Gail Collins                                                                     November 7, 2015

The Newyork Times

IT’S officially one year until the presidential election. Amazing how time flies, isn’t it? Once again we’re watching debates featuring what appears to be the entire supporting cast of “Ben-Hur.” Once again we’re asking ourselves why Iowa always gets to be first. Once again we’re wondering whether Hillary Clinton will make history by becoming the first woman president.

“It’s hard to believe there’s another year,” Clinton said in a phone interview, taking the glass-half-empty perspective. She was on her way to the airport during a fund-raising swing through California, broken up by an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show. Her formula for making it through another 12 months, she said cheerfully, was pretty simple: “We’re just getting up every morning. Step by step.”

“It’ll be a long slog,” she added with what I believe the entire nation understands is total accuracy. “But it’s more fun this time because I feel like we’re doing better.”

We’ve all been here before — a Hillary campaign and the first-woman-president possibilities it entails. In a way it’s so familiar that it’s hard to remember that the whole idea of a major female presidential candidate is new.

Clinton is the only woman who’s ever won a presidential primary. The only others who ever featured as even remote factors were the Republican Margaret Chase Smith in 1964, and the Democrat Shirley Chisholm, who got 152 delegates in 1972. (There were lots of ways to get little chunks of delegates without winning a primary back then.)

When we look back at our women-running-for-president history, we always have to start with Victoria Woodhull, who was the candidate of the Equal Rights Party in 1872. Woodhull still holds what may be the record for unsuccessful outcomes — she spent Election Day in jail after federal marshals arrested her on charges of publishing an obscene newspaper. This all had to do with Woodhull’s attempt to demonstrate the nation’s sexual double standard by publicizing an adulterous affair the famous preacher Henry Ward Beecher was allegedly having with a parishioner. She eventually left the country, worn down by all her battles. Meanwhile, Beecher’s parish raised his salary to $100,000 a year, and he got an endorsement deal with Pears soap. (“If Cleanliness is next to Godliness, Soap must be considered as a Means of Grace.”)

Woodhull was followed by a longish list of other women who ran for president as third-party or protest candidates. Many of them were lovely people, but we’re not going down a path that would force us to discuss the fact that the comedian Gracie Allen ran in 1940 on the Surprise Party ticket. Or that Georgiana Doerschuck ran for the Republican nomination in New Hampshire in 1996 on an anti-technology platform, promising that if elected, she would immediately issue an executive order banning all computers. Her campaign was particularly notable given the fact that Doerschuck was a desktop publisher. But really, we’re not going there.

We do have to talk about Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman to have her name placed in nomination at the convention of a major party. “The first woman in politics I was aware of was Margaret Chase Smith,” Clinton recalled. “I can remember opening up Life magazine and reading about this woman who was in the United States Senate. I had no idea there was such a woman.”

Well, there certainly weren’t a whole lot. Smith, who spent much of the 1950s and 1960s as the only woman in the Senate, was the first senator with enough guts to stand up to Joseph McCarthy and his witch hunt. Her courage made such an impression that some Republicans talked about Smith as a possible vice-presidential nominee in 1952. But the party leaders thought a much sounder choice would be Richard Nixon.

Finally, in 1964, Smith tried running for president herself, and she did make it through three primaries. She campaigned only on weekends, a home-state newspaper reported, so “she would not break her record of never missing a Senate roll call since 1955.” Imagine living in a world so quaint that a presidential candidate cares about a perfect attendance record. And speaking of heartbreakingly old-fashioned, the paper also noted that Smith’s “whole campaign cost $355.”

Smith made history, but she didn’t make any real dent in the election. Most people didn’t seem to take her very seriously, and it didn’t help that her signature campaign tactic was passing out muffin recipes. The Republicans, in the end, nominated Barry Goldwater.

The Democrats’ first big moment came in 1972 when Shirley Chisholm ran for the presidential nomination. Chisholm, an African-American, would have been a double historic first. But her party was in no way ready to make symbolic gestures. They needed a winner! So they nominated George McGovern.

HAVE you noticed a pattern here?

While Carly Fiorina hasn’t been doing very well on the Republican side, she is their first serious female presidential candidate since — umm — Michele Bachmann? Let’s do the party a favor and say Elizabeth Dole, who ran briefly in 2000. Dole had been a cabinet official twice and ran the American Red Cross. While she was pretty clearly not going to beat George W. Bush for the nomination, many people did think she’d be picked for the vice-presidential slot. Instead, Bush chose Dick Cheney. Imagine how different our history might have been if things had gone the other way.

Yes, one of the running subtexts in this story is really, they couldn’t have done worse. Another is that when it comes to women winning political office, there’s a long line of wives in the cast of characters. Dole is married to the former presidential candidate Bob Dole. Margaret Chase Smith was both wife and office manager for Congressman Clyde Smith of Maine, and she took his seat after he died.

The first woman governor, Nellie Tayloe Ross, won a special election in Wyoming to succeed her husband in 1925. The first female senator was Hattie Wyatt Caraway of Arkansas, who was initially appointed to succeed her husband. (This doesn’t count 87-year-old Rebecca Latimer Felton of Georgia, who was appointed to fill a one-day vacancy in 1922, as a tribute to newly enfranchised womanhood.) Debbie Walsh of the Center for American Women and Politics says 25 of the first 60 women to win congressional elections were widows who filled their husbands’ seats.

Clinton’s historical heroine is Eleanor Roosevelt, the ultimate example of a wife who achieves enormous political power without ever becoming a candidate herself. When the question of whether Hillary would have risen to presidential status if she hadn’t been married to Bill comes up, her fans tend to argue that if she hadn’t gotten married at all, she’d probably have gotten to the same place quicker on her own.

“I’ve heard that,” Clinton said. “Who knows? Life is so unpredictable.” (On the Jimmy Kimmel show, Clinton confided that if her husband had not been barred from seeking a third term, he’d have gone for it. And if she ran against him, “would I win? Yeah.”)

Thinking about the spouse question a little bit more, Clinton told a joke about a successful businessman and his wife who drive into a gas station where her old boyfriend is working. The husband notes with satisfaction that if she’d married him, she’d be the wife of a gas station attendant.

“And then,” Clinton concluded, “the wife says: ‘No, if I’d married him he’d be a big success like you.’”

Another rule for women running for high office is that they have to give the appearance of being very, very qualified. That would seem to be a given, but it doesn’t necessarily work the same for both genders. The pollster Celinda Lake says that voters expect female candidates to prove they’re up to the job, while they’re more likely to assume the men are qualified just because they’re on the ballot.

Maybe that’s one of the reasons — besides family responsibilities — that women tend to wait longer before they run for office. Even now, Debbie Walsh of CAWP says, women who get elected to state legislatures tend to be “older than their male counterparts and less likely to have children under 18 at home.”

But it gets worse: a study Lake did for the Barbara Lee Family Foundation showed that women also have to demonstrate they’re likable. “Voters will vote for a man they think is qualified but don’t like. They won’t vote for a woman who they think is qualified but don’t like,” Lake said. “It’s another double-bind for women.”

You will remember the famous moment in 2008 when Clinton was asked what she would say to the voters of New Hampshire “who see your résumé and like it but are hesitating on the likability issue.”

“Well, that hurts my feelings,” Clinton responded, adding, “I don’t think I’m that bad.” Feel free to bring this up the next time someone says that debate moderators treat all Democratic candidates with kid gloves.

And then, of course, Barack Obama interjected, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” It was supposed to be a joke, but it sounded supercilious, and may have helped seal the deal for Clinton in the New Hampshire primary — the first major party presidential primary in history to be won by a woman.

“I don’t sense the level of either novelty or resistance that I encountered in ’07-08,” Clinton said. Although there was a recent event where she took questions from children, and one girl asked what Hillary would do to end gender stereotyping.

But so far this time around, no men have gotten up in the middle of a speech to yell “Iron my shirt!” like someone did in New Hampshire eight years ago.

“Not yet,” she added. “Who knows what will happen. I still have a year.”

Clinton — the wife of a former president, with the longest résumé in the room — is a perfect transitional figure, whether she wins or not. Maybe there had to be a heroic Senator Smith with a muffin recipe, too. Maybe — and this is taking a really huge jump — there also had to be a “Ma” Ferguson, who became the first woman to be elected governor of Texas in 1925 after her husband was convicted of financial corruption. Ferguson did promise voters “two for the price of one” long before Bill Clinton thought of the phrase.

We definitely needed Jeannette Rankin, the first woman ever elected to Congress, who managed to destroy her political career by voting against World War I, resurrect it, get re-elected to Congress and then destroy it again by voting against World War II.

Good grief, maybe people will look back in 50 years and say we needed a Sarah Palin before there could be President X, who brought peace to the Middle East and reversed climate change after first winning public attention with her astonishing moose-hunting skills.

Try to think positive. The bottom line is that as we move forward, we never quite know what pushes history along

Misc Subjs

Daily Times, July 11, 2011

Amanat Ali Chaudhry

The state needs to invest in correcting the religious approach of people. This calls for broad-based and well thought out reforms in the structure and syllabi of religious seminaries. These seminaries need to be brought within the mainstream by making economic opportunities available to their students

The ‘National Seminar on De-radicalisation’ organised by the Pakistan Army in Swat brought together scholars, academicians and experts on counter-insurgency and de-radicalisation from around the world. The moot also provided an opportunity to debate the phenomenon of radicalisation in Pakistan and suggest practical, effective and better models for the elimination of extremism and rehabilitation of radicalised mindsets.

While the proceedings of the three-day seminar covered multiple aspects of the radicalisation phenomenon, its major thrust was centred on working out a holistic de-radicalisation strategy through incorporation of the world’s best practices in the light of local needs, experiences and challenges. The mushroom growth of extremism and radicalisation is a global fact, which has been fuelled by deepening socio-economic disparities, lack of economic and educational opportunities, centralisation of decision-making processes and weak governance structures. These factors provide a conducive environment for radical tendencies to become rampant. Therefore, any strategy evolved to counter the radical mindset needs to be aware of these variables.

The occasion was also important as it provided Prime Minister Gilani and Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani an opportunity to dwell on a broad range of issues facing the country. In the concluding session, the prime minister threw light upon the regional and international context that bred extremism and radicalisation in the country. Emphasising the need for a ‘partnership approach’ to tackle the issue, the prime minister also warned the allies not to cross the ‘red lines’ to advance their narrow interests. Though he addressed the seminar in Swat, his audience mainly included India, the US and the global community on the whole. He also said that all state institutions of Pakistan have complete consensus on the country’s core interests.

Speaking on the occasion, General Ashfaq Kayani said that military action alone is not the solution to terrorism and extremism. He said that people were the mainstay of the armed forces and that the armed forces are answerable to the people and parliament. This contention of the army chief has dispelled all impressions about any ‘supposed dichotomy of views’ between the civilian government and the establishment. This appeared to be a carefully designed message for the international community that all elements of national power enjoyed consensus on issues of vital importance to the country. The prime minister’s stance that the establishment was supportive of the political process stood vindicated.

At a time when the US has shifted its policy from ‘deployment of huge armies’ overseas to the use of ‘strategic assets’ to dilute the terrorist threat with Pakistan likely to be the target of accelerated drone strikes, there are all indications that a review of the country’s priorities is underway within the strategic community of Pakistan. There is now an increasing acceptance of exploring more durable, long-term non-military solutions to the raging issues. What would supplement this effort is the presence of effective civilian administrative structures to efficiently manage areas cleared by the military. Without putting such strong structures in place, the efforts are not expected to bear fruit.

A well-structured de-radicalisation strategy should be informed by a combination of various factors. Some points are instructive in this regard: the success of FM radio employed by Maulana Fazlullah (known as Maulana FM) in Swat stressed the importance of sustained strategic communication to influence hearts and minds. Radicalisation is largely a process of internalisation of extremist ideas. It is a slow and gradual process, which takes place imperceptibly. The role of opinion leaders such as religious scholars, teachers and community elders is crucial in making the de-radicalisation strategy a success. The state needs to invest in correcting the religious approach of people. This calls for broad-based and well thought out reforms in the structure and syllabi of religious seminaries. These seminaries need to be brought within the mainstream by making economic opportunities available to their students.

As rightly pointed out by Prime Minister Gilani, an effective counter-insurgency and de-radicalisation strategy cannot succeed unless it is worked out in consultation with all the stakeholders. Unity within the broad set of mainstream opinion is the way forward to secure the country’s long-term interests and rehabilitate the extremist elements.

With the drawdown plan announced by President Obama, Pakistan must brace itself for graver challenges ahead. The US administration has made no bones about its determination to carry out unilateral surgical strikes if Pakistan does not fully ‘cooperate’. There is also a strong possibility of increased drone strikes on the Pakistani side of the border. The situation poses serious challenges to the country’s national security. The US, which is opposed to Pakistan reaching out to the Taliban, is already in talks with its leadership at different levels under its ‘outreach programme’. Coming in tandem with these developments is the statement by the Indian prime minister that Pakistan should “leave Kashmir alone” and focus on its internal problems, which further complicates the situation.

This is no doubt an extraordinary situation, which demands of all elements of state power and political parties to forge unity and find lasting solutions to the country’s problems by crafting a consensus. The seminar on de-radicalisation is a good beginning. It is hoped that its recommendations would be incorporated in the national counter-insurgency strategy.

The writer can be reached at amanatchpk@hotmail.com

Content Awaiting

Security of any State lies in its planning; where a state try to prevent an aggressor form its territorial integrity. Some states specify their national security goals which are not compromised in any case. Even the matters relating to the national security kept secret, even state do not allow media to highlight such issues. For example, for Pakistan the state sovereignty in a matter of national security which cannot be hurt in any case? Sometimes state is not aware of its national security goals due to its immense involvement in other cases. In that case Pakistan House is there to held such seminars which will aware to state that, this particular mater is related to national security and must be pursued on the preference basis.

Revisiting Counter-terrorism Strategies in Pakistan: Opportunities and Pitfalls

International Crises Group                                                                             Islamabad/Brussels, 22 July 2015

The 16 December 2014 attack on an army-run school in Peshawar, which killed 150, mainly children, claimed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (Taliban Movement of Pakistan-TTP), was ostensibly a game changer. A week later, the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (PML-N) government unveiled a new counter-terrorism strategy, the twenty-point National Action Plan (NAP), with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Army Chief Raheel Sharif vowing to target all terror groups without distinction. Six months later, amid continued terror attacks, the NAP looks far more like a hastily-conceived wish-list devised for public consumption during a moment of crisis than a coherent strategy. Reliance on blunt instruments and lethal force to counter terrorism risks doing more harm than good when they undermine constitutionalism, democratic governance and the rule of law and provide grist to the jihadist’ propaganda mill. A reformed and strengthened criminal justice system is pivotal to countering terror threats and containing violent extremism.

The militarization of counter-terrorism policy puts at risk Pakistan’s evolution toward greater civilian rule, which is itself a necessary but not sufficient condition to stabilize the democratic transition. While the report addresses the coercive side of a counter-terrorism policy and how to make it more efficient, without structural and governance reform, the root causes of terrorism and extremism will remain unaddressed, and violent jihadist will continue to exploit the absence of rule of law. The military’s continual undermining of civilian authority since democracy’s restoration in 2008 will remain a major challenge to meaningful and sustained reform. Yet, the political leadership also bears responsibility for failing to push back and, as a result, undermining its credibility and authority.

After inaugurating the NAP on 24 December, the Sharif government implemented two major demands of the military without delay: lifting the predecessor government’s 2008 moratorium on the death penalty; and passing on 6 January 2015 the 21st constitutional amendment, empowering special military courts to try all terrorism suspects, including civilians. Yet, the vast majority of the 176 executions since late December have been for crimes unrelated to terrorism, and the military courts weaken constitutional protections and due process. Other newly-created parallel structures, including provincial “apex committees”, enable the military to bypass representative institutions and play a more direct role in governance. Armed with new legal tools, the military has further marginalized civilian institutions in devising and implementing counter-terrorism policy.

Unsurprisingly, there is little evidence of progress on many NAP targets. Groups and individuals banned in Pakistan and also blacklisted under UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1267, continue to operate freely. Efforts to regulate the madrasa sector curb hate speech and literature and block terrorist financing have been haphazard at best.

A reformed and strengthened criminal justice system could have helped to achieve NAP’s objectives. The Sharif government still has an opportunity, albeit fast shrinking, to reverse course and meaningfully overhaul counter-terrorism strategy, but this necessitates revoking major policy concessions to the military. The government should take on that challenge in order to replace an overly militarized response with a revamped, intelligence-guided counter-terrorism strategy, led by civilian law enforcement agencies, particularly the police. Dismantling terror networks, detaining and trying jihadist leaders and foot soldiers, disrupting terror financing and ending radicalization through hate speech and literature will require reallocating limited resources in order to strengthen the capacity of the provincial police forces. While the three basic bodies of law, the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act, need to be modernized, it is even more urgent to build police capacity to enforce them. That capacity has been gravely eroded due to the inadequacy of resources, training, internal accountability and autonomy.

An empowered, resourced police force remains the most credible tool for enforcing a sustained and successful counter-terrorism strategy. The current emphasis on revenge and retribution and the emasculation of fundamental rights and rule of law are undermining citizen confidence in the state to deliver justice, a flawed approach that also fuels grievances that benefit the violent extremists the NAP is aimed at combating.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To develop a civilian-led and intelligence-based counter-terrorism strategy

To the federal and provincial governments:

1.  Make the expansion, modernization and effectiveness of local and provincial police forces’ investigation branches a top counter-terrorism priority, including through training and technology in crime-scene investigation and case building.

2.  Disband the new parallel counter-terrorism forces and absorb their personnel and functions into regular police cadres after requisite training.

3.  Reform the Evidence Act to shift focus from witness testimony to modern scientific evidence; and invest in strong state-protection programs for witnesses, investigators, prosecutors and judges in terrorism and other major criminal cases.

4.  Enhance police operational autonomy and accountability, including by ensuring that the provincial police inspector general (IG) is appointed on merit and granted full authority over the force.

To the provincial police leadership:

5.  Undertake a comprehensive examination of their force to determine staffing and training needs, with particular emphasis on developing effective investigation cadres; and establish career progression paths that depend on performance.

6.  Review comprehensively and reform the training curriculum, in consultation with in-house and external experts, so as to create learning modules for intelligence-led counter-terrorism operations that include an emphasis on the police role in curbing hate speech and literature and enforcing the law against clerics, mosques and madrasas advocating or supporting violence.

For robust monitoring of banned groups and individuals

To the federal and provincial governments:

7.  Reconcile Pakistan’s list of banned groups under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997 with the UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1267 committee blacklist; and make both lists available to the federal and provincial police, other law enforcement agencies, financial institutions and the public.

8.  Develop a regularly-updated list of officers and members of banned groups, and enforce requisite curbs on travel, bearing arms, financial transactions and other proscribed activities.

9.  Update periodically the ATA’s Fourth Schedule, listing known suspects belonging to banned organizations, and requires police stations and district police superintendents to account regularly for the individuals on the Fourth Schedule in their jurisdictions.

10.  Ensure that the police investigate and monitor all madrasas, mosques and charities with known or suspected links to banned groups under the ATA or the UNSC 1267 blacklist, as well as those that maintain armed militias, or whose administrators and/or members propagate hate and/or incite violence and other criminal acts within or from the country.

To curb terrorist financing and money laundering

To the federal and provincial governments:

11.  Develop a specialized cell within the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to investigate terror financing and money laundering; and establish concurrent jurisdiction over such cases between the FIA and specialized provincial police units and counter-terrorism departments.

12.  Make anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing methods an integral part of the police training curriculum, based on international standards.

13.  Require banks and other financial institutions to install, with international assistance, software for crosschecking names of existing and potential clients against those sanctioned under the ATA; and ensure provincial police are given this information and information gained from comprehensive audits of madrasas, mosques and charities with known or suspected affiliations to violent jihadist.

14.  Enhance the state’s ability to curb terror financing within and from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) by extending the jurisdiction of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) province police, FIA and other relevant civilian law enforcement agencies to the tribal belt.

To achieve a sustainable counter-insurgency strategy in FATA

To the federal government and parliament:

15.  Pass Senator Farhatullah Babar’s constitutional amendment bill extending the jurisdiction of the superior judiciary to FATA; and follow up with another constitutional amendment that repeals Article 247, ends FATA’s separate legal status and extends the jurisdiction of the police and other civilian law-enforcement agencies to FATA.

16.  Abolish the 1901 Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), replacing it with the Pakistan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code.

Sultan M. Hali

CHINESE President Xi Jinping has made positive overtures for peace in the region as well as peace in the world. His meetings with US President Barrack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron as well as the other world leaders have been a one-point agenda: to shed rivalry and join forces to establish world peace. President Xi Jinping’s proposal has been devoid of rhetoric and based on genuine concern for the uplift of the less developed countries, which have been caught in the crosshairs of superpower contentions.
Believing that charity begins from home, China has endeavored to settle its disputes with its neighbors amicably through dialogue. Taiwan, which is a breakaway province of China and is expected to rejoin mainland China sooner than later, has never faced physical antagonism or threats from China. Instead, China is maintaining trade, tourism, and economic ties. The recent meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou on the
sidelines of a state visit by President Xi to Singapore, was an epoch making event. China’s reaching out to Taiwan speaks volumes for its policies of ‘live and let live’ and reunification of Taiwan and China.
In the near past, the unprovoked incursion of a US Naval warship in the territorial waters of China adjacent to the disputed Spratly Islands, did not raise tempers in Beijing, instead the US and Chinese navies held high-level talks and agreed to maintain dialogue and follow protocols to avoid clashes. US chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson and his Chinese counterpart, Admiral Wu Shengli, during their meeting agreed on the need to stick to protocols established under the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea and confirmed that the scheduled port visits by US and Chinese ships and planned visits to China by senior US Navy officers will remain on track.
With the display of such maturity, South Asia, which unfortunately has become a hotbed of conflict and tension, necessitates sagacious counseling by peace loving China. Notwithstanding the strategic cooperative Sino-Pak partnership, one would expect China to take a neutral stand and urge India to accede to international and regional overtures for Indo-Pak peace talks. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear weapons equipped states and any armed conflict between them will spark the flashpoint which will be disastrous for the entire region. The world has stood by and observed China’s peaceful rise to development. India, which is also desirous of achieving the same level of development as China, has unfortunately adopted the path of confrontation with its neighbors. Such a jingoistic and belligerent attitude is not only contrary to principles of humanity but will also prove counterproductive towards India’s aspirations for prosperity, besides stunting the growth of its neighbors.
India’s industrial development and its energy requirements including the peaceful use of nuclear resources are understandable. US has favored India with a civil nuclear energy deal, while denying Pakistan the same. Were it not for China, to have extended its support to Pakistan and expand its civil nuclear co-operation under IAEA safeguards, Pakistan would have been suffering even worse energy shortage. China understands and appreciates that Pakistan is a proponent of peaceful use of nuclear technology and supports objectives of nuclear non-proliferation and safety and security of its nuclear assets. While China is investing heavily in economic development of its neighbors through its One Belt One Road (OBOR) project and China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), it is simultaneously reaching out even to India to support it in its development projects despite Indian animosity towards China.
In this milieu, where China understands and appreciates the multiple security challenges in South Asia and envisions a common, co-operative, comprehensive and sustainable security framework for the region, it is hoped that China also takes cognizance of South Asia’s two major challenges. These challenges are firstly in the form of India’s unprecedented and unwarranted quest for weapons and secondly conflict resolution.
An inclusive, non-discriminatory and criteria based approach needs to be adopted to treat regional states like Pakistan and India. This, however, is easier said than done. While Pakistan envisions a peaceful neighborhood, India is reluctant to improve relations with Pakistan. It has made it a state policy to avoid engaging Pakistan in peace talks. Even the four point proposal for structural dialogues submitted by Pakistan has been rejected by India. Under the circumstances,
calling on the sagacity of Chinese leadership and in view of China’s constructive role in South Asia and East Asia, it would not be out of place to solicit Chinese support for urging India for a dialogue for peace with Pakistan.
In the post 9/11 era India and the US have edged closer to each other. They enjoy a strategic partnership and despite India’s sovereignty, pride and independence, India is open to suggestions and recommendations of its well wishers. As China and Pakistan enjoy a deep rooted strategic partnership, India and the US too have developed close links. To ensure world peace, avoid an accidental Indo-Pak nuclear conflict, both China and the US can play a positive role. The US can urge India to sit at the negotiations table with Pakistan and resolve their outstanding issues including the core issue of Kashmir. Pakistan will need little prodding and would engage diplomatically with India willingly.

 It is understandable that India is averse to third party role in conflict resolution but friends and allies can support peace talks without intervening directly. Sometimes a bit of cajoling and a slight nudge can do wonders. If the US and China can sink their differences and instead of competing with each other, resolve to support peace initiatives, Pakistan and India are prime candidates for such an undertaking. It is strongly recommended that the major powers of today the US and China, which are also major economic giants, can make concerted efforts for ensuring political stability in the region by resuming composite dialogue and resolving disputes between Pakistan and India.
—The writer is retired PAF Group Captain and a TV talk show host.

Courtesy to Pakistan Observer

The News, February 23, 2012

National security vs welfare

Iqbal Haider

Should the priority and focus of the state be national security or the security and welfare of the people who live in it? This is an issue, which is being debated particularly in Pakistan and in other South Asian countries.
I belong to the school of thought which believes that social welfare should not be compromised by national security considerations. No doubt, territorial integrity and stability within the states and from inter-state conflicts must be secured, but the paramount consideration ought to be welfare of the people. If social welfare is not secured then the people tend to secure their economic interests in other countries.
Regrettably, in India and Pakistan our budget allocation priorities have remained riveted on the defence sector. If we cannot afford to make such huge allocations for the defence, we readily indulge in borrowings in billions of dollars, which makes our future generations also heavily indebted. This obviously results in neglect of the social sector. These arguments constitute simple common sense but unfortunately certain vested interests and the establishments of our countries, which thrive on promotion of hatred and conflicts, reject such simple logic and reasoning.
The prudent and advisable policies to secure both national security and social welfare of the people, is to establish warm, cordial relations and cooperation in all spheres with our neighbouring countries, rather than placing reliance on distantly located the US or the western block. China, in my opinion, appears to be a more trustworthy neighbour to secure not only defence but also equitable economic developments.
Last year in July a conference was held in China to discuss ways and means to promote collaboration between China and Saarc through Enhanced People to People Exchanges. It is obvious from the very decision to hold this Conference in China that both the government its think tanks are equally desirous of promoting more close and cordial relations with the Saarc countries. Greater cooperation and closer ties of the Saarc countries with China, in my opinion, would not only serve our national security concerns but also enable us to give greater priority and allocation to the social sector, which is the critical need of the oppressed people of the entire South Asia region.
It is very heartening to note that in the post-Cold War era, both the Congress Party and the BJP of India have wisely pursued a consistent policy of reconciliation and engagement with China. The past prime ministers of these parties and other leaders of India have repeatedly expressed that “India had no wish to hold China as an enemy or a threat.” They reinforced the desire to establish friendly relations with China.
At no point has the diplomatic engagement between India and China ceased. Even the 1998 nuclear tests by India did not cause any harm to India’s policy and relations with China. To my knowledge, India has also succeeded in making some territorial adjustments with China. Lately, the economic ties between India and China have attained new heights, perhaps China is the biggest trading partner of India.
On the other hand, China is the most trusted ally and strategic partner of Pakistan for close to five decades. China, being the common denominator between India and Pakistan, is well placed to play a significant role in promoting cordial relations, peace and progress not only between our three countries but also in the entire South Asian region. China’s high profile in economic interactions at both bilateral and regional levels has most favourable implications for the region as a whole.
It is necessary to highlight a most potent threat to our security: the curse of terrorism. It is not only destroying peace and security of both India and Pakistan, but also harming trust and confidence between the two. The incidents of terrorism are creating very serious impediments in the badly needed peace process between India and Pakistan. I want the people of India to realize that the “jihadis” and their terrorist activities are our common enemies.
It is imperative for Pakistan and India, being next-door neighbours, to devise a joint strategy with sincerity of purpose for combating terrorism in our region. Terrorism is not only a threat to our national security but also to the life and property of our people from within our respective countries. Those terrorists, who were involved in one of the worst tragedies of 26/11 in Mumbai, or in the terrorist attack on the Houses of Parliament in Delhi on Dec 13, 2001, or in the commission of the same barbaric acts of terrorism every other week in all nooks and corners of Pakistan, are enemies of Pakistan, and equally of India. Pakistan, in particular, is the worst victim of religious extremist terrorist organisations.
According to unofficial sources since 2002 more than 7,000 members of our military and paramilitary forces, including one lieutenant general, one major general, five brigadiers, and police have sacrificed their precious lives in confronting these terrorists. More than 70,000 innocent citizens in various part of our country have died in innumerable attacks by the terrorists during the same period. Terrorists are our number-one enemy. The two governments must clear the perception or allegations about any state actor or non-state actors in our respective countries involved in such unforgivable acts of terrorism.
The imperatives of the foreign policy of both India and Pakistan must be focused on the principles of peaceful coexistence and economic collaboration and to put an end to the blame-game strategy and the hate propaganda by state or non state elements.
The Kashmir dispute should not be allowed to prevent forever the existence of cordial relations between our two countries. One of the viable, realistic and pragmatic solutions for resolving the Kashmir dispute, at least for the time being and without prejudice to the respective stands of the two countries on Kashmir, is to accept the Line of Control with some adjustment as the international border.
In my view, this is also the spirit and objective of the Shimla Agreement of 1972. This must, however, be followed by a treaty between India and Pakistan containing firm and sincere commitments: (a) that both countries must discourage and prevent aggressive actions, militancy or terrorism or policy of blame-games against each other; and (b) the border between the two countries and between the two Kashmirs should be opened to the people at large with free access, free trade, exchange of cultural activities, academics, intellectual groups, sports events, free access to the electronic and print media, etc.
We can draw incalculable dividends by establishment of peace, harmony, open borders, an environment of trust, cooperation and collaboration between the Saarc countries, and with China. This will usher in a new era of prosperity and peace. It will also provide free access between the Saarc countries and the Central Asian countries as well to serve our basic needs and interests.

The writer is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court and former senator and federal minister. Email: ihaider45@yahoo.com

Shamshad Ahmad

Given our colossal economic mess-up under the present government, we always thought there is no real economist available to it. But we have now discovered it does have one. He happens to be the head of the now almost defunct Planning Commission. The story goes that last week this distinguished economist, who had never been heard of ever since this government came to office, was to present the blueprint of a plan for Pakistan’s economic recovery and development.

The story further goes that the venue of his presentation was to be the prime military institution, the National Defence University (NDU), regarding the contents of the notorious May 10 memo. Ironically, this was also the place where our civil and military leadership had assembled 13 years ago to take the decision to go ahead with our nuclear tests on May 28, 1998.

Symbolically, therefore, it would have been a blow delivered to the nation by this government through an inconsequential functionary. Timely detection of the radioactivity from the ill-designed “testing device” even before its explosion seems to have pre-empted an embarrassing event. The economist was told not to come to the NDU. The testing device he was to explode was certainly not compatible with the location, a university. No wonder, the planned presentation was aborted.

This brings us to the issue of the memo in which its authors solicited Washington’s behind-the-scenes intervention to put the Pakistani army on the spot. Those who have no competence and credibility of their own – and as per their own admittance in the memo, are devoid of any strategic vision or calibre to be able to assert any civilian control over the military – had been seeking US involvement in Pakistan’s internal affairs from the very beginning. This had beenevidenced in the intrusive conditionalities incorporated at their behest in the Kerry-Lugar Bill three years ago.

The disgraceful memo now crosses all limits by virtually inviting a foreign power to come and take over the country’s control, including its national security apparatus. It envisaged Washington’s intervention with political-military backing, involving not only a revamp of the civilian government but also a wholesale replacement of the national security adviser and other national security officials. The replacements would have been “trusted advisers favourably viewed by Washington, each of whom has long and historical ties to the US military, political and intelligence communities.”

Point four of the memo pledged: “The new national security team is prepared, with full backing of the Pakistani government – initially civilian but eventually all three power centres – to develop an acceptable framework of discipline for the nuclear programme. This effort was begun under the previous military regime, with acceptable results. We are prepared to reactivate those ideas and build on them in a way that brings Pakistan’s nuclear assets under a more verifiable, transparent regime.”

This commitment, if translated into reality, would have inevitably led to the gradual dismantling of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, a process that Gen Musharraf had already begun to secure his presidency for life, and which the authors of the memo, with similar ambitions of lifelong rule, now apparently wanted to carry forward to its logical conclusion. No wonder the treasonous memo case is now under judicial probe at the highest level. A commission has been constituted to investigate the reality behind Memogate.

If proved genuine, as it appears to be from its published transcript and related forensic details, this would perhaps be the most sophisticated version of a Byzantine intrigue in which the state itself is seen to be conspiring against its own sovereignty, and against national security and national honour. The purported six undertakings in the transcript in question simply amount to nothing but ransoming of the state of Pakistan and its independence to a foreign power.

But this is not the first conspiracy of its kind in our land. We have seen umpteen of them before. Thanks to Wikileaks, in recent years, conspiracies of all sorts against the state and its people by our self-serving corrupt rulers with foreign collusion are no longer secret. The most notorious was the NRO deal brokered by the US at the request of a military dictator for a manipulated power-sharing arrangement that would have allowed him to continue in power in a regime with a pleasant civilian face, in the iconic person of Benazir Bhutto, who would have been his prime minister.

A first-hand account of the making of the shady NRO deal is revealed in detail by former US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice in her book No Higher Honor. What is clear from this historical account is that the US secretary of state did everything to pull it off, because that was in her country’s interest. Lamentably, on our side, each player in the game did what was only in his or her personal interest. This has been the tradition of the US-Pakistan relationship. Benazir Bhutto’s tragic death changed the very scene, bringing to power in Pakistan an accidental NRO beneficiary leadership. It was nothing but a political scandal with far-reaching legal implications for Pakistan. Ironically, the Supreme Court’s Dec 16, 2009, verdict on the NRO’s illegality remains unimplemented even though the apex court reaffirmed its ruling in the government’s review petition.

This brings us back to our economist who believes our nuclear programme is obstructing his socio-economic development plans. Unfortunately, the same voices of doom and gloom which opposed Pakistan’s nuclear tests 13 years ago are again questioning the very raison d’etre of Pakistan’s nuclear programme. They have also been seeking to detract from Pakistan’s credible minimum deterrent requirement and trying to suggest that Pakistan is paying a heavy price for its nuclear capability. There couldn’t be a greater insinuation. Given the magnitude of our threat perception, we just cannot afford to lower our guard. We must preserve, protect and consolidate our credible minimum deterrent capability.

Instead of seeking to undermine the country’s national security, our economist friends should have been using their professional skills to control governmental spendings, rooting out corruption from all segments of our society, promoting self-reliance, simplicity and austerity in all spheres of life, and eliminating the VIP culture, including the lavish perks and privileges extended at government expense to holders of public office. What is needed is tightening of belts at the top levels, reducing governmental borrowings, controlling inflation, rationalising of GDP targets, restoring macro-economic balance, and banning non-essential imports and luxuries to reduce the trade gap.

Sustainable economic growth is always predicated on sound macro-economic policies, optimum utilisation of country’s natural and human resources and full exploitation of its agricultural, industrial and technological potential. None of these policies is visible in the present economic governance. Instead of using our nuclear programme as an easy scapegoat for their own failures, our economists should have been exploring judicious planning, effective strategies and homegrown, not foreign-dictated, solutions to our economic problems.

In the ultimate analysis, one thing is clear. All these skeptical assumptions and apprehensions over the necessity of our nuclear programme are totally misplaced, if not mala fide and baseless. Our economic problems are not because of our nuclear programme. Our economic problems are because of flagrant governance failures, endemic crime and corruption, absence of rule of law and justice, poor economic planning, flawed fiscal management, inconsistent macro-economic policies and lack of public safety and peaceful environment.

The writer is a former foreign secretary. Email: shamshad1941@ yahoo.com

The Nawaz government has been in power now for nearly two months. Rather unusually, the prime minister has kept the foreign ministry portfolio to himself, supposedly because it is too important a matter to be entrusted to any of the 400-plus elected members of parliament.

Yet, he has so far failed to articulate a coherent blueprint of how his government will cope with the massive foreign policy challenges the country is facing, not to speak of his vision – assuming that he has one – of Pakistan’s place and role in the region and the world in a fast changing geopolitical environment.

The ‘guidance’ given by Nawaz to Pakistan’s diplomatic missions after he assumed office as prime minister and his ‘directions’ following a briefing at the foreign ministry on July 20 lay emphasis on the creation of a peaceful and stable neighbourhood, the promotion of trade and the “pursuit of economic diplomacy”. That by itself is unexceptionable. But there is also a clear message that the Kashmir issue, long regarded by successive governments as the core question with India, has been downgraded in importance.

The foreign ministry’s press release on the foreign policy ‘guidance’ given by the prime minister states that he “stressed the need to progressively pursue normalcy in our bilateral relations [with India], while actively seeking solutions for all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir”. In other words, the pursuit of ‘normalcy’ has been delinked from a resolution of Kashmir and other disputes with India, bringing Pakistan’s policy in full sync with the stand that India has consistently been taking and which Pakistan had always rejected.

That is not to say that Nawaz’s emphasis on building a peaceful and stable neighbourhood is misplaced. What is important, however, is to differentiate between each neighbour and pursue a carefully nuanced policy with respect to each of them. A policy that ignores the fundamental divergence, if not conflict, between the regional strategic goals and interests of Pakistan and India is bound to lead us to a dead end and must be avoided. Also, Nawaz must recognise that most of the problems between Pakistan and Afghanistan are of India’s making and are rooted in Delhi’s persistent effort to use Afghanistan as a base to destabilise Pakistan. Regrettably, Kabul once again seems to be falling for the Indian ploy.

Nawaz was right in choosing China, Pakistan’s biggest and most powerful neighbour with which the country enjoys a vitally important strategic partnership, as his first official overseas visit after becoming prime minister. That trip yielded more in strategic, political and economic benefits than the record nine visits made by Zardari to China in the last five years, most of which were uninvited. But the success of Nawaz’s China visit has less to do with his diplomatic skills than with China’s policy of opening up to countries to its west and exploring new trade and transit routes to the Middle East.

Nawaz seems to have peculiar notions on the importance of our relations with another neighbour – Iran. If the Zardari government did one thing right in its foreign policy, it was to try to develop relations with Iran. The agreement on building a pipeline to bring Iranian gas to Pakistan, which the US opposes, was to be the centrepiece of a vibrant economic partnership between Pakistan and Iran.

But Nawaz seems to have other ideas. A member of his cabinet is reported to have said that the project had not been altogether dropped, largely because doing so would entail a penalty payment to Iran. Instead, he said, the government “would procrastinate by trying to haggle over lower prices from Tehran”. Such double dealing, Nawaz should know, is not likely to deceive anyone and will only help Delhi in its longstanding policy of isolating and encircling Pakistan.

With Afghanistan, the prime minister seems to be on the right track. The government has done well to take the provocative statements emanating from Kabul in its stride, and continue to work patiently for an inclusive Afghan-led and Afghan-owned reconciliation process. Progress is bound to be slow but this policy offers the best hope for bringing peace and stability not only in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan.

Of all of Pakistan’s neighbours, it is Nawaz’s policy towards India that raises the most misgivings. His pre-election statements on building economic and trade links with India, while sidestepping Kashmir, have now been followed up by rapid-fire action that go far beyond his oft-repeated promise to “pick up the threads from where he left off in 1999”.

First, Nawaz has been completely silent on the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination and on the continuing atrocities being committed by Indian occupation forces against the civilian population in occupied Kashmir. The entire valley and large parts of Jammu rose up earlier this month at the fatal shootings by the BSF of four villagers who were protesting against the desecration of the Quran by Indian forces in the Ramban district. While the OIC has expressed its “condemnation” of this unwarranted use of force, the Pakistani government’s statement only expresses “deep concern” and stops short of censuring the Indian atrocity.

PM Nawaz has now appointed former foreign secretary Shaharyar Khan as his special envoy for India. Shaharyar is a highly respected and experienced diplomat but his appointment betrays a delusion to which successive Pakistani governments have fallen victim. That delusion lies in assuming that the Kashmir issue, which has remained unresolved because of Indian intransigence, can somehow be tackled better through behind-the-scenes deal-making than conventional diplomacy. What Pakistan actually needs is not leaders who are adept at making secret deals but those who possess the necessary determination and grit in the face of adverse circumstances. That, however, is not a quality for which Nawaz (like either of his two predecessors, Zardari and Musharraf) is known.

Second, while India has shown no inclination to dismantle its non-tariff trade barriers against Pakistan and while unfair competition from India threatens the viability of many sectors of Pakistan’s industry, Nawaz is pushing ahead for expanded trade and business contacts.

Third, after having pledged in the PML-N’s election manifesto to open transit routes through Pakistan to give India overland access to Afghanistan, Central Asia and Iran, the prime minister has now been talking about opening the proposed China-Pakistan economic corridor to India. It is, therefore, no wonder that BJP President Rajnath Singh demanded last week that the Kargil-Skardu route should be opened for trade and extended further westward to give India access to Central Asia.

Fourth, Delhi has been pushing Pakistan to import electricity and Qatari gas from India. Indian’s vision, clearly, is to make Pakistan economically dependent and enhance its leverage over Pakistan. The amazing thing is that Nawaz is ready to play ball and has ordered his minister for power to visit India to discuss the matter.

Nawaz has a comprehensive agenda for ‘normalisation’ of relations with India, much broader than is contained in his party’s election manifesto. There might even be more surprises in store. Nawaz’s meeting with Manmohan Singh in New York in September should be carefully watched for clues.

Shaukat M Zafar

The vision of our founding fathers of a progressive, moderate and democratic nation committed to development of a modern Islamic state is now badly at stake. A deliberate attempt is underway in the West to defame Pakistan by questioning its credibility in war on terror. Slamming Islam and tracking Muslims have become order of the Western civilization. The US used Pakistan to its advantage for as long as it could and Pakistan provided services for which the benefits accrued. The global landscape is now rapidly changing and Pakistan does not have the luxury of time on its side as it figures out its way out of the woods. Pakistan’s foreign policy requires a paradigm shift in the wake of recent deterioration in our ties with US by diversifying Pakistan’s international relations, while Pak-US relations face a deepening conflict. Its rescue is vital for our nation’s future as also for peace in the region and coexistence between civilizations.

Terrorist incidents taking place world over are often linked to extremist religious organizations in Pakistan leaving a bad image of the country and labeling it ‘the most dangerous country in the world,’ Cross-border missile and drone attacks, stated to be directed against Al-Qaeda, but killing many innocent Pakistanis are continuing that have strained cooperation between Pakistan and the United States. But our parliament and a number of its committees charged with the responsibility to oversee national security, foreign affairs and defense, seem to be absolutely indifferent. Being elected public representatives, it is parliament’s responsibility to oversee the country’s foreign and security policies. Pakistan army has demonstrated the will and actually done a superb job in apprehending, expelling and eliminating hundreds of Al-Qaeda cadres over the previous few years. A sound foreign policy is based on core interests tempered with a degree of real politic. Pakistan, unfortunately, has never had a foreign policy based on sound footings and its Political, Structural and Economic weakness plagued this nation from the onset. It has to devise a more self-reliant foreign policy because expectations of increased foreign assistance for our deteriorating economy seem unreal at a time when the world is afflicted with an unprecedented fiscal crisis. Foreign policy has taken a distinct back seat so far. It has not attempted to add substance to economic ties with the ASEAN states. It has to go a long way to establish optimum political and economic relations with a transformed Turkey which has not persuaded as yet in proper sense. China, our tested friend, has to be allured to make the investment in Pakistan’s energy and manufacturing sectors. Above all, Pakistan has to reconsider relations with India based on mutual respect and trust. Another important pillar of our continental strategy is the strengthening of bilateral political and socioeconomic relations with countries on our continent.

The main agenda on our foreign policy should be to support peace, security, stability and post-war-on-terror reconstruction initiatives. We must know from our own experience that the achievement of peace and stability can be a painstaking effort requiring patience and perseverance. However, we must keep in mind the dividends that come with peace. While readjusting this critical relationship to a new and probably lower order of mutual engagement, Pakistan has to break out of the constraints imposed unilaterally on it by the United States. We need to move towards clarity of thought in the identification of our enemy, focusing greater effort on isolation and liquidation of militants causing damage to the country, convincing the world of our earnestness and husbanding our resources with austerity and efficiency.

Fortunately, there is increasing clarity in the minds of common Pakistanis about the identity of the enemy. Pakistanis at home and abroad are now awake to the realities and citizens in seriously affected areas are now extending their full help to fight and expel the extremists. To revive Pak-US relations, constructive changes in the offing provide an opportunity for Pakistan to intensify security cooperation with the US in order to ensure elimination of Al-Qaeda presence on Pakistan territory, promote internal security against terrorism by stemming the tide of extremism threatening the realization of the progressive and modernizing vision of our nation. Pakistan has an equal interest in fighting terrorism because it is a victim of the scourge. Thousands of Pakistanis have been killed or injured by Al-Qaeda terrorists. Attacks on our armed forces and security and administrative personnel, suicide bombings, arson of schools and destruction of the economic infrastructure of our poor country have triggered a storm of outrage against the perpetrators who abuse the name of Islam and blatantly claim ‘credit’ for the mayhem.

We should enter into strong bilateral relations with Muslim Countries. Through these partnerships, we can foster stronger political relations, people-to-people solidarity, trade, investments, and tourism as we integrate our people. We should thoroughly consider these partnerships in order to identify ways in which we can strengthen them, focusing particularly on interventions necessary to promote trade in mutually beneficial and sustainable ways. Our understanding of international relations will be enriched by the greater knowledge of the social structures of the countries that we interact with so that we assume a departure away from international relations being the strict preserve of the ruling elites, academia and diplomatic community, and that we integrate other interested parties and stakeholders. Working together with all our people we can do more. This is about expanding the horizons of opportunities for our country. As we do this, we are also aware that there is growing recognition that emerging economies will be key catalysts of global growth as we emerge from the current financial and economic crisis. We have to seek out and grasp opportunities that these countries offer to our country.

India has been making incredibly smart choices in its international relations. It has assured to the democratic world that it is a truly secular state, protective and inclusive of its Muslim minorities. Needless to say, the countries that had initially supported our Kashmir cause have been seriously disillusioned. A cursory analysis of the dismal performance of the parliamentary committees responsible for overseeing Pakistan’s national security and defense policies would reveal that these committees have totally failed even to examine the serious issues confronting Pakistan, let alone offer policy advice on behalf of the people of Pakistan. We are in a serious crisis, and the root of this crisis is our inefficient, incapable, and corrupt Governments.

Sovereignty has two key elements; government and territory. The ideal is that the government is the sole authority over a territory and that its territory is unchallenged. The problem with Pakistan is that neither we have as much effective authority over our citizens and territory as we believe. We accept violations of outsiders when it is in our interest to do so, whether it is set out in the loan conditions of the International Monetary Fund, linked to any other aid program offered by the Western countries, or demonstrated in the fear of activities of troops propping up our government. If we try to enforce them, the outsiders may pick up and leave, reminding us that there are tradeoffs.

Recently, in a new twist, US House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee approved a bill significantly cutting overall US multilateral assistance and attaching more tough conditions on aid to Pakistan than that attached by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. A separate bill voted on by the House Appropriations Committee subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations called for tough restrictions on civilian aid to Pakistan, tying it to Islamabad’s progress in fighting terrorism and checking nuclear proliferation.

We need a very, very big change—not only in the size of government but in the entire attitude and culture that defines the citizenry’s relationship to government. Now is not the time for status quo moderation. We cannot afford a “safe” democracy that has destroyed everything else. I believe that the economic well-being of this country is inextricably linked with the development of the country at large. We should boldly state a progressive position, anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist; support for the nonalignment and noninterference; respect for the sovereignty of nations, and an agenda for the empowerment and development of Pakistan.