Defining moment in Pak-US relations (My article published in THE NEWS on 24 Mar 2012)

Since Pakistan’s inception, military establishment has been playing a deciding role in the formulation of our foreign policy and strategic options vis-à-vis USA. After 9/11, the strategy, which we followed till recently, was formulated by a military dictator, under duress and, probably, motivated by self-interest. It was bound to failure as it over-looked the divergence of interests of the two countries in the region and the logical result was the disaster, as manifested in 2^nd May 2011 and Salala Check-Post incidents. Fortunately, as a welcome change, this time, the Parliamentary Committee for National Security has deliberated at length and presented proposals defining the contours and parameters of our future relations with USA and these are presently under discussion in the Parliament. While, I am sure, our worthy parliamentarians would come out with viable solutions, in-keeping with our national aspirations, as well as the ground realities, they must remain cognizant of a few underlying factors.

First and foremost, the parliamentarians must clearly understand the dynamics of the threats faced by Pakistan, both internal and external, our capability to counter these threats and implications, thereof, in the shaped environment, whereby, Pakistan, today, is isolated and seen as a threat to world peace. INTERNALLY, IN MY VIEW, PAKISTAN, LIKE A HIGH VELOCITY MISSILE PRIMED FOR SELF-DESTRUCTION, IS HEADING FOR A STRATEGIC DISASTER IN DIFFERENT SPHERES - POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, INSTITUTIONAL – AND UNLESS CHANGE FOR THE BETTERMENT IS BROUGHT FROM WITHIN, IT IS LIKELY TO EXPLODE. The prevailing and developing regional scenarios present many opportunities for Pakistan and the opposition must not try to play to the gallery and resort to point scoring on this important issue of our national interest.

Secondly, it’s a fact that our leaders have been exploiting our negative potential (potential of destabilization) for quite some time for pursuing personal agendas and the world at large is now not willing to give further concessions on this account. Our positive potentials because of our geo-strategic location and capacity to influence events in Afghanistan give us a lot of leverage to negotiate with USA, which must be used for the benefit of the masses.  Thirdly, in my view, there is no doubt that owing to divergence of interests, both USA and Pakistan have been playing double games with each other, however, neither has benefited from the strategy followed hitherto. There is, thus, a need to revisit these strategies by both and bring in transparency in their relationship. Fourthly, we must keep in mind that the US leadership finds a commonality of interests with India for pursuance of their long term objectives in the region and, thus, have formed a Nexus with them. The strategy we now formulate must aim at tackling this nexus and minimizing its negative impact on Pakistan. Fifthly, we must learn from the dismemberment of erstwhile USSR that use of Low Intensity Conflict as an instrument is the best strategy to subdue a nuclear state. Our negative internal dynamics which lent us extremely vulnerable to this kind of warfare and the fact that our neighbour in the East is inclined to pursue an indirect approach to convert Pakistan into a pliant state, countering such pursuits should remain one of the prime objectives of our foreign policy vis-à-vis USA for which we may have to compromise on certain issues. And lastly, notwithstanding commitments by the US leadership that their forces would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by 2014, they are likely to maintain their presence in the country and, as such, require a corridor or a supply line via Pakistan to support their bases. THEREFORE, OUR NEW STRATEGY VIS-À-VIS USA MUST TAKE INTO COGNIZANCE THE IMPLICATIONS OF LONG-TERM USA’S PRESENCE IN THE REGION.

While the PCNS has deliberately covered most of the aspects that impact Pak-US relations and forwarded viable proposals, somehow, the loop-holes left in some of the proposed recommendations and absence of a clear-cut response to breaches by USA, give the impression that these have been prepared with USA’s understanding, that already a deal has been struck with the US authorities as to which of these would be implemented and that the whole exercise is for public consumption. This is where the opposition can play an effective role by ensuring that the final recommendations are doable, put in black and white with no ambiguity on the response to any future breaches of accepted clauses and  a few also need rethinking and inclusion;

(1) When we seek transparency in presence of foreign spies, we indirectly admit that they would be acceptable if the conditions are met – a breach of our sovereignty. Why must we permit foreign spies?

(2) Similarly, the proposal that the use of bases or airspace by foreign forces would be permitted after parliament’s approval, indirectly indicates the possibility for providing such bases to USA in future, for which clear-cut terms and conditions should be defined.

(3) While proposal to levy taxes on US supplies is logical, the amount we are likely to fetch (approximately US$1million a day, as reported in the press) is peanuts as compared to what the Americans are spending for supporting their forces in Afghanistan. We need to get the right price for our co-operation, if we decide so open the NATO supplies. Let not the individuals be benefited as hitherto.

(4) WHILE DRONE ATTACKS DO IMPINGE ON OUR SOVEREIGNTY, THE PAKISTANI OR FOREIGN MILITANTS WHO GO ACROSS INTO AFGHANISTAN AND HIT US/NATO/AFGHAN FORCES ALSO BREACH THEIR SOVEREIGNTY. IF PAKISTAN CANNOT STOP THESE MILITANTS FROM GOING ACROSS WHO, NATURALLY, DO NOT RECOGNIZE ANY BORDERS, HOW CAN IT JUSTIFY ITS STANCE OF CONDEMNING DRONE ATTACKS ACROSS THIS SIDE OF THE BORDER? THIS INTRICACY HAS TO BE RESOLVED FOR A VIABLE SOLUTION TO THE ISSUE.

(5) USA is unlikely to accept the proposal of an India like civil nuclear deal with Pakistan. Instead, we should demand Pakistan’s recognition as a nuclear state with the right to seek similar deals with other nuclear powers.

(6) Surprisingly, there is no mention of what role USA should play in solving Kashmir dispute, Pakistan’s role in the future dispensation in Afghanistan and interference in Balochistan. These need to be incorporated.    

Hopefully, with the loop-holes in the proposed recommendations plugged, we are likely to formulate a viable strategy vis-à-vis USA which is based on realism, but reflective of our public sentiment, and in keeping with our national interests.

Pakistan’s Future: There is a way out of present despondency, if ......(My article published in THE NEWS on 19 Mar 2012)

In my article, ‘Pakistan’s future: we must learn to live with Zardari for long’, published in THE NEWS dated 10 March 2012, I had attempted to predict the short-term political landscape of Pakistan, purely based on my assessment of the current situation, standing, as well as, relevance of major stake-holders and our national psyche developed over the centuries. While most of the readers who sent their feedback on given email address found my conclusions a realistic appraisal, few also raised an important question, which I am sure is agitating everybody’s mind today, “Is there hope or a way out?” and asked for solutions to alleviate the prevailing despondency. My simple answer is, “yes, there is hope and there is a way out, however, with many ‘ifs and buts’ and the change has to come from within – change in people and functioning of the system”.

The people; PM Gillani, the other day in a speech glorified his family traditions by saying that for generations they have shown ‘loyalty’ and that he had no intention to change that tradition now. Loyalty to whom – Zardari now, General Zia, when he was in power or if we further go back, I am sure, it would be British and so on. This is our dilemma as a nation, “we take pride in loyalty to those who matter, not loyalty to the motherland”. Thus, we can hope for betterment if, somehow, we can bring about change in our national character, mindset and psyche as enshrined in sura Al Ra’ad verse 11 which reads, “God does not change the condition of any people unless they themselves make the decision to change”. Unfortunately, as of today, we neither have the kind of leadership nor a viable education system to bring about the required change. We, however, now have a vibrant Media, both press and electronic, which has the wherewithal to undertake this gigantic task single-handedly at least in the short term, but does it have the unanimity of approach and motivation to break away from the leanings, especially at individual levels, to earnestly undertake this national task, as change in peoples’ mindset would sound a death-knell for the feudal based political leadership, our ruling elite, and paymasters.

The system; Presently, we have a democratic dispensation which, apparently, has failed to deliver and alleviate the misgivings of the masses. It must, however, be kept in mind that the system has not failed us, we all are collectively responsible for failing the system, which, if I may act as devil’s advocate, is yet to mature owing to intermittent military take-overs. These extra- constitutional dispensations not only curtailed the logical growth of political leadership but also generated a kind of uncertainty, whereby, now the political leaders, especially those in power, remain unsure about their term in office and tend to concentrate on securing their personal future, even through foreign assistance, and in the process neglect the masses. Moreover, the military take-overs may have provided temporary relief but always left behind greater ills for the politicians to tackle. Thus, we can hope for a better future if we can ensure uninterrupted democratic dispensation, no matter how sham, and its consolidation through strengthening of institutions.

My above rationale, in no way, should serve as an excuse for those who, these days, are inclined to shut their eyes on Government’s misdeeds, are hesitant to hold them accountable and pursuing their personal agendas under the garb of ‘saving democracy’. They are either unwilling or fail to grasp that ‘accountability is the essence of democracy’. To them, I would only say that democracy is threatened this time not by a military take-over but by the system itself because of the way it is being run and the best way of saving it is to deliver, for which all institutions must play, and be allowed to play, their constitutional role.

Thus, we can hope for a better future if the establishment confines itself to its constitutional role, performs, delivers, ensures prompt accountability for failings and shuns pursuits that lent itself to criticism, genuine or motivated. In my reckoning, the military establishment still is, and must remain, very relevant to the security of our country and the best way to counter those bent upon undermining this great institution is to ‘stand tall on moral grounds’.

We can also hope for a better future if the judiciary starts to assert, without fear or inhibitions, by taking decisions on cases of national importance and ensuring their implementation. In my view, not doing so is harming democracy more as people are losing faith in the system. 

We can find a way out from the present despondency if the media commits itself to pursuit of national interests, rather than agenda based journalism, which some of our anchorpersons are very conspicuously pursuing. I need not emphasise that media is one instrument, which if applied judiciously and earnestly, can single-handedly change the destiny of our people.

And finally, we can hope for a better future if, somehow, at macro level, our political leadership breaks loose from the age-old feudal mindset - subservience of masters and exploitation of the masses - and starts to deliver as per the mandate given to them by the people. At micro level, we would sail through our present difficulties if PPP decides to end its dirty politics based on corruption and Zardari starts to apply his extraordinary mind and ‘capabilities’ for betterment of the masses, if PML (N) leadership can break loose from its psychological fears and starts playing the role of real opposition, if Imran Khan can control his ego, if PML (Q) somehow withers away, if MQM starts to act on what it preaches (it talks of revolution against the feudal class but prefers to sit with them in the Government, without inhibitions), if ANP starts to deliver (though I must admire their courage with which it has faced militancy), if the religious parties can stop pursuing their differing agendas and understand that Pakistan and Islam are synonymous and not two opposing entities, if .........

With so many ‘ifs’, should we lose hope – NEVER, as Pakistan is a country of great potentials.

Pakistan’s future: we must learn to live with Zardari for long (My article published in the NEWS on 10 March 2012)

For predicting the future political landscape of Pakistan, it is imperative that we have a clear understanding of our national psyche developed over centuries and where we stand today with respect to the major players who are likely to shape Pakistan’s political future, at least in the near term.

To understand as to why we are what we are, we need to trace the history of our region which reveals that through centuries, warriors from the North (Afghanistan / Central Asia) invaded the fertile lands of Punjab and further south, ruled the area by brute force and used influential locals (sell offs) for collecting tax on their behalf, in return for some privileges and status. The locals, instead of defending their motherland, always succumbed and a number of young men normally joined the invading forces as low rank soldiers to share the booty. The remaining masses in general learned to live under subjugation, seeking survival by all means, right or wrong. The British adopted the same strategy, ruled for a century by using / controlling through enticements the same two segments of this region – influential who became feudal lords and the uniformed lot. These became distinct ‘elite classes’ for serving the British and for the remaining, subservience became the norm.

After creation of Pakistan nothing changed with the exception that a tussle started for ascendency between the same two ‘elite classes’, i.e predominantly feudal based political leadership and the uniformed establishment, in which, barring few intermittent periods, the latter mostly prevailed due to division amongst political leadership and their failure to deliver whenever in power, successful conversion of Pakistan into a security state by the establishment ensuring their relevance, indifference of the masses and, most importantly, support by the US Administration who felt comfortable to deal with one man at the top. (This has remained USA’s practice, especially in countries where strong anti-US feelings exist, little realizing that such sentiments emanate because of this very approach).

Paradigm shift in the political landscape of Pakistan started to manifest in the last 6-7 years with the reversal of most of the above factors. It started with the US Administration’s decision to invest in the political leadership, albeit a pliant one, rather than Musharraf, who, in their view, had started double-dealing with them. Benazir played a major role in bringing about this change of thought as she, while in exile, was able to convince the US Administration that they were betting on the wrong horse. She was able to successfully convince the Americans that she had the popularity at grass- root level, could mould public opinion in USA’s favour, she was capable of controlling extremism and willing to play USA’s game in the region. Convinced, the US Administration, acceded and Musharraf was accordingly ‘convinced’ for her return to Pakistan. The other fundamental change came from within, whereby, an understanding developed between Benazir and Nawaz Sharif that they would not let themselves to be used by the establishment against each other, rule by consensus amongst themselves and let their children, and their children reap the fruits. Benazir was unfortunately assassinated and succeeded by her spouse, Zardari. With USA’s support waning, Musharraf’s fall was a matter of time, bringing down with him the entire edifice of establishment’s ascendency.

Zardari, being a very shrewd politician and bestowed with many hidden qualities, both positive and negative, successfully formed the PPP led government, he himself became the President and since then has successfully overcome many challenges by adopting a simple strategy; for those who matter, “support me and get whatever you want” and for the Americans, “support me, empower me and get results”.

Today, one can safely assume that Zardari is very close to the US Administration, has out-smarted all politicians, neutralized the establishment, diluted judiciary’s power base and has been able to woo some of those, including media-persons and journalists, who could act as spoilers in his pursuit for maintaining ascendency. He knows how to win-over willing and unwilling partners and has accumulated enough resources to buy loyalties. The only thing lacking is his ability to deliver to the masses and ensure good governance, but then in our beloved country this has never been the criterion. (Those who do not agree may go through the results of recently held by-elections). 

Nawaz Sharif, the 2nd major player in the political arena, simply stating, lacks the abilities and political acumen to counter Zardari who has already taken the former for a ride, not once but many a times. Nawaz Sharif’s anti-establishment phobia and unwillingness to forgive those who sided with Musharraf have been successfully exploited by his main rival. Living with self-conceived euphoria that owing to his so-called principled politics he would clinch the top slot in the next elections, Nawaz Sharif fails to comprehend that, as the indicators are, he is already confined to Punjab.

Thus, with the establishment cornered, judiciary gradually losing relevance because of inability to assert in important cases, media with loop-holes to be exploited, Nawaz Sharif in a state of war with everybody, including his own self, and living in illusions, as well as delusions, ANP as willing and MQM as unwilling partners, PML (Q) in the bag, Imran Khan lacking the understanding of Pakistan’s real politics, un-flinging USA’s support and, above all, subservient or indifferent masses, PPP is likely to head the next coalition government also and we must learn to live with Zardari as our President for a long haul. Of course, under him Pakistan will neither remain a security state nor become a welfare state but will be converted into pliant state, a status we are doomed to be condemned being a bunch of people who stay indifferent during elections, sell cheaply, consider corruption as a non-issue, for whom self-elevation by all means, right or wrong, remains the norm and who willingly allow themselves to be exploited. We deserve Zardari.