Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Crisis in Pakistan
Here's a choice for would be foreign policy makers: is the solution to the current crisis in Pakistan (a) a comprehensive Pakistan-India accord, with full Iranian and Russian support, to strengthen Pakistan's civilian government and assert civilian control over Pakistan's rogue ISI intelligence agency, or (b) stepped-up US military intervention in Afghanistan, unilateral US strikes into Pakistan's lawless border areas in the northwest, and thuggish American threats aimed at Pakistan's fledging regime?
If you picked (a), good for you. If you picked (b), well, the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain might offer you a job.
Recent revelations in the New York Times about Pakistan's ISI and its ties to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, including reports that the ISI was indeed responsible for the deadly bombing at India's embassy in Afghanistan, have pushed the Afghan-Pakistan-India nexus to the very front of the news.
But greater US attacks and more US troops in Afghanistan aren't the answer.
The answer lies in talks between India and Pakistan. India's Manmohan Singh and Pakistan's Yousuf Raza Gilani, the two leaders, held the first meeting between leaders of the two countries in fifteen months this week, and Pakistan's foreign minister was optimistic, saying that the talks had helped "clear the air" between the two nuclear-armed rivals which have fought three wars, two over the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir. "A lot of steam had been let out of the pressure cooker. The dish we're going to cook is going to be for the betterment of the region," he said.
Trudy Rubin, writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, described the comments of Pakistan's foreign minister on the importance of improving India-Pakistan ties:
Better relations with India "are a top priority," Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi told guests, emphatically, at a recent private dinner in Villanova, organized by the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. Speaking the elegant English of a Cambridge University graduate, he insisted: "There is a large constituency on both sides that wants normalization. There may be hiccups, but we will forge ahead."
This policy--if Pakistan's new civilian government really pursues it--is of crucial importance to the United States and the wider world.
Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Quereshi said here on Thursday that Islamabad's response to a blast outside the Pakistan consulate in Herat, Afghanistan, was "measured" and it adopted the same attitude towards the blast outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul.
"We believe charges and counter-charges would not help. It is easy to indulge in blame game. What we need is solutions to resolve issues," he told journalists.
Of course, the problems between India and Pakistan aren't just hiccups. The United States, Afghanistan, and India have all accused Pakistan's ISI of supporting the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other anti-Indian terrorist groups in a campaign of violence against India. And Pakistan, not without some justification, has accused India and Afghanistan of supporting terrorists against Pakistan in that country's Baluchistan province and elsewhere:
Ruling Pakistan People's Party leader Rehman Malik, who functions as the interior minister and is a confidant of party chief Asif Ali Zardari, appealed to Pakistan's western allies, including the US, to stop India and Afghanistan's alleged activities.
"India wants to destabilise FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas). What India and (Afghan President Hamid) Karzai are doing must stop. They must stop this," he told reporters in Washington yesterday. ...
Though Pakistan has always blamed foreign hands for stirring trouble in Balochistan and the North West Frontier Province, this is the first time since the February 18 election that a senior government official has blamed India for fomenting unrest in the country.
Pakistan has seen the Islamists are critical to securing Islamabad's control of Afghanistan since the 1970s, and it sees controlling Afghanistan as a way of countering Indian influence in the region. India, for its part, has worked closely with Iran and Russia over the years against Pakistan and the Taliban, and India used its ties to the non-Islamist, non-Pashtun Northern Alliance in Afghanistan as a way of weakening Pakistani influence in Iran and central Asia. (For most of the years after the 1970s, the United States supported Pakistan, the Islamists, and even the Taliban.)
It ain't beanbag when two nuclear powers start accusing each other of close-to-war actions. Is this the kind of situation in which the United States wants to go into, guns blazing? I hope not. The remote chance that some nutball Islamists in Al Qaeda might do something nasty to the United States pales in significance against the real-world threats to the people of Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan posed by Islamic fundamentalists and other extremists, including Hindu fanatics.
In fact, the United States is singularly ill-equipped to go bungling into that part of the world like some drunken sheriff. Last time we did, post-1979, when we supported the Afghan warlords and Islamist crazies against the USSR, we helped create the very problem we're trying to solve now. Many of the extremists holed up in Quetta, the Northwest Frontier Province, and the tribal agencies are people America armed and trained a generation ago.
So let's let India and the new government of Pakistan handle their own problems. They'll need immense diplomatic support from the rest of the world, including the UN and the US, but also including Iran, Russia, China, and others. Pakistan is fragile. Its new government, having already lost one major coalition partner, is trying to bring ISI under civilian control at the same time they are trying to force General Pervez Musharraf out of office and reorganize the corrupt, pro-Islamist army command. For my part, I believe they'll do better without heavy-handed US threats, which only aid extremists and ultranationalists.
Robert Dreyfuss, a Nation contributing editor, is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (Metropolitan).
© 2008 The Nation
19 Comments so far
Show AllNateW no need to lecture me I speak Dari and am married to a Tajik Afghan. I already know all that.
Pakistan will be Obama's Iraq--Zbignew Brezhinski has told him so--that's why it is neccessary to ramp up the US military presence in Afghanistan. It won't necessarily happen all at once, but watch for some trumped up casus belli to trigger the next pointless war attempting "regime change".
DC does not want Indian-Pakistan Peace. That's why a couple of weeks ago the CIA attacked/bombed the Indian Embassy in Kabul killing around 80 people.
Suicide bombers? We Sure? Could the CIA 'do that?' Hello.
"Crisis in Pakistan."
The US just delivered four more state of the art F-16's to Pakistan last week.
While simultaneously bombing P's people, paying off the Agency's clones in the ISI and kidnapping people off Islamabad's streets (rendition) to be tortured on 'ghost ships.'
Pakistanis are an intelligent aware people, probably with an average greater world awareness than Joey Budweiser.
What about the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline deal? Still in negotiation? Or finalized? What if Pakistan's security forces have to go to the Indian border? Will the Taliban and al Qaeda be more able to launch attacks into Afghanistan? Will the US then demand entree to tribal areas? Stay tuned.
I read all this stuff and I think about the arrogant and naive neocon actors "creating their own reality" and wonder how next somebody else's reality is gonna bite them-big time-in the butt. And just how bad the consequences for the whole world can get from letting these lunatics prance about the stage these last seven years.
dcbeltway - the Hazaras may not speak the exact version of Farsi as spoken in Tehran, but it is related (think of the difference between Flemish and Dutch) and is called Hazaragi and is close to Dari (Afghan Persian), but is sprinkled with Mongolian and Turkic words (much like Walloon French is sprinkled with Flemish expressions). Like the Afghan situation, simple answers are nowhere to been seen here. The salient point which I agree with is that the ISI back the Pashtuns as part of their strategy going back to Independence from Great Britain. Also factor in that the Pashtuns believe it is their god given right to rule Afghanistan & that the other ethnicities: Hazaras, Tajiks, Uzbeks, & Kirgiz are, at best, their serfs. Why the obsession with the Pashtuns? The Taliban is a Pashtun organization.
Well done Mr Dreyfuss, its good to see your years as a LaRouchite is finally paying off.
NateW the Hazaras don't speak Farsi. The Afghan Tajiks do. Tajik literally means Farsi speaker. I speak that language and its my husband's native language. Tajiks are majority shia'a also like the Hazaras. The Tajiks hate the Taliban also and the Pakistani ISI thier nasty backers.
MSM Is At It Again
"In regards to?
"The build-up to war."
"Same as with the sinking of the Maine?"
"The same."
"Same as for the Sea Of Tonkin Incident?"
"The same."
"Same as with those nonexisent weapons of mass destruction?"
"The same."
"What can we do?"
"We elect someone president who'll end the Iraq War, negotiate with Iran, facilitate peace between Pakistan and India, plus turning things around here at home."
"And then what sort of world?"
"It'll be up to us."
Maybe Obama should propose an invasion into the hindu kush. That would solve everything. Oh he already has proposed that?
common sense dictates harmonious relations between pakistan & india. but there is none to comply.
common sense will continue to remain hostage to parochial elements and remain in the realm of fantasy for foreseeable future.
But how can the ISI be rogue..they were funded, trained and set up by the CIA!
Let's be clear, Mr. Dreyfuss. And the only way to be clear is to frame things in terms of CLASS as Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi did. HE said "there is a large constituency on both sides", referring to the people, not the elites. THE PEOPLE want normalization. And then YOU said: "of crucial importance to the United States..". BUT nobody knows if you are talking about the people or the elites when you say USA, and thus you feed the confusion, corruption, exploitation. Speak in terms of CLASS and there will be no more confusion about whos interests the people should support.
Point of interest:
What happens to the Pakistani nukes?
"So let's let India and the new government of Pakistan handle their own problems." Ahem, our (as in the global community committed to democracy and rule of law) problem, Mr. Dreyfuss. It quit being India and Pakistan's problem when Al Qaeda attacked a NATO member.
"UN Security Council Resolutions 2001″
http://www.un.org/docs/scres/2001/sc2001.htm
-----------------
"The leader of the Awami National Party, Afrasiab Khattack, which now governs the North West Frontier Province of which Peshawar is the capital, has said he believed Mangal Bagh and his men were a creation of Pakistan's powerful Inter Services Intelligence agency."
"In the past, these operations have been inconclusive," Mr. Khattack said. "We will have to wait and see if this one is conclusive."
"Pakistan Forces Shell Bases of Militant Leader"
June 29, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/world/asia/29pstancnd.html
---------
"The Taliban, which have solidified control across Pakistan's tribal zone and are seeking new staging grounds to attack American soldiers in Afghanistan, have sided with fellow Sunni Muslims against an enclave of Shiites settled in Parachinar for centuries. The population of about 55,000 is short of food. The fruit crop is rotting, residents say, and the cost of a 66-pound bag of flour has skyrocketed to $100."
"Taliban Exploit Sectarian Rift in Siege of Shiites in Pakistan Enclave"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/asia/26pstan.html
---------------
"The meetings took place days after a suicide bomber attacked the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing dozens. Afghanistan's government has publicly accused the ISI of having a hand in the attack..."
"C.I.A. Outlines Pakistan Links With Militants"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/world/asia/30pstan.html
-----------------
"When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland...
...I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."
-Barack Obama, August 2007
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=269510
"(a) a comprehensive Pakistan-India accord, with full Iranian and Russian support, to strengthen Pakistan's civilian government and assert civilian control over Pakistan's rogue ISI intelligence agency, or"
This should have been done 20 years ago if not earlier but its never too late. This is the single most important step in addressing south asian stability. To enable this ofcourse we need to turn of the $$$ spigot that runs uninterrupted into the Pakistani Army and ISI coffers.
NateW - "Also recall that Iran is Shiite, while Pakistan is Sunni "
True and the majority of Indian Muslims are Shia and they account for the third largest Muslim population in the world which is saying something. Needless to say, the ties between Iran and India are deep and strong.
dougwagner -- "And a comprehensive Pakistan-India accord has nothing to do with the politics of Waziristan. "
While an accord between India-Pakistan may not have much to do with local politics in Waziristan, it will definitely help reduce tension in the region and by association Waziristan. Also Pakistan will need to stop supporting the likes of LET, HUM, LEJ and a host of other Jihadi extremists with Kashmir on their mind and Waziristan as their target practice.
"a comprehensive Pakistan-India accord, with full Iranian and Russian support, to strengthen Pakistan's civilian government" :) What are you smoking and where can I find it?
Russia, India, and Iran are in no position to fight the Taliban. And a comprehensive Pakistan-India accord has nothing to do with the politics of Waziristan. The Pashtun people have rejected the Taliban. The nations of Afghanistan and Pakistan have rejected the Taliban. And now Robert Dreyfuss has a solution: withdraw as quickly as possible to enable the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regain power.
What a bunch of garbage.
Defeating or democratically engaging an anti-communist non-ethnic religious movement that has failed to assert itself democratically in Pashtun Pakistan or Pashtun Afghanistan is self-defeating for social democracy everywhere. Progressives, above all others, should not fall for the logic of those who have redressed Stalinist Pacifism that embraced nuts like Hitler, by seeking to find a Molotov-Ribbentrop with the Taliban.
Engaging and defeating the anticommunist antidemocratic Taliban militarily and democratically has enabled Afghans to begin to rebuild a tolerant society and reconnect Afghanistan to the world community. Not as much has been accomplished because of Bush's invasion of Iraq, but more can and should be done to prevent the Taliban from continuing to plan and commit genocide and terrorism against the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan over whom they seek to create a dictatorship led by Mullah Omar and his aristocratic financiers and trainers in Al Qaeda. Defeating them or bringing them into the democratic process is critical to regional stability and global security policies of all nations, particularly those that have been attacked by Al Qaeda whom the Taliban has harbored since the 1990s.
"Could someone please explain this strange alliance mentioned here, between India and Iran?"
As well as the "enemy is my enemy" thing I would add that Iran is a major energy exporter and India is massively in need of new supplies as it industrializes. Why align with the Indians instead of the Americans? Well for one thing, the Indian PM, unlike the US presidential race leaders, doesn't have nuclear first strikes on "the table".
Meanwhile the US gives conventional arms to Pakistan at the same time as they give nuclear technology to India, all the while threatening to invade Pakistan and bomb Iran. In short, America is neutralized.
To answer ZeroPointField's first question (with an old saying), "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Also recall that Iran is Shiite, while Pakistan is Sunni (and the noxious movement the ISI was midwife to, the Taliban, is aggressively Sunni to the point of practicing genocide versus the Hazara [a Farsi speaking Shiite despised minority within Afghanistan]). There is also the factor that Pakistan gets a boatload of US aid of all sorts, including military. Add in the unpleasant fact that the ISI is a state within a state in Pakistan, is pretty much untouchable, and as serious an outlet of extremist Islamic terrorists as Saudi Arabia. The Northwest Frontier Province and the Tribal Areas of Pakistan are the autonomous domain of the Pashtuns and were last governed in any meaningful sense by Alexander the Great. Pakistan's political class loath to do anything there as it would upset their rather shaky political entente (Sindhs and Punjabis vie for power while the Pashtuns stand off to the side, the others [including the Baluchis] are screwed). Needless to write, this sort of complex political situation is completely beyond the understanding and explanation of the like of Fox Noise Channel and other corporate media.
Could someone please explain this strange alliance mentioned here, between India and Iran? Isnt Iran an Islamic nation, and closer to the Quetta region? On what basis does the foreign minister charge that these countries have a hand in the destabilization of the tribal areas? Arent the tribal areas shaky all by themsleves?
And Mr Dreyfuss' title is a little quaint. The fundamentalists previously simply had a shorter leash.