Seeking enlightenment, a way out of the confusion
Islamabad diary
Friday, January 30, 2009
by Ayaz Amir
A pundit, so-called, is meant to clarify things, to throw some light where darkness reigns. But I am confused myself and seek an answer to some very confusing questions.
My preferred Chief Justice of Pakistan, and like me the chief justice of choice of a vast number of Pakistanis, is Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. If chief justices were to be chosen in an election he would win hands down, leaving all rivals far behind.
But what confuses me is the matter of his restoration. Can he be restored without President Asif Zardari being shown out of the presidency? Can a pistol be put to Zardari's head to make him agree to restore Chaudhry and the other deposed judges to their rightful positions? In other words, can this be done as long as the PPP is in power?
So what is the long march announced by the lawyers' community meant to achieve? They plan a sit-in before parliament and the Supreme Court (both being close to each other) in order to force the government's hand. But will the government's hand be forced? It won't be unless the lawyers storm the Supreme Court and physically install Iftikhar Chaudhry in the chair he once occupied. Can the lawyers do this? Are they even aiming to do this? And is the government in Islamabad so weak as to allow this to happen?
The lawyers' movement has shown amazing tenacity. When cynics expected it to wither away it survived and kept going. Zardari maintains it was Benazir Bhutto's 'wisdom' which created the conditions for General Pervez Musharraf to take off his uniform. This is selective and self-serving history.
What made Musharraf a liability in American eyes (and the US was his protective godfather) was his fatal weakening by the lawyers' movement. The path to democracy thus was paved by the sacrifices rendered by Pakistan's lawyers and the historic stand taken by the Supreme Bench headed by Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday -- the bench which ruled against Musharraf and restored Chaudhry as chief justice.
But despite these striking and unprecedented successes the lawyers' movement was not able to ignite a mass movement on the lines of the 1968 movement against Ayub Khan or the 1977 rightist upheaval against Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. People lined the routes of the journeys Iftikhar Chaudhry made to various bar associations, and they showered him with more rose petals than perhaps anyone else in our turbulent history, but they erected no barricades and stormed no Bastilles.
From which we might infer that while the long march will excite public interest and people with great interest will watch the event unfolding on television, we are not going to see a million men and women, or even half that number, marching up Constitution Avenue and occupying the Supreme Court..
As for the sit-in, even if it is impressive, it's a bit hard visualizing it lasting for too long. If an army marches on its stomach, as Napoleon said, for a sit-in to go on, the least you need are adequate toilet facilities, which are rather skimpy around the place where the sit-in is supposed to take place.
Lawyers have every right to agitate for the rule of law and the restoration of the rightful judiciary headed by Iftikhar Chaudhry. They owe this to themselves and to the people who were so inspired by their movement. But their leaders should not set unrealistic aims. No street agitation can bring Iftikhar Chaudhry back and the movement's leaders do themselves no service by spreading the impression that somehow this miracle will come about with their long march.
Aitzaz Ahsan, Ali Ahmed Kurd, Munir A Malik and Hamid Khan -- some of the leading lights of the lawyers' movement -- are experienced enough to know that not every agitation is guaranteed to attain success. They should be satisfied if there is an impressive popular turnout on March 9. But if they aim too high and then fall short, they will only be paving the way to disillusionment and a collapse of morale.
Indeed, making it sound as if the long march will lead to decisive results is a sign not of confidence but desperation. This is a country where dictators have regularly stamped upon the constitution, where even elected leaders have not had much respect for the rule of law, where the highest judges at every turn in our history have provided succour and relief to military usurpers. Undoing this legacy is a vital task. But what makes anyone think that this task can be accomplished between one sunrise and one sunset?
Indian independence was achieved after decades of struggle. It took almost a century before apartheid in South Africa was buried. Behind Barack Obama's rise to the presidency lies the saga of the civil rights movement.
Yes, we need an independent judiciary, one that serves the people and defends the laws of the land, one that is not a handmaiden of tinpot dictators. The rule of law must prevail. But to hitch these absolutely vital aims to a single day's events is to betray impulsiveness, not resolve or strength of purpose.
Iftikhar Chaudhry and his fellow judges, Bhagwandas and Ramday chief amongst them, have performed what in Pakistan's context can rightly be described as an historic role. They upheld the rule of law and in so doing stood up to a dictatorship, contributing mightily to its decline and fall. What if the democratic government replacing that dictatorship has betrayed popular expectations, and its own pledges, by not restoring the Supreme Court sacked by Musharraf on Nov 2, 2007?
Which worthwhile struggle is without its share of betrayals or setbacks, of hopes unfulfilled? Ask the Palestinians, ask the ghost of Martin Luther King. Was Mohammad Ali Jinnah happy with the moth-eaten Pakistan he got? He wasn't but he had no choice: he could either take it or leave it. No revolution in history has lived up to its promise. Things desired are different from what they turn out to be. Which doesn't mean that we fold up our hands and give up the fight. But it does mean we not lose sight of reality.
To repeat the obvious, unless our lawyer friends know something that we don't, Zardari is not about to fall. And as long as this remains the state of play Iftikhar Chaudhry is not about to be restored.
What I also don't understand is our confusion about parliamentary sovereignty. If parliament is sovereign, then the matter of the judges' restoration should be left to parliament to decide. What the mood in that supposedly sovereign body may be, may not be to everyone's taste or liking. But then if parliamentary sovereignty is to be something more than a catchphrase, we are left with no choice except to abide by whatever dominant mood therein prevails.
I hate to say it but there is no majority backing in the National Assembly for the restoration of the pre-Nov 2 judiciary. Tragic but true. Lawyers have every right to protest against this state of affairs. They have every right to carry on their struggle. But it is scarcely wise to mislead public opinion, and perhaps mislead oneself into the bargain, by setting impossible deadlines.
Huge rallies against the Iraq war have been brought out in western capitals, far bigger demonstrations of popular fervour than anything we can imagine in Pakistan. But these rallies have been part of a movement which still continues. Pakistan's lawyers have done a great job and public sentiment is with them but it will be to their good to realise that the road ahead is long and arduous.
It is true there is much anger against the Zardari dispensation. Hopes raised by the last elections have given way to a feeling of disillusionment. But then, however hard it may be to swallow this, Zardari is democratically-elected president of Pakistan and the PPP enjoys majority support in the National Assembly. It took an election, not an armoured brigade, to see George Bush stepping into the sunset. We have to get used to the idea, however uncomfortable it may be, that we will have to wait for an election to see the last of the Zardari era.
Our political class refuses to learn from history. At a time when national unity should be the most precious commodity of all, knives are being sharpened for a fresh round of political confrontation, the PML-N talking in terms of popular mobilization and the PPP fishing for trouble in Punjab. Pakistan is facing serious threats, perhaps to its very existence, because of the fallout from America's war in Afghanistan and the growing Taliban threat in Swat and FATA. But the political class, not for the first time, is demonstrating its incapacity to see beyond its short-term interests. The people of Pakistan deserve better. (The News)
Email: winlust@yahoo.com
Some Comments:
gditpp Says:
January 31st, 2009
If Mian sb really means business then he and the lawyers should take the long march to RawalPindi instead of Islamabad and should make Dharna right in front of GHQ.
It was the then COAS Gen Mush, the Corps Commander and the head of ISI(Gen Kiani) who were responsible for the Martial Law of nov 3, 2007 and the removal of Iftekhar Chaudhry. If they mean business they should go to Rawalpindi. Dharnas in front of Presidency Islamabad were OK as long as Musharraf occupied it but now with a Civilian president there it would only be a show for getting political mileage. It is GHQ who is responsible for giving Mush the departing guard of honour, it is the sitting COAS who allowed Mush to occupy Army House for more than the legally permitted time, it is the military top brass who is not letting Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan free. First at least define the real enemy.
But that is perhaps asking for too much. The Dharna Brigade do not want to take on the Army. Thats why Iftekhar Chadhry and the Supreme Court allowed Musharraf to contest elections in Uniform. That is the reason why Justice Iftekhar didnot name the “third person” responsible for his removal on Nov 3, 2008 in front of Pindi Bar Club.
The real Bastille to storm lies in Rawalpindi. But it would need real-life courage to go there.
In my assessment PPP is not quite ready to fight anyone else’s battle, not at least for now. It is in fact trying for a national reconciliation. Neither it needs to prove if it is anti establishment or not, the political history of Pakistan speaks for it.
I rather think that the time is ripe for the new claimants seeking the title of forces of anti-establishment to come forward and offer some real sacrifices. Lets have a shaheed Quaid from PTI, Jamat e Islami or PMLN for a change.
Read more...
Showing posts with label Parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parliament. Show all posts
Friday, 30 January 2009
Friday, 24 October 2008
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...
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...
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
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...
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...
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...
Saturday, 18 October 2008
The Taliban supporter exposed: Maulana Fazlur Rehman of JUI
Maulana speaks for the Taliban?
Maulana Fazlur Rehman of JUI has spoken out in the in-camera session of the parliament in Islamabad, posing as a kind of mediator between the state of Pakistan and the forces loosely described as the Taliban. While opposing military action in the Tribal Areas, he offered the middleman’s role to the army. He added for good measure the accusation that what was being done so far was in blind obedience to the American policy inside Afghanistan and Pakistan. He wanted “dialogue and development” but no “deterrence”, the last being a part of the military strategy being followed.
Who can deny the value of mediation if it is impartial and effective? Therefore, it would help a great deal if the Maulana, sitting inside the ruling coalition, can make the Taliban, or whoever it is making our life miserable, give concrete earnest of good conduct? But how do we know that a man not long ago threatened with death in DI Khan by the same elements can represent them impartially? We know that his party has political representation in Bajaur but Bajaur is also the nesting place of Al Qaeda, the Hekmatyar militia, the Ahle Hadith and the “takfiri” Arabs. We also know that at times he has overestimated his capacity to mediate, as happened in the case of Al Faran terrorist group in Indian administered Kashmir in the 1990s. Also, as things stand today, his party’s representatives in the Tribal Areas stand politically very close to the Taliban without having effective leverage over their decision-making. So the Maulana’ s offer is full of holes and has probably been made more to protect himself from the terrorists than to provide any relief to the Pakistan state. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Maulana Fazlur Rehman of JUI has spoken out in the in-camera session of the parliament in Islamabad, posing as a kind of mediator between the state of Pakistan and the forces loosely described as the Taliban. While opposing military action in the Tribal Areas, he offered the middleman’s role to the army. He added for good measure the accusation that what was being done so far was in blind obedience to the American policy inside Afghanistan and Pakistan. He wanted “dialogue and development” but no “deterrence”, the last being a part of the military strategy being followed.
Who can deny the value of mediation if it is impartial and effective? Therefore, it would help a great deal if the Maulana, sitting inside the ruling coalition, can make the Taliban, or whoever it is making our life miserable, give concrete earnest of good conduct? But how do we know that a man not long ago threatened with death in DI Khan by the same elements can represent them impartially? We know that his party has political representation in Bajaur but Bajaur is also the nesting place of Al Qaeda, the Hekmatyar militia, the Ahle Hadith and the “takfiri” Arabs. We also know that at times he has overestimated his capacity to mediate, as happened in the case of Al Faran terrorist group in Indian administered Kashmir in the 1990s. Also, as things stand today, his party’s representatives in the Tribal Areas stand politically very close to the Taliban without having effective leverage over their decision-making. So the Maulana’ s offer is full of holes and has probably been made more to protect himself from the terrorists than to provide any relief to the Pakistan state. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Why does not Ayaz Amir resign from the PML(N)'s membership and then stage his 'neutral' criticism on the war on terror?
Ayaz Amir is the latest spokesman of the Taliban in the parliament. While pretending to be a neutral columnist, he always makes it a point to play to the gallery by criticizing the Pakistan's war on terror. Why does not Ayaz Amir resign from the PML(N)'s membership and then stage his 'neutral' criticism against PPP and PML(N)?
Our priceless talent for wasting time and money
Friday, October 17, 2008
By by Ayaz Amir
If anyone ever mentions the need for an in-camera session of parliament on any issue ever again I would be tempted to reach for my gun. That the ongoing in-camera session was likely to be an exercise in futility was established pretty quickly on day one when the army in the person of the DG MO (Military Operations), scattered its pearls of wisdom in a bid to tell the confused parliamentarians that the mess in FATA was our war and that for the sake of the country's future there was no alternative to waging it.
But that the futility would be stretched to a farce, adding nothing to anyone's knowledge, prefiguring no national consensus on the disaster unfolding in FATA, and serving little purpose beyond deepening the confusion and befuddlement of an already confused set of people was something even hardened cynics might not have foreseen.
In-camera means you are supposed to tell no secrets. And Madam Speaker, elegant as always, was at pains to remind the members of parliament that they were under an oath to divulge nothing. But even if members of parliament wanted to divulge anything they couldn't because they were told no MI6 secrets and let in on no CIA plots. They arrived as innocents and left as a bunch of bewildered goats.
Yes, there were some clumsy attempts both on the army's part and the government's to stampede emotions by some not-very-clever video footage of throats being slit and flags being burned but that was it: clumsy manipulation which if part of any intended film script would be rejected by any half-decent studio.
Come to think of it, it made sense to keep the proceedings secret because if the public could see what was going on chances are they would have felt like lynching all members of parliament or coming to the conclusion that these people were not serious, that they were members of no governing class but a bunch of clowns who wouldn't be hired by the Lucky Irani Circus, our leading circus, which has to put some premium on competence and professionalism in order to survive.
Convening a joint session of parliament doesn't come cheap and the security that has to be laid out for such things in Islamabad these days is quite unbelievable. Considering what has been achieved – more confusion – we could have saved ourselves this trouble.
The DG MO skated over the surface of things but at least he looked and sounded professional. Information Minister Sherry Rehman who spoke for the government was all charm, smooth English and complete vacuity. She's a bright lady. Why did she choose to act so dumb? The clichés about the 'war on terror' she came up with would have stuck in a camel's throat. And to think that she was the best the government could offer.
She was obviously chosen for her presentational skills; the PPP is a party which has always been in thrall to impressive-sounding English. Even the Mohtarma could be charmed by a well-written CV, no matter if the person behind it was an out-and-out scoundrel. The PML-N's problem is different. Anyone in its ranks speaking passable English is viewed with suspicion.
The PML-N chose to act dumb in its own way. The person it should have grilled and put on the mat was the DG MO. But it chose to remain silent, enabling Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha to depart in peace. Someone it shouldn't have bothered with was friend Sherry. But of her it asked hollow queries evoking predictably empty answers. All this could have been foreseen but it somehow seemed beyond the PML-N's imagination.
Read on....
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/arc_news.asp?id=9
Read more...
Our priceless talent for wasting time and money
Friday, October 17, 2008
By by Ayaz Amir
If anyone ever mentions the need for an in-camera session of parliament on any issue ever again I would be tempted to reach for my gun. That the ongoing in-camera session was likely to be an exercise in futility was established pretty quickly on day one when the army in the person of the DG MO (Military Operations), scattered its pearls of wisdom in a bid to tell the confused parliamentarians that the mess in FATA was our war and that for the sake of the country's future there was no alternative to waging it.
But that the futility would be stretched to a farce, adding nothing to anyone's knowledge, prefiguring no national consensus on the disaster unfolding in FATA, and serving little purpose beyond deepening the confusion and befuddlement of an already confused set of people was something even hardened cynics might not have foreseen.
In-camera means you are supposed to tell no secrets. And Madam Speaker, elegant as always, was at pains to remind the members of parliament that they were under an oath to divulge nothing. But even if members of parliament wanted to divulge anything they couldn't because they were told no MI6 secrets and let in on no CIA plots. They arrived as innocents and left as a bunch of bewildered goats.
Yes, there were some clumsy attempts both on the army's part and the government's to stampede emotions by some not-very-clever video footage of throats being slit and flags being burned but that was it: clumsy manipulation which if part of any intended film script would be rejected by any half-decent studio.
Come to think of it, it made sense to keep the proceedings secret because if the public could see what was going on chances are they would have felt like lynching all members of parliament or coming to the conclusion that these people were not serious, that they were members of no governing class but a bunch of clowns who wouldn't be hired by the Lucky Irani Circus, our leading circus, which has to put some premium on competence and professionalism in order to survive.
Convening a joint session of parliament doesn't come cheap and the security that has to be laid out for such things in Islamabad these days is quite unbelievable. Considering what has been achieved – more confusion – we could have saved ourselves this trouble.
The DG MO skated over the surface of things but at least he looked and sounded professional. Information Minister Sherry Rehman who spoke for the government was all charm, smooth English and complete vacuity. She's a bright lady. Why did she choose to act so dumb? The clichés about the 'war on terror' she came up with would have stuck in a camel's throat. And to think that she was the best the government could offer.
She was obviously chosen for her presentational skills; the PPP is a party which has always been in thrall to impressive-sounding English. Even the Mohtarma could be charmed by a well-written CV, no matter if the person behind it was an out-and-out scoundrel. The PML-N's problem is different. Anyone in its ranks speaking passable English is viewed with suspicion.
The PML-N chose to act dumb in its own way. The person it should have grilled and put on the mat was the DG MO. But it chose to remain silent, enabling Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha to depart in peace. Someone it shouldn't have bothered with was friend Sherry. But of her it asked hollow queries evoking predictably empty answers. All this could have been foreseen but it somehow seemed beyond the PML-N's imagination.
Read on....
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/arc_news.asp?id=9
Read more...
Friday, 17 October 2008
JUI-F opposes use of force in Tribal Areas: Fazlur Rehman emerges as ‘Taliban spokesman’ in parliament
JUI-F chief opposes use of force in Tribal Areas: Fazl emerges as ‘Taliban spokesman’ in parliament
* Offers mediation between govt and Taliban
* PML-N calls for fresh anti-terror policy
* Wants any secret US-Musharraf deals made public
By Irfan Ghauri and Muhammad Bilal
ISLAMABAD: Fazlur Rehman, the chief of his own government-allied faction of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, criticised the government’s counterterrorism efforts during Thursday’s in-camera parliamentary sitting on national security – coming out as a spokesman for Taliban.
Calling for a truce, he offered to mediate between the government and the Taliban “if the government sincerely wants to resolve the issue”.
Sources familiar with the proceedings said Fazl criticised the government for ‘blindly following US policies’ and strongly opposed the military operation in Swat and the Tribal Areas.
“Of the government’s policy of three Ds (dialogue, development and deterrence), our party believes in the first two,” a Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl legislator quoted him as saying.
He came down hard on the government’s statement that seminaries were breeding terrorism, saying the previous regime had adopted the stance to malign religious schools at America’s behest. Talking about the increasing incidents of US incursions into Pakistan, he said the government had compromised the country’s sovereignty.
PML-N: Earlier, opening the debate, Opposition Leader in the National Assembly Nisar Ali Khan grilled the government for pursuing former president Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf’s policies on the war on terror. He demanded that Musharraf and his officials who formulated the policy be summoned in parliament.
He repeated the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s demand that the government make public any secret agreements between the former president and the US, and formulate a ‘national policy’ to fight terrorism through parliament.
He said law and order could worsen if the government did not change its policies including its counterterrorism strategy.
Opposition leader in Senate Kamil Ali Agha proposed forming a committee with equal representation from the opposition and the government to hold dialogue with all stakeholders in FATA, ‘including militants’.
The committee should then put together a joint resolution for the parliament to adopt.
He admitted that the policy framed by Pervez Musharraf had failed, but claimed the present government was following it ‘more vigorously’. He also demanded parliament be briefed on the agreements and dialogue with militants so far.
FATA legislator Munir Khan Orakzai asked the government to stop the military operation and engage tribal elders to restore peace in the troubled areas.
Leader of the House in the Senate Raza Rabbani defended the government’s three-pronged strategy and rejected the allegation that his government had been following Musharraf’s policies, saying it had instead called the parliamentary session to develop national consensus on dealing with terrorism.
The debate will resume as the house meets again at 10am today (Friday). (Daily Times)
Read more...
* Offers mediation between govt and Taliban
* PML-N calls for fresh anti-terror policy
* Wants any secret US-Musharraf deals made public
By Irfan Ghauri and Muhammad Bilal
ISLAMABAD: Fazlur Rehman, the chief of his own government-allied faction of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, criticised the government’s counterterrorism efforts during Thursday’s in-camera parliamentary sitting on national security – coming out as a spokesman for Taliban.
Calling for a truce, he offered to mediate between the government and the Taliban “if the government sincerely wants to resolve the issue”.
Sources familiar with the proceedings said Fazl criticised the government for ‘blindly following US policies’ and strongly opposed the military operation in Swat and the Tribal Areas.
“Of the government’s policy of three Ds (dialogue, development and deterrence), our party believes in the first two,” a Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl legislator quoted him as saying.
He came down hard on the government’s statement that seminaries were breeding terrorism, saying the previous regime had adopted the stance to malign religious schools at America’s behest. Talking about the increasing incidents of US incursions into Pakistan, he said the government had compromised the country’s sovereignty.
PML-N: Earlier, opening the debate, Opposition Leader in the National Assembly Nisar Ali Khan grilled the government for pursuing former president Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf’s policies on the war on terror. He demanded that Musharraf and his officials who formulated the policy be summoned in parliament.
He repeated the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s demand that the government make public any secret agreements between the former president and the US, and formulate a ‘national policy’ to fight terrorism through parliament.
He said law and order could worsen if the government did not change its policies including its counterterrorism strategy.
Opposition leader in Senate Kamil Ali Agha proposed forming a committee with equal representation from the opposition and the government to hold dialogue with all stakeholders in FATA, ‘including militants’.
The committee should then put together a joint resolution for the parliament to adopt.
He admitted that the policy framed by Pervez Musharraf had failed, but claimed the present government was following it ‘more vigorously’. He also demanded parliament be briefed on the agreements and dialogue with militants so far.
FATA legislator Munir Khan Orakzai asked the government to stop the military operation and engage tribal elders to restore peace in the troubled areas.
Leader of the House in the Senate Raza Rabbani defended the government’s three-pronged strategy and rejected the allegation that his government had been following Musharraf’s policies, saying it had instead called the parliamentary session to develop national consensus on dealing with terrorism.
The debate will resume as the house meets again at 10am today (Friday). (Daily Times)
Read more...
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Talks, development, operation — Pakistan Government spells FATA strategy
* Parliamentary heads convey dissatisfaction over second briefing
* Gilani calls back national security adviser to assist Info minister
By Irfan Ghauri and Muhammad Bilal
ISLAMABAD: The government is following a three-pronged strategy to combat Taliban in FATA – political dialogue, socio-economic uplift and the use of military force, Information Minister Sherry Rehman said on Tuesday.
Sherry was briefing an in-camera joint session of parliament on the government’s war on terror policy, according to sources. The sources said that after the briefing, the political parties’ parliamentary leaders met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in the NA speaker’s chamber and conveyed their dissatisfaction over the second briefing arranged by the government.
Summoned: The sources said Gilani has summoned National Security Adviser Mehmood Ali Durrani back from India to assist Sherry during today’s (Wednesday) question-answer session. Sources said the prime minister assured the political parties’ leaders that ministers currently in China with President Asif Zardari would be available from Friday to answer the parliamentarians’ questions.
Sources said Leader of Opposition in the NA Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan told the House that the government had not touched upon policy matters and was following the previous regime’s policies. The meeting decided to extend the session, earlier scheduled to conclude on Thursday, for another five days.
The opposition parties pressed the government to declare the joint House proceedings as open. NA Speaker adjourned the session abruptly when some of the members wanted to speak after the briefing concluded. It will resume today at 11am. (Daily Times)
Read more...
* Gilani calls back national security adviser to assist Info minister
By Irfan Ghauri and Muhammad Bilal
ISLAMABAD: The government is following a three-pronged strategy to combat Taliban in FATA – political dialogue, socio-economic uplift and the use of military force, Information Minister Sherry Rehman said on Tuesday.
Sherry was briefing an in-camera joint session of parliament on the government’s war on terror policy, according to sources. The sources said that after the briefing, the political parties’ parliamentary leaders met Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in the NA speaker’s chamber and conveyed their dissatisfaction over the second briefing arranged by the government.
Summoned: The sources said Gilani has summoned National Security Adviser Mehmood Ali Durrani back from India to assist Sherry during today’s (Wednesday) question-answer session. Sources said the prime minister assured the political parties’ leaders that ministers currently in China with President Asif Zardari would be available from Friday to answer the parliamentarians’ questions.
Sources said Leader of Opposition in the NA Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan told the House that the government had not touched upon policy matters and was following the previous regime’s policies. The meeting decided to extend the session, earlier scheduled to conclude on Thursday, for another five days.
The opposition parties pressed the government to declare the joint House proceedings as open. NA Speaker adjourned the session abruptly when some of the members wanted to speak after the briefing concluded. It will resume today at 11am. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Those who say 'this is not Pakistan's war' must answer this question
The message of the blasts!
As the in-camera session of the parliament was listening to a briefing from the Army, the anti-terrorist squad headquarters was suicide-bombed with a car, leaving six wounded. Elsewhere, eleven people were killed in Dir when a vehicle meant to carry prisoners was blown up with a device fixed under it. Both incidents owed more to negligence and general illiteracy among the police personnel than to any terrorist expertise. In Landi Kotal an attempt was made to blow up oil tankers through a suicide-bomber who missed the target.
The effect of course was psychological and once again demonstrated how Al Qaeda was underpinning its actions with psy-war techniques. What it managed to do successfully was to show its outreach to those present in parliament through a message left at the anti-terrorism squad headquarters. The message was: if you fight America’s war this is what will happen to you. The unspoken message was: if you give up then you will be all right. The question however is: will Al Qaeda return our territory and leave Pakistan if we give up all contacts with America? Or will Al Qaeda separate us from the international community and then have us at its mercy? Those who say this is not our war have not been able to answer this question satisfactorily. (Daily Times)
Read more...
As the in-camera session of the parliament was listening to a briefing from the Army, the anti-terrorist squad headquarters was suicide-bombed with a car, leaving six wounded. Elsewhere, eleven people were killed in Dir when a vehicle meant to carry prisoners was blown up with a device fixed under it. Both incidents owed more to negligence and general illiteracy among the police personnel than to any terrorist expertise. In Landi Kotal an attempt was made to blow up oil tankers through a suicide-bomber who missed the target.
The effect of course was psychological and once again demonstrated how Al Qaeda was underpinning its actions with psy-war techniques. What it managed to do successfully was to show its outreach to those present in parliament through a message left at the anti-terrorism squad headquarters. The message was: if you fight America’s war this is what will happen to you. The unspoken message was: if you give up then you will be all right. The question however is: will Al Qaeda return our territory and leave Pakistan if we give up all contacts with America? Or will Al Qaeda separate us from the international community and then have us at its mercy? Those who say this is not our war have not been able to answer this question satisfactorily. (Daily Times)
Read more...
Some questions that Pakistani Parliamentarians must ask the Army Chief and the head of ISI
In his op-ed today, Talat Hussain poses some important questions which suggest that why despite the so called intensive military operation against militants, not even a single notable command of terrorist organizations has been captured or killed. Talat also questions the doubts about the (intentional?) failure of intelligence agencies in stopping the acts of terrorism in Pakistan including the heart of the federal capital Islamabad.
Short answer: Th rogue elements in ISI do not really want to eliminate jihadi (read terrorist) organization because of ISI's short-sighted focus on: (1) identifying and treating India as Pakistan's eternal enemy at all costs in order to justify heaving spending on Pakistan's defense budget; and (2) treating Afghanistan as Pakistan's legitimate possession in order to gain the so-called strategic depth.
There is therefore an urgent need that Pakistan Army must by force disband all kinds of Jihadi/sectarian/terrorist organizations, their leaders must be arrested and executed after summary judicial inquiry, and their supportes in politics and media must be placed behind bars because of their conspiracies against Pakistan's national security.
![[1+talat.gif]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhyphenhyphenF3dz_Gslzjq11kvi4Rjhxr2Au6QxqE5cOrQHi8jnxeJZPizEynaOt09ZFOGS8qqw0av95xQSeAKToczMfItIGjGFgR0EXIEyiksXHAq_x5B6jlqzIE66aoUB_Vq4_j0egUV22SR0rE/s1600/1+talat.gif)
Read more...
Short answer: Th rogue elements in ISI do not really want to eliminate jihadi (read terrorist) organization because of ISI's short-sighted focus on: (1) identifying and treating India as Pakistan's eternal enemy at all costs in order to justify heaving spending on Pakistan's defense budget; and (2) treating Afghanistan as Pakistan's legitimate possession in order to gain the so-called strategic depth.
There is therefore an urgent need that Pakistan Army must by force disband all kinds of Jihadi/sectarian/terrorist organizations, their leaders must be arrested and executed after summary judicial inquiry, and their supportes in politics and media must be placed behind bars because of their conspiracies against Pakistan's national security.
Read more...
Friday, 10 October 2008
PML(N), please adopt an open mind
In its editorial on 10 October 2008, Daily Dawn deplores the undue haste with which some political leaders including those belonging to PML(N) (as well as Jamaat-e-Islami) declared the in camera briefing unsatisfactory. This suggests that PML(N) is busy in political point scoring instead of helping the people of Pakistan in their war against terrorism at this crucial stage in the history of Pakistan.
An open mind, please
AS if to punctuate the severity of the militancy threat, a suicide bomber struck in Islamabad as legislators gathered for the second day of the special in-camera session of parliament. Unfortunately, some opposition MPs have acted in unseemly haste in declaring the classified briefing unsatisfactory and lacking depth. As the briefing to parliament, governors, chief ministers and other specially invited guests is classified, there is no way of specifically assessing the disgruntled MPs’ claims. However, there is no doubt that they have spoken with undue haste and disregarded the historic nature of the briefing. Consider the background to this week’s in-camera session of parliament. After eight years of direct and indirect rule by an army chief, on whose watch the so-called war on terror began, a popularly elected civilian government has taken the reins of the state at a moment of acute crisis. Pilloried for months for not taking the nation or its legislators into confidence on its strategy for dealing with militancy, the government finally summoned the army to explain its strategy for countering increasingly emboldened militants in Pakistan. While it is certainly parliament’s legal prerogative to summon state officials — uniformed or otherwise — to explain their conduct, the ongoing classified briefing is a very positive sign for democracy given the history of army supremacy over parliament. Only the most churlish of opposition MPs would fail to appreciate this gain for politics and politicians.
The criticism of the content of the briefing itself was similarly misguided. The briefing given by the director general of military operations was criticised for being too focused on military operations rather than the strategic threat from the militants. This is very confusing. First, the criticism came even before MPs asked questions in the scheduled question-and-answer session. Second, the supremacy of parliament — which is what opposition MPs have claimed is the need of the hour — demands that parliament decide the strategy that the military must execute. Opposition MPs have kept their heads in the sand when it comes to recognising the militancy threat. The suicide blast in Bhakkar targeted none other than the scion of a political family that supports the PML-N. Punjab, a stamping ground for militants, is governed by a coalition led by the PML-N. Some APDM leaders, meanwhile, have continued with their rejectionist politics, turning their backs on a special government invitation to attend the parliamentary briefing. Democracy is about debate and choosing from a menu of alternatives. Everyone invited had a duty to step forward and make a case for their own strategy of defeating militancy. Rather than reflexive opposition to the government, opposition MPs have a duty to uphold democratic values and protect the people of this country. (Dawn)
Read more...
An open mind, please
AS if to punctuate the severity of the militancy threat, a suicide bomber struck in Islamabad as legislators gathered for the second day of the special in-camera session of parliament. Unfortunately, some opposition MPs have acted in unseemly haste in declaring the classified briefing unsatisfactory and lacking depth. As the briefing to parliament, governors, chief ministers and other specially invited guests is classified, there is no way of specifically assessing the disgruntled MPs’ claims. However, there is no doubt that they have spoken with undue haste and disregarded the historic nature of the briefing. Consider the background to this week’s in-camera session of parliament. After eight years of direct and indirect rule by an army chief, on whose watch the so-called war on terror began, a popularly elected civilian government has taken the reins of the state at a moment of acute crisis. Pilloried for months for not taking the nation or its legislators into confidence on its strategy for dealing with militancy, the government finally summoned the army to explain its strategy for countering increasingly emboldened militants in Pakistan. While it is certainly parliament’s legal prerogative to summon state officials — uniformed or otherwise — to explain their conduct, the ongoing classified briefing is a very positive sign for democracy given the history of army supremacy over parliament. Only the most churlish of opposition MPs would fail to appreciate this gain for politics and politicians.
The criticism of the content of the briefing itself was similarly misguided. The briefing given by the director general of military operations was criticised for being too focused on military operations rather than the strategic threat from the militants. This is very confusing. First, the criticism came even before MPs asked questions in the scheduled question-and-answer session. Second, the supremacy of parliament — which is what opposition MPs have claimed is the need of the hour — demands that parliament decide the strategy that the military must execute. Opposition MPs have kept their heads in the sand when it comes to recognising the militancy threat. The suicide blast in Bhakkar targeted none other than the scion of a political family that supports the PML-N. Punjab, a stamping ground for militants, is governed by a coalition led by the PML-N. Some APDM leaders, meanwhile, have continued with their rejectionist politics, turning their backs on a special government invitation to attend the parliamentary briefing. Democracy is about debate and choosing from a menu of alternatives. Everyone invited had a duty to step forward and make a case for their own strategy of defeating militancy. Rather than reflexive opposition to the government, opposition MPs have a duty to uphold democratic values and protect the people of this country. (Dawn)
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
