An analysis of the Parliament's National Consensus Resolution on War on Terror. How the agents of Taliban are trying to misinterpret the Resolution...

Interpreting the ‘national consensus’

After making public a variety of clashing views, all parties in the joint parliamentary session in Islamabad have produced a unanimous 14-point document of “national consensus” on the war on terror. This is an important moment in Pakistan’s history in so far as the politicians did not sabotage the session as they appeared to indicate earlier, but agreed to make an effort to arrive at a consensus over the crisis of terrorism in Pakistan. Needless to say, any “consensus” among people of differing points of view had to be abstract and broad, which is what the agreed document is. The corollary to that is that its interpretations will abound in the days to come.

For starters, the newspapers produced varying headlines on Thursday reflecting their separate understanding of what has been agreed to. Papers that were worried about the “dialogue” taking place with the terrorists blazoned the part that said there would be talks only with those who would lay down arms. The document actually says: “Dialogue will be encouraged with all those elements willing to abide by the Constitution of Pakistan and rule of law”. This is a most lucid pledge given by the joint session that negotiations will not be held with the militant violators of the law. One can say that this is where the PPP-led government has scored a victory.

The other headline claimed that “the army operations will cease” and that dialogue would be a first priority to meet the challenge of terrorism. “Army will not be used in FATA”, proclaimed another such headline. And one headline said: “No military operations; the army will be withdrawn”. This twist on the consensus document refers us to the section that says, “The challenge of militancy and extremism must be met through developing a consensus and dialogue with all genuine stakeholders”. And the suspension of military operations and withdrawal of the army is assumed from the section that says, “That the state shall establish its writ...(using customary means)...and that the military will be replaced as early as possible by civilian law-enforcement agencies...”.

There was even a headline that said, “Pakistan’s foreign policy will be changed”, meaning perhaps that Pakistan will get out of the international coalition against terrorism. However, an overhaul of the entire issue of militancy and insurgency in the Tribal Areas as well as in Balochistan is promised in the opening sentence of the consensus resolution: “We need an urgent review of our national security strategy and revisiting the methodology of combating terrorism in order to restore peace and stability to Pakistan and the region though an independent foreign policy”. But this remains subject to the interpretation of the government. The opposition, however, will hold it to the implied undertaking that it would change policy in consultation inside the parliament.

On the other hand, the government will steadily make reference to the section that says: “That Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity shall be safeguarded. The nation stands united against any incursions and invasions of the homeland, and calls upon the government to deal with it effectively”. Read it together with the pledge given in the sentence, “That Pakistan’s territory shall not be used for any kind of attacks on other countries and all foreign fighters, if found shall be expelled from our soil” and you have given the government the latitude to take on the Taliban of all varieties plus their overlord Al Qaeda because they are invading Afghanistan across the Durand Line.

The normal outcome of such a broad and “inclusive” consensus is that bickering starts over what it means, at two levels. First, there will be some altercation between the government and the opposition over how to go about implementing this consensus. And, second, there will be quarrels within the opposition parties whose leaders have signed the document and “betrayed the party cause”. This bickering is normally supposed to give space to the government to continue its policy based on objective conditions. The national issue remains politicised, producing some dissonance in a national environment that everybody thinks should be consensual.

The document is an achievement of the PPP government. Despite the negative jurisprudence of some signed inter-party documents of the past, it was able to persuade leaders of radically differing views to sign under the 14 points that did not all reflect their position. Will the army facing the terrorists in the Tribal Areas be reassured by the production of this document in the parliament? There is no doubt that it will be less put off now than before by a lack of national consensus, but it will still have to work under the familiar democratic ambiance of dissent in the media where the opposition is able to make a strong appearance.

The army will remain deployed because of the threat to Pakistan’s survival as a state. Islamabad will not allow the country to be isolated internationally simply because it needs outside help to survive economically. And it will cooperate with Afghanistan and India to explore ways and means to reduce the triangular conflict of interests. All this is for the good. (Daily Times)
Read more...

Pakistan is united against terrorists of Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Sipah-e-Sahaba & other jihadi & sectarian organizations. Parliament passes resolution.

Parliament passes 14-point resolution on national security
Updated at: 1025 PST, Wednesday, October 22, 2008

ISLAMABAD: The Parliament on Wednesday unanimously endorsed a 14-point resolution on national policy regarding internal security and war against terrorism.

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani tabled the resolution in the joint in-camera session of parliament chaired by speaker Dr. Fehmida Mirza. Members of parliament unanimously passed the resolution.

Earlier, joint parliamentary draft committee discussed and finalized the 14-point recommendations on national security in a meeting presided over by Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Sherry Rehman at the Parliament House today.

According to sources, the resolution asks government to hold dialogue only with militants who lay down arms and compensate all soldiers and civilians who embraced martyrdom in fight against terror. It also asks government to defend the territorial integrity of the country and retaliate any attempt of foreign misadventure. Lastly, the resolution urges government to flush foreign militants out of the tribal areas.

Prime Minister Gilani was consulted to finalise the draft of the resolution, sources added. (The News)

......

It is a bad day for Taliban and their supporters in Pakistani media, e.g. Ansar Abbasi, Kashif Abbasi, Mushtaq Minhas and Hamid Mir.

Well done, Zardari. Well done, PPP, PML-N, ANP, MQM, JUI and other parties which have expressed their unanimous support for the war on terror.

Here is the link to BBC dot com article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2008/10/081022_parliament_res_adopted_rh.shtml

Historic 14-point anti-terrorism resolution adopted unanimously :

Nation united against terrorism: parliament
* Dialogue will be primary instrument of conflict resolution
* Redistribution of resources to resolve Balochistan violence
* Civil agencies will replace military in troubled areas
* Compensation for violence victims, rehabilitation for the displaced

By Irfan Ghauri and Muhammad Bilal

ISLAMABAD: In a historic resolution on Wednesday, the parliament said the Pakistani nation was united against terrorism and sectarian violence and would tackle the problem by addressing its root causes.

The 14-point resolution, drafted after two days of rigorous negotiations, was passed unanimously. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani moved the resolution, which he said would serve as policy guideline to the government in framing a national security strategy.

“Extremism, militancy and terrorism in all forms and manifestations pose a grave danger to the stability and integrity of the country,” the resolution said. “Dictatorial regimes in the past pursued policies aimed at perpetuating their own power at the cost of national interest. “We need an urgent review of our national security strategy and revisiting the methodology of combating terrorism in order to restore peace and stability to Pakistan and the region through an independent foreign policy.”

Dialogue: The parliament decided that “dialogue must now be the highest priority, as a principal instrument of conflict management and resolution”, but also said talks would only “be encouraged with all those elements willing to abide by the constitution of Pakistan and rule of law”.

The legislators decided that all foreign fighters, “if found, shall be expelled from Pakistan’s soil”.

The parliament vowed that Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity would be safeguarded. “The nation stands united against any incursions and invasions of the homeland, and calls upon the government to deal with it effectively,” the resolution said, but added: “Pakistan’s territory shall not be used for any kind of attacks on other countries.”

They also decided that “the development of troubled zones, particularly the Tribal Areas, and the NWFP must also be pursued through all possible ways and legitimate means to create genuine stakeholders in peace. New economic opportunities shall be created in order to bring the less privileged areas at par with the rest of Pakistan”.

Balochistan: On the problem in Balochistan, the resolution called for “a political dialogue with the people, addressing of their grievances and redistribution of resources shall be enhanced and accelerated”.

It said the federation must be strengthened “through the process of democratic pluralism, social justice, religious values and tolerance, and equitable resource sharing between the provinces as enshrined in the Constitution of 1973”.

Military: The state must ensure rule of law, the unanimous resolution said, and “when it has to intervene to protect the lives of its citizens, caution must be exercised to avoid casualties of non-combatants in conflict zones”. The legislators demanded that military be replaced with civilian law enforcement agencies in the conflict zones as early as possible, “with enhanced capacity and a sustainable political system achieved through a consultative process”.

The state must establish its writ, they demanded, but through “confidence building mechanisms by using customary and local [jirgas]”. Pakistan’s strategic interests must be protected “by developing stakes in regional peace and trade, both on the western and eastern borders”.

Compensation and rehabilitation: The parliament decided that the “mechanisms for internal security be institutionalised by paying compensation to victims of violence; and rehabilitate those displaced”.

The parliament also decided to form a committee to periodically review “the implementation of the principles framed and roadmap given in the resolution”. The committee will frame its own rules when it meets.(Daily Times)

.........

Consensus resolution

THE MPs have finally come up with a consensus resolution and this in itself is an achievement. Beyond that, one would be hard put to discover substance in the 14-point resolution read out to parliament by the prime minister on Wednesday. Between the opposition and the government, which side has given more is a matter of opinion. Keen to get a parliamentary endorsement of its policies, the government seems to have conceded more than the opposition. There is no reference to the war against terrorism in the resolution hammered out after a 15-day in-camera session of the two houses. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have not been named; instead the MNAs and senators confine themselves to noting “with great concern” that “extremism, militancy and terrorism” pose a threat to Pakistan’s stability and integrity. How to combat this menace has not been spelled out in specific terms, even though the resolution calls for “an urgent review” of the national security strategy. While the demand for “an independent foreign policy” could be considered a dig at the Musharraf government’s take on events, the resolution does not recommend what aberrations in Pakistan’s external relations need to be removed.

The resolution places emphasis on dialogue and calls it the “principal instrument of conflict management”. To that extent it breaks no new ground, for the PPP-led government too stands pledged to talks — an idea that is gaining ground in American and European capitals as well. However, the PPP government says it will talk to those militants who lay down arms. The resolution only indirectly concedes the government’s right to use force by pleading that collateral damage be avoided when the security forces “intervene” to ensure the government’s writ. On the question of sovereignty, it has maintained a fine balance. While the resolution asks the government to “deal” with incursions into Pakistan, it says the country should not be allowed to be used for acts of terrorism against other states, and that foreign militants be expelled.

Let us count our blessings: at one stage it appeared the opposition would walk away. That it did not do so and that finally the MPs managed to hammer out a consensus resolution is a matter of thanksgiving. Apparently our boys are growing. For the first time since the unity shown at the time of Musharraf’s exit, all parties have once again come together, even if the diluted resolution disappoints the nation, which had expected something more concrete from the people’s representatives. Nawaz Sharif had spoken a lot and made no secret of his reservations about the government’s war on terror, but his party too finally went along. Perhaps the resolution is a first step towards evolving what eventually could become a forceful, result-oriented national consensus. (Dawn)
Read more...

Pakistan's war on terror, the discussion in the parliament and the political point scoring by PML-N and PML-Q - Nasim Zehra

Parliament's role in fighting terror
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Nasim Zehra

The writer is an Islamabad-based security analyst

Almost two weeks into the in-camera session on the security situation, and especially the tribal areas, many questions regarding its usefulness are being raised. For example, are we closer to having evolved a better policy response to Pakistan's security problem? Are we closer to having evolved a policy for the tribal areas that is any different from what the government has hitherto been pursuing? Are we headed towards greater and broader political ownership of policy? Is there a greater national consensus behind ownership of the policy?

There are no straightforward answers to these questions, simply because the in-camera session is only one of the many elements within the broader policy formulation and policy implementation context in which there are many other elements influencing policy and its implementation.

For example, the briefing has been taking place against the backdrop of significant actions. These have ranged from major military operations in Bajaur and Swat to a peace agreement between the warring groups in the Kurram agency; from high-level engagement with the United States government on operational-level cooperation, including training and equipment, to ongoing negotiations within the Tripartite Commission framework on Pakistan-Afghanistan border issues; from ongoing dialogue with Kabul to the convening of the Pakistani-Afghan mini-jirga; from the emergence in the tribal areas of the local lashkars now disenchanted by the militant leadership they had earlier supported to the Oct 14 fatwa by the Muttahida Ulema Council in Lahore declaring that suicide bombing is un-Islamic and only the State has the right to declare jihad.

All these factors underscore the important reality that under discussion in Parliament is an ongoing situation. The challenge and the policy under discussion is one that Pakistan has been confronted with for over half-a-decade. Consequently, there is also a response dynamic, however flawed and inadequate, that is already at work. This is a major limiting factor in a situation if the political demand, as in this case, of a section of politicians would be to go back to the drawing board and draw a fresh policy. Such a demand and expectation would be inherently flawed; one that fails to appreciate the dynamics of policy formulation and implementation. However, what would be more practical if the critics of the existing policy would recommend potentially more effective policy alternatives. Such an undertaking would require a coherent and logical presentation, backed by facts and experiential wisdom, of recommended policy alternatives.

The response of the politicians from the non-ruling parties, especially the PML-N and PML-Q, has combined political point-scoring with some serious engagement with the process issues related to the briefing. Meanwhile, the diminishing interest of the PPP parliamentarians prompted the Speaker to urge them to take greater interest.

On the process issue, the PML-N made a major contribution towards making the present session into a genuinely parliamentary discussion session. Originally the government had planned it to be a limited purpose session in which the Parliament would be presented the ground situation by the Director General of Military Operations to be followed by two questions each from all present political parties. The government responded positively to the PML-N's recommendations. These included that the Q&A be spread over a day and be followed by another presentation by a government representative presenting the government's present and mid-term threat perception and its broader impact on the country, the contents of the Pakistan-US cooperation agreement and recommended policy options to deal with the situation. As a consequence the briefing has extended into a two-week plus session. That the session was extended on the opposition's demand and all representatives are getting an opportunity to participate in the discussion means that a democratic exercise in underway. The process of debate and dialogue is intrinsic and crucial to genuine democracy. To that extent the session is a plus.

However, how valuable this session is for policy formulation and, indeed, for public good and overall national security will depend on its final outcome. And that depends largely on the non-ruling parties. The government has conceded to their process recommendations and these non-ruling parties must demonstrate to the public that they have practical wisdom to a policy that is already in operation. It is a policy that now seems to be showing some mixed results but criticisms too are aplenty.

Policymakers and parliamentarians, however, do not have the luxury to indulge constantly in rhetoric and points-scoring. For the positions that they acquire through public vote, the parliamentarians opt for a constitutional undertaking to be responsible for competent management of state and society through appropriate laws, structures and processes. This is what the public now expects from the parliamentarians as they debate the security problem in the Parliament.

Some of the point-scoring is almost inevitable. The PML-Q, PML-N and others from the non-ruling parties have been repeating their criticism of the tribal area policy and also of the in-camera briefings. They mostly insist that "this is not our war" and demand that Pakistan discontinue its close cooperation with the US on this war on terrorism which is now being fought on Pakistani territory. They demand dialogue with the militants and argue that because of pro-US policies Pakistani security forces have launched military operations in the tribal areas against Pakistani citizens and killing many innocent civilians.

The parliamentarians' criticism of the briefing has been that the information regarding the ground situation and policy content provided to them has already been available in the public arena. For example, they complain that they have not been provided any new facts regarding the government's commitments made to the US about Pakistan's clearance to US operations in the tribal areas and support to US operations in Afghanistan. The PML-N and PML-Q may not be entirely wrong. Yet this criticism alone will only signal poverty of serious and responsible politics. There are enough information and facts available to the non-ruling parties to make detailed, viable and concrete suggestions for improving the existing security policy especially dealing with the tribal areas. The PML-N will soon be suggesting to the prime minister to set up a smaller all-parliamentary committee which must get a more detailed briefing on the security situation and the committee should make concrete recommendations for policy improvement.

To the extent that this will keep all the parties involved in a dialogue process over the question of security this would be a positive move. However, as concrete recommendations for substantive policy improvement those have not been forthcoming from any political party. It is time that Pakistan's political parties get more serious about what it takes to run the business of state and society. It certainly takes more serious and competent mind work. Rhetoric and good intentions alone won't do it. (The News)

Email: nasimzehra@hotmail.com
Read more...