An opportunity lost (Has the opportunity to reach the real conspiracy been lost?( My article published in THE NEWS on 17 June 2012)

A week back, the nation was dumbfounded, and shocked, by the revelation of family-gate and related developments. As per the story, Malik Riaz, a real-estate tycoon, facing numerous cases in the courts of law, had spent a considerable amount to entice Arsalan Iftikhar and the latter, somehow, fell into the trap and enjoyed a life-style not commensurate with his position.  While the politicians preferred to shy away, the Media, as usual, came in the forefront to present differing viewpoints on the issue, some terming it as a conspiracy against the Judiciary while the others felt that there was meat in the ‘story’.

The anxiety was turned into hope when CJ, in an unprecedented move, took a suo moto action on what may be ascribed as ‘hearsay’. People thought that not only speedy justice would be provided in whatever transpired between Malik Riaz and Arsalan Iftikhar but also those involved in the conspiracy, if any, would be exposed. As the proceedings progressed, people also hoped that in the process all those who had been financially benefited or bribed by Malik Riaz for gaining certain advantages would also be exposed. Unfortunately, this was not to be.

To start with, in this case there was no complainant, no defendant, not even an FIR, yet the CJ took suo moto action. May be, in his perception, the action was justified as judiciary’s image was at stake. The bench has, however, now ruled that “reputation of judiciary stood cleared” just by Malik Riaz’s statement, notwithstanding what Malik Riaz said in the press conference, in an interview on TV and the fact that a number of black coats are out on the streets to show solidarity with the CJ. It seems that the bench has hurriedly drawn this conclusion to pass on the bucket as it did not want to tackle the major issues stemming from this case – allegations on Arsalan, conspiracy to tarnish judiciary’s image and exposure of Malik Riaz’s beneficiaries. 

It is now a matter of record that within a span of few years, Arsalan Iftikhar’s business, whatever it is, has expanded at unprecedented pace. The allegations by Malik Riaz are also substantiated by written documents (though not of entire amount). However, the case has been handed over to the government for further investigations which itself is facing numerous charges and prone to blackmail and compromise. The trust reposed in the government investigation agencies in this case is, to say the least, intriguing.

All indicators are that Malik Riaz could not have done it alone and, complicity of the government, due to numerous reasons, could not be ruled out. Now that the case has been handed over to the AG, part of the government, any possibility of investigation into a conspiracy to tarnish the image of judiciary has been closed. 

Besides, being very close to the ruling elite, a manifestation of which we saw in the protocol given to him, it is unlikely that Malik Riaz would be probed about those obliged by him with bribes and other benefits.

As such, by referring the case to AG, the matter is practically closed or, should we say, hushed up, especially with regard to conspiracy and Malik Riaz’s beneficiaries. Judiciary has lost an opportunity to consolidate their hard-won independence. Probably the price, this time, was too high, higher than those who sacrificed their lives during the struggle for independence of judiciary.  

Hidden hands behind the Pak-US stand-off? (my article published in THE NEWS on 7 June 2012)

These days, barring PM’s gimmicks related to contempt case, ‘Pak-US relations’ is the most discussed topic in the electronic and print media, with quite a number of journalists and anchorpersons blaming the military establishment for the ongoing stand-off with USA. Though in a democratic dispensation everybody has the right to express his or her views freely, yet we must remain cognizant of the fact that wrong assumptions, and conclusions drawn thereof, may mislead those assigned to formulate policies.

That is exactly what happened when the PCNS, and later the political leadership, sat down to deliberate on future Pak-US relations. Influenced by ‘ideas’ of some of our ‘brains’ who thought it was time to exploit USA’s apparent weaknesses in Afghanistan, they failed to factor-in two important aspects while presenting their demands to the USA; Pakistan’s vulnerabilities and, more importantly, USA’s internal dynamics emanating from ongoing tussle between the two power centres – White House vs the Pentagon / CIA, with profound impact during the election year. Besides, our policy makers also failed to present a unanimous viewpoint on major issues related to Pak-US relations and wasted time on point scoring, a luxury we could ill afford at this critical juncture. The demands, based on wrong conclusions and assumptions were obviously not met and, hence the stand-off.

While our vulnerabilities are well known, in this write-up I will briefly dwell upon USA’s internal dissentions on strategy for Afghanistan, how they are affecting Pak-US relations and what course may be adopted to safeguard our national interests.

President Obama, in keeping with popular slogan during his last election campaign, has already given his exit plan for withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by 2014. While the State Department is vigorously pursuing this objective, the Pentagon and CIA seem to be following their own agenda, envisaging long-term presence of US forces in the region. In this pursuit, they are not only being supported by the Republicans but also the strong lobbies which exercise profound influence on US policy making. Following lent credence to such a conclusion.    

Though President Obama was not inclined, yet was ‘persuaded’ by Pentagon for induction of 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. US military strategists should have known that even after this surge, they would not achieve any worthwhile victory for the simple reason that Taliban do not provide any tangible targets. Why, then, the surge? The only plausible answer is that all along Pentagon nurtured the intentions to provoke Pakistan, having tangible targets, neutralization of which may provide the US military with some semblance of victory.

Attack on Salala Post, as such, was a well planned operation designed to escalate tensions with Pakistan for ensuring long-term deployment of US forces in Afghanistan. By doing so, US military would continue to receive enhanced allocations of over US$100 bn annually and Leon Panetta would secure the patronage of lobbies which are seeking to undermine Pakistan and consider President Obama as an impediment in pursuance of their designs. Panetta has developed political ambitions after successful Operation Geronimo, considers Hillary Clinton as a rival in political arena and seeking to gain edge over her.

Besides attack on Salala Post, other indicators also suggest that Pentagon and CIA, on behest of certain lobbies, are ensuring failure of Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan. While the State Department is endeavouring to bring the Haqqani Network on the negotiation table with Pakistan’s help, they are continuously acting as a spoiler by conducting drone attacks and demanding that Pakistani forces should undertake operations against the Haqqanis.

Then, while the US State Department showed inclination of rendering an apology on Salala incident, it was the military leadership who firmly dispelled any such option.

Recently, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta gave a statement that charges of US$5000 per container, supposedly demanded by Pakistan, were not acceptable, notwithstanding the fact all told the container charges at this rate would come to slightly over US$ 1 bn annually, nothing compared to over US$100 bn which USA spends for maintaining forces in Afghanistan. Should such a negligible amount be of any consequence if Pentagon was sincere in implementation of President Obama’s exit plan?

Thus, contrary to the perception being developed by some journalists and anchorpersons that GHQ is responsible for the stand-off with USA, actually it’s the Pentagon, supported by CIA, which is acting as a spoiler and dictating terms on Obama and the State Department about strategy to be followed vis-a-vis Pakistan and Afghanistan.

That be the case, if President Obama is sincere in defusing tensions with Pakistan and implement his exit plan, he must recognize the problems within, muster up the courage to rein-in the military / CIA and let the State Department deal with the contentious issues. In short, he must start to assert.

As for the Pakistani leadership, they must have clear understanding of the evolving situation, wash-off misplaced notion of relevance and shun arrogance, emanating from ignorance, to ensure formulation and implementation of a viable strategy vis-a-vis USA. National interest rather than seeking a few hundred US dollars should be the guiding principle, as the latter would mean nothing for a country which loses Rs 5bn daily due to corruption as per DG NAB’s recent statement.

In this regard, despite many hiccups, I see a commonality of interest between President Obama, Pakistan and the Taliban on a singular agenda point – withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by 2014. To ensure sincerity of purpose by all stake holders, Pakistan may even undertake a diplomatic initiative involving international powers, stakeholders and UN to seek commitments from USA on implementation of its exit plan.

At our end, all needed support must be provided  for ensuring smooth withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, may it be opening of GLOC and convincing Taliban / Haqqanis to negotiate with USA, as any hindrance, actual or perceived, would tantamount to serving the cause of Pentagon, CIA, and anti-Pakistan lobbies. If they are bent upon pursuing a confrontationist course against Pakistan, why must we fall into their trap and provide them with the excuse.  

Even if no assurances are provided by USA about implementation of their exit plan, I see no sense in getting on the left side of extra regional forces which are likely to remain in our immediate neighbourhood for some time to come, as long as the red lines are clear to both the sides.