For Israel, on the other hand, the issue is exclusively the possession by Iran of nuclear weapons. Israel is determined to remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East and will not be thwarted. Israel has completed all preparations for an attack on Iran. The recent Israeli engineered fracas in Gaza was to test Israel’s anti-missile system (Iron Dome) in battle conditions and also, lest Hamas teams up with Iran in a war, to destroy Hamas’s cache of Iranian supplied rockets which it has largely accomplished.The very opposite goals of the protagonists, and the fact that a Pentagon advisor in 2006 said: “The White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran and that means war,” prompted Seymour Hersh to opine that a war is inevitable.Whether or not that happens and even if the prospects are not as bleak as Hersch suggests, our media would be rendering a service if it keeps the public informed about the goings on and the wavering possibility of war. If nothing else, it will help us brace for the impact.And if historically the two countries were closely interlinked all that seems eons ago and, frankly, neither has worked hard to draw closer to the other, certainly not since the Iranian revolution. That’s a pity because developments in Iran will impact powerfully on Pakistan and far more so than what is ever likely to happen in Delhi. The revolution, for example, not only transformed Iran but also Iran-Pakistan relations. From being close allies we became mere acquaintances and during the Afghan jihad fought a fairly intense proxy war.

 Comment & Opinion

Though the article is well written and is full of knowledge, but it suffers from some level of intellectual dishonesty so prevalent in Pakistan nowadays. Trying to blame Iran for Pakistan’s sectarian violence is a nonstarter. Not even a single Shia has been involved in bombings and killings. We all know who are behind all these killings and who are they paymasters so let that just go. It is not difficult to see, the reality. For example the reality that a Shia young doctor working in Ayub Medical College Hospital, was shot in the head along with 30 others who were forcibly dis-boarded from a bus and killed in cold blood. So trying to bring in Iran here, is just intellectually laughable.
The issue of cold relation between Iran and Pakistan also has to be examined with an impartial eye. It was ZiaulHaq that imported the dangerous jihadi culture and extremism at the cost of banning out the Iranian cultural influence on Pakistan. The Iranian culture, a sophisticated and non-violent one, which was part of Pakistan’s identity and core ideology from Iqbal to the national anthem was pushed out. Even Persian was banned from being taught in public schools. We are seeing the results clearly today. So thank ZiaUlHaq for that.
Also let’s not forget all those Iranian diplomats that were killed and kidnapped in Pakistan. By comparison Iran has been a very safe place for Pakistani diplomats and Iranians have been very patients with Pakistanis killing their diplomats and even military guests (one and a half dozen Iranian military cadets were killed in Pakistan). The issue even goes further with even Iranian students on exchange programs having been targeted by “banned outfits”. Also I think Iranians have not yet forgotten that Pakistan had given them guarantees that Taliban will not harm Iranian diplomats in Mazar Sharif but unfortunately Taliban killed a dozen Iranian diplomats there as well. We have to also at least refer to these if we want to be intellectually sincere.
And the author should not worry, about Iranians ever coming to Pakistan as refugees. Iranians are many times richer and have more resources than Pakistan can ever dream. They are self sufficient in food production and have more food calorie per person available in their country than Pakistan as per FAO. Also the author is advised to go to some peripheral city hospitals in Pakistan and see the pathetic conditions prevalent there and the drug non-availability. Iran even under sanctions is doing much better than Pakistan being a US ally.
As per CIA, Iran has a GDP (PPP) of over a trillion dollar. Our (ex)diplomats better be concerned more about Pakistan than the internal affairs of another sovereign nation. At least Iranians can defend their borders and not allow drones continue killing innocent people. There is a lot that Pakistan can and should learn from Iran. Unfortunately very few are willing to learn that. For starter, Iranians do not have to beg others to build them power plants. Iranians build their own power plants and that is why they do not have load sheddings every other hour in 55 degree heat.
We need to swallow our pride and just congratulate Iranians for being truly free and independent. I advise the author to have a visit to Iran and see things for himself. As for how general Pakistani population feels about Iran, suffice to say that according to a Gallup poll, 86% of Pakistanis supported Iran having nuclear weapons. The highest ratio in the world, including the Iranians themselves.
 

 

 


, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments


Skip to toolbar