The year 2011 has opened new vistas for Afghanistan as concerted efforts being put in by all stake holders have provided a glimmer of hope to achieve what has eluded Afghans for too long: stability, peace, development and prosperity. The year not only marks the end of the decade of foreign intervention in Afghanistan after eviction of Taliban from Kabul but is also turning out to be a decisive year wherein strategic accords are being worked upon to create Afghan peace and stability by the time US-led forces are withdrawn.
Two conferences are coming up in this regard; one in Istanbul on 2 November and the other in Bonn on 5 December to augment and support Afghan efforts in building peace, developmental infrastructure and prosperity in Afghanistan. Here, we will be focusing on Istanbul Conference that will be attended by regional countries comprising ‘Heart of Asia’ and some other members of the international community. The aim of the Istanbul Conference as projected in the preparatory conferences held elsewhere in Oslo and Kabul was to define a vision for regional peace and development through participants’ commitments for a stable and independent Afghanistan and to discuss regional economic cooperation.
Notwithstanding the urgent need to stabilize Afghanistan, the half hearted and un-coordinated peace efforts undertaken by various stake holders independently have failed. Also, the withdrawal time line of the foreign forces has not been worked out. With these two major shortcomings, holding of Istanbul Conference does not appear to be in consonance with other dynamics required for Afghan stability. More so, instead of articulating modus operandi to extract solemn and formal pledges from participating countries the draft declaration focuses on erecting a new architecture to oversee peace process, stability, development and prosperity in Afghanistan. This architecture will be composed of fourteen countries from South and Central Asian and the Middle East. The selection of the countries is liable to be challenged by countries bordering Afghanistan at the very start of the conference as some of these countries do not share borders with Afghanistan.
The conflicting objectives of Istanbul Conference i.e. one relating to Afghanistan and the other on the regional countries dilute the importance of each other. The draft document projects that the internal stability of Afghanistan can be achieved utilizing external initiatives through a regional architecture tantamount to give an impression that all of Afghanistan’s problems are external. Going by Istanbul document will mean that focus on progress and reconciliation, resurrection of Afghan governance, return of refugees from Iran and Pakistan, endorsement of peace process and Afghan sovereignty by the countries bordering Afghanistan, has been over ridden by focus on corroboration and support by a larger group of countries on regional agreements that would derive out of the Conference. Not only this, there is a move by the US to create a ‘contact group’ of countries to consult on Afghan security. The original agenda may also be hijacked by the US as it is feared that the Conference will be utilized to devise a mechanism for speedy withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan. The forums of purported regional architecture and creation of the contact group will not deliver on Afghanistan since bilateral strategic issues between some of the countries forming the core groups will spoil the Afghan peace stabilization process.
The critical issue faced by Pakistan and also by Iran has been completely side lined in the draft Istanbul Conference prepared is the presence of millions of Afghan refugees that has tremendously burdened the respective economies. The draft declaration has no mention about the fate of those refugees. Also, to the detriment of both Pakistan’s and Iran’s security interests, the document also equates immediate neighbors like Pakistan and Iran with distant neighbors like India. The document also enhances the role of India in Afghan affairs.
Pakistan shares 2560 Kms long border with Afghanistan and its security gets affected by events in Afghanistan. The Istanbul Conference will do well by focusing only on an all acceptable declaration that establishes principles accompanied by an implemental plan for a sustained economic assistance from international community to built and develop Afghan infrastructure. In the context of Pakistan’s interests, the draft document prepared by Turks for Istanbul Conference does not cater for them. Pakistan has always been proud of its decades old relationship with the Turks. Both the countries have been of great strength to each other in times of crises. What compelled Turkey to off-set Pakistan’s interest in the draft document is not known. May be Turkey wanted to win back the West’s confidence that spiraled down for its firm and moral stand on Palestinian issue and the Middle East through extra regional agenda on Afghanistan. But then should it be done in complete disregard of the interests of its age old friend, Pakistan?
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Clearing misunderstandings for peace in Afghanistan by Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat
Recently, Pentagon released the summary of an inquiry into the death of a US serviceman, Army Major Larry Bauguess, who was shot dead in an ugly incident at the Pak Afghan border on May 9, 2007.
At that time, officials in the US military had claimed that the killing of the US major was part of a plot allegedly hatched by the Pakistan Army. This, according to them, was done to avenge the death of Pakistan Army personnel who were killed in friendly fire by the US forces.
Reports about the incident said that a trilateral meeting was taking place at Teri Mangal, attended by Pakistani, Afghan and US officials. After the meeting, when the US major was boarding a helicopter to leave, a man in militia uniform opened fire on him. The US troops returned the fire, killing not only the gunman but also six innocent bystanders.
Now the inquiry has found that the US serviceman was killed by a lone attacker, who had no connection to the Pakistan Army or the country’s intelligence agencies. The summary of the report said: “This appears to have been a premeditated event on part of the initial shooter. There is little evidence to support collaboration with the Pakistani militia or military”.
The summary of the inquiry has been welcomed by all elements who want to see better relations between the US and Pakistan and those who are working in this direction. Thus, the importance of the Pentagon’s report in removing Pak-US misunderstandings cannot be overlooked as it presents stubborn facts.
There has been a plethora of charges that have been levelled against the Pakistan Army and its intelligence agencies, which is not surprising given the volatile geopolitical situation in the region and conflicting interests of several countries.
One allegation is that Pakistan Army had sheltered bin Laden in Abbottabad. Considering the consequences of such a move, it is unfathomable why Pakistan would ever do so.
Again, it has been repeatedly claimed that Pakistan Army is supporting the Taliban factions in their fight against the foreign forces in Afghanistan.
No concrete evidence has ever been presented in this regard while statements of disgruntled elements within the Afghan armed forces and Taliban cannot be relied upon.
The charge of sheltering the Quetta Shura also remains unproven. Where is it located? Most experts say in this era of GPS, satellites and sophisticated listening devices, any spot on the face of earth cannot remain hidden for long.
The charges of helping the Haqqani group to attack the US embassy in Kabul have been retracted. It has also been proven that the ISI was not involved in the Mumbai attacks.
Meanwhile, a retired Indian general has praised the Pakistan Army after it quickly returned the intruding Indian helicopter, saying that Pakistan Army was a highly professional institution that conducted the helicopter episode in a responsible manner.
At the root of many allegations is the absence of a clear understanding of regional situation and players. The recent volley of charges against the Pakistan armed forces and intelligence agencies has certainly not been helpful in creating a better understanding between Pakistan and the US. But the Pentagon report will be helpful in removing the distrust.
Both countries should work together to bring peace in the region and that could be done quietly, avoiding the historically negative influence of some neighbouring countries.
At that time, officials in the US military had claimed that the killing of the US major was part of a plot allegedly hatched by the Pakistan Army. This, according to them, was done to avenge the death of Pakistan Army personnel who were killed in friendly fire by the US forces.
Reports about the incident said that a trilateral meeting was taking place at Teri Mangal, attended by Pakistani, Afghan and US officials. After the meeting, when the US major was boarding a helicopter to leave, a man in militia uniform opened fire on him. The US troops returned the fire, killing not only the gunman but also six innocent bystanders.
Now the inquiry has found that the US serviceman was killed by a lone attacker, who had no connection to the Pakistan Army or the country’s intelligence agencies. The summary of the report said: “This appears to have been a premeditated event on part of the initial shooter. There is little evidence to support collaboration with the Pakistani militia or military”.
The summary of the inquiry has been welcomed by all elements who want to see better relations between the US and Pakistan and those who are working in this direction. Thus, the importance of the Pentagon’s report in removing Pak-US misunderstandings cannot be overlooked as it presents stubborn facts.
There has been a plethora of charges that have been levelled against the Pakistan Army and its intelligence agencies, which is not surprising given the volatile geopolitical situation in the region and conflicting interests of several countries.
One allegation is that Pakistan Army had sheltered bin Laden in Abbottabad. Considering the consequences of such a move, it is unfathomable why Pakistan would ever do so.
Again, it has been repeatedly claimed that Pakistan Army is supporting the Taliban factions in their fight against the foreign forces in Afghanistan.
No concrete evidence has ever been presented in this regard while statements of disgruntled elements within the Afghan armed forces and Taliban cannot be relied upon.
The charge of sheltering the Quetta Shura also remains unproven. Where is it located? Most experts say in this era of GPS, satellites and sophisticated listening devices, any spot on the face of earth cannot remain hidden for long.
The charges of helping the Haqqani group to attack the US embassy in Kabul have been retracted. It has also been proven that the ISI was not involved in the Mumbai attacks.
Meanwhile, a retired Indian general has praised the Pakistan Army after it quickly returned the intruding Indian helicopter, saying that Pakistan Army was a highly professional institution that conducted the helicopter episode in a responsible manner.
At the root of many allegations is the absence of a clear understanding of regional situation and players. The recent volley of charges against the Pakistan armed forces and intelligence agencies has certainly not been helpful in creating a better understanding between Pakistan and the US. But the Pentagon report will be helpful in removing the distrust.
Both countries should work together to bring peace in the region and that could be done quietly, avoiding the historically negative influence of some neighbouring countries.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Our ‘ally from hell’: a rejoinder to US hawks
Shireen M Mazari
The Atlantic and the National Journal last week published a story on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons with the title “The Ally from Hell” and proceeded to create the usual scare about our weapons safety and the jihadists waiting to grab these national assets - or even a worse nightmare for the US, the military turning into a jihadist combine controlling these weapons.
Of course there is nothing new in these assertions which emanate from the US periodically - especially in times of worsening relations with Pakistan. One knows only too well the link between the US media and the US state and it is not a point on which more proof is needed. The present story’s timing again coincides with the Pakistan military seeking to delink from the US on certain policy issues as well as President Zardari’s now notorious memo asking the US to save him in power from the Pakistan military in return for total subjugation alongside the destruction of Pakistan’s military intelligence especially the ISI - the permanent bete noir of the Yanks despite the excessive cooperation ISI has been meting out to the US military!
One needs to look at the absurdity of some of the more “serious” and certainly wilder allegations contained in the article. After checking up carefully I discovered that neither the authors nor any other stringer linked to the relevant publications actually talked to or interviewed anyone in SPD or GHQ. Yet a reference is made to General Kayani in the article almost as if the authors witnessed him calling General Kidwai after the Abbottabad incident! This is just one of the many imaginary flights of fancy the article contains.
There is the usual mantra of how the world is anxious about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and, according to the authors, with good reason because Pakistan is “the epicentre of global jihadism” - of course who fanned it in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is not mentioned - and foremost supplier of nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea! It is ironic that Pakistan is consistently being accused of supplying North Korea with uranium enrichment technology even though the Korean nuclear programme was plutonium based! As for Iran, it continues to assert that it is seeking peaceful nuclear energy and remains interacting with the IAEA despite the new IAEA chief’s submission to US diktat.
Of course at the end of the day Pakistan broke no international commitments in the alleged supply of nuclear technological information to other countries especially since our programme was also a clandestine one at that time. Again the issue of who is supplying dual use technology to India right now against its NPT commitments and who are the Western states who helped build Israel’s clandestine nuclear programme is something that none of the so-called investigative journalists from the West, especially the US, ever want to discuss in the context of nuclear proliferation.
As for the security of a country’s nuclear arsenal, the US journalists really should examine their own country’s dismal record with planes taking off with live nukes and no one knowing how it happened and where they went! Again, nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island have also happened on US territory. So it would appear if anyone is going to steal nukes the US sites may be the most vulnerable!
The authors also write as if they are privy to information that so far the US government itself does not have - that “these weapons are stored on bases and in facilities spread across the country (possibly including one within several miles of Abbottabad...).” Interesting how they have information that foreign governments do not have despite the US trying for years to gain definitive locations of our nukes!
Then comes the real clincher - what is really eating up the US and Israel: that Pakistan, as the authors point out, “is the only Muslim-majority state, out of the 50 or so in the world, to have successfully developed nuclear weapons”.
Then we have the usual accusations of how the Pakistan military and security services are totally infiltrated by jihadis and their sympathizers - of course this must be a conclusion drawn from the US experience where the US military and administration are totally infiltrated by Zionists and their sympathizers and at present that goes right to the top to President Obama himself.
The icing on the cake is the cited assertion by Graham Allison. His assertions in this article are more amusing than rational. His first assertion that terrorists would steal a nuke and take it to New York makes no sense unless the nuke is stolen from a US site since no terrorist can carry a radioactive weapon through the various security checks and arrive safely carting the weapon to New York. Figure it out! His second assertion is equally mind boggling - that a jihadi group would transfer a nuclear weapon to Iran. Why? Iran has no delivery systems to target the US! Also the jihadi groups being talked about are diehard anti-Shia so why would they give this nuke “gift” to Iran and why would Iran want to deal with such people? There is no evidence for any of these assertions. Allison’s third assertion plays on the instability of the Pakistani state that is the present US mantra - that a militant group would takeover nuclear weapons during “a period of instability or splintering of the state.” Well Allison better tell the US not to attempt such a move in Pakistan; but on a more serious note the fact of the matter is that so far our nukes are more secure than US nukes and militants have enough lethality in terms of conventional weapons as has sadly been shown.
The authors do assert that Pakistan’s weapons are de-mated which seems to reassure them so one would not like to educate them on this issue. But the most hilarious assertion is the claim that Pakistan has begun moving its nukes in “low-security vans on congested roads to hide them from US spy agencies”! Given how the US does not know where the weapons are located, why would we move them in low-security vans and to where?
The whole article, based on conjecture and wild assertions, is meant to target Pakistan and its nuclear assets and is part of a long-term US strategy on this count. The background of the authors is also interesting. Jeffrey Goldberg served in the Israeli Defence Forces and was a prison guard during the First Intifada - so one does not have to imagine too much to understand where he is coming from.
As for Marc Ambinder, the White House correspondent for the National Journal, he has had a psychological battle against obesity and his wife works for the Boston Consulting Group which includes amongst its current and former employees Israel’s extreme right wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu! I rest my case of the US being our “ally from hell”.
The Atlantic and the National Journal last week published a story on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons with the title “The Ally from Hell” and proceeded to create the usual scare about our weapons safety and the jihadists waiting to grab these national assets - or even a worse nightmare for the US, the military turning into a jihadist combine controlling these weapons.
Of course there is nothing new in these assertions which emanate from the US periodically - especially in times of worsening relations with Pakistan. One knows only too well the link between the US media and the US state and it is not a point on which more proof is needed. The present story’s timing again coincides with the Pakistan military seeking to delink from the US on certain policy issues as well as President Zardari’s now notorious memo asking the US to save him in power from the Pakistan military in return for total subjugation alongside the destruction of Pakistan’s military intelligence especially the ISI - the permanent bete noir of the Yanks despite the excessive cooperation ISI has been meting out to the US military!
One needs to look at the absurdity of some of the more “serious” and certainly wilder allegations contained in the article. After checking up carefully I discovered that neither the authors nor any other stringer linked to the relevant publications actually talked to or interviewed anyone in SPD or GHQ. Yet a reference is made to General Kayani in the article almost as if the authors witnessed him calling General Kidwai after the Abbottabad incident! This is just one of the many imaginary flights of fancy the article contains.
There is the usual mantra of how the world is anxious about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and, according to the authors, with good reason because Pakistan is “the epicentre of global jihadism” - of course who fanned it in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is not mentioned - and foremost supplier of nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea! It is ironic that Pakistan is consistently being accused of supplying North Korea with uranium enrichment technology even though the Korean nuclear programme was plutonium based! As for Iran, it continues to assert that it is seeking peaceful nuclear energy and remains interacting with the IAEA despite the new IAEA chief’s submission to US diktat.
Of course at the end of the day Pakistan broke no international commitments in the alleged supply of nuclear technological information to other countries especially since our programme was also a clandestine one at that time. Again the issue of who is supplying dual use technology to India right now against its NPT commitments and who are the Western states who helped build Israel’s clandestine nuclear programme is something that none of the so-called investigative journalists from the West, especially the US, ever want to discuss in the context of nuclear proliferation.
As for the security of a country’s nuclear arsenal, the US journalists really should examine their own country’s dismal record with planes taking off with live nukes and no one knowing how it happened and where they went! Again, nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island have also happened on US territory. So it would appear if anyone is going to steal nukes the US sites may be the most vulnerable!
The authors also write as if they are privy to information that so far the US government itself does not have - that “these weapons are stored on bases and in facilities spread across the country (possibly including one within several miles of Abbottabad...).” Interesting how they have information that foreign governments do not have despite the US trying for years to gain definitive locations of our nukes!
Then comes the real clincher - what is really eating up the US and Israel: that Pakistan, as the authors point out, “is the only Muslim-majority state, out of the 50 or so in the world, to have successfully developed nuclear weapons”.
Then we have the usual accusations of how the Pakistan military and security services are totally infiltrated by jihadis and their sympathizers - of course this must be a conclusion drawn from the US experience where the US military and administration are totally infiltrated by Zionists and their sympathizers and at present that goes right to the top to President Obama himself.
The icing on the cake is the cited assertion by Graham Allison. His assertions in this article are more amusing than rational. His first assertion that terrorists would steal a nuke and take it to New York makes no sense unless the nuke is stolen from a US site since no terrorist can carry a radioactive weapon through the various security checks and arrive safely carting the weapon to New York. Figure it out! His second assertion is equally mind boggling - that a jihadi group would transfer a nuclear weapon to Iran. Why? Iran has no delivery systems to target the US! Also the jihadi groups being talked about are diehard anti-Shia so why would they give this nuke “gift” to Iran and why would Iran want to deal with such people? There is no evidence for any of these assertions. Allison’s third assertion plays on the instability of the Pakistani state that is the present US mantra - that a militant group would takeover nuclear weapons during “a period of instability or splintering of the state.” Well Allison better tell the US not to attempt such a move in Pakistan; but on a more serious note the fact of the matter is that so far our nukes are more secure than US nukes and militants have enough lethality in terms of conventional weapons as has sadly been shown.
The authors do assert that Pakistan’s weapons are de-mated which seems to reassure them so one would not like to educate them on this issue. But the most hilarious assertion is the claim that Pakistan has begun moving its nukes in “low-security vans on congested roads to hide them from US spy agencies”! Given how the US does not know where the weapons are located, why would we move them in low-security vans and to where?
The whole article, based on conjecture and wild assertions, is meant to target Pakistan and its nuclear assets and is part of a long-term US strategy on this count. The background of the authors is also interesting. Jeffrey Goldberg served in the Israeli Defence Forces and was a prison guard during the First Intifada - so one does not have to imagine too much to understand where he is coming from.
As for Marc Ambinder, the White House correspondent for the National Journal, he has had a psychological battle against obesity and his wife works for the Boston Consulting Group which includes amongst its current and former employees Israel’s extreme right wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu! I rest my case of the US being our “ally from hell”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)