AFGHANISTAN SCENARIO

Sceptics doubt success of new
Afghan policy

Najmuddin A Shaikh

Reports in the American press indicate that President Barack Obama's administration is finalising its Afghanistan-Pakistan policy. The new policy is expected to be unveiled on the eve of the UN-sponsored meeting on Afghanistan in The Hague on March 31 or, latest, at the NATO summit meeting scheduled for April 3-4. Chances are that since the Obama administration has been stressing the need to evolve policy in consultation with allies, the Presidential Directive will come after these meetings have been held and some refinements made to reflect what has been debated at these two important consultative fora.
   The 'Afpak' policy's basic premises appear to be firstly a surge in the military effort. This means more US troops since the NATO allies are reluctant to commit any additional troops. Small accretions are expected from Germany but the caveats on the employment of most of the troops provided by NATO in combat zones in the South and East of the country will continue in place.
   Of the few countries - the UK, Canada and the Netherlands - that are engaged in combat against the Taliban it is known that at least two, Netherlands and Canada, will end the military part of their mission in a couple of years. The 17,000 US troops that are to be deployed in the next couple of months will bring US troop levels in Afghanistan to about 50,000, far short of the 160,000 deployed in Iraq at the height of the surge.
   This force will have a formidable list of tasks to perform: provide additional security needed for conducting the Afghan Presidential elections in August, fill the gaps left by the withdrawal of Canadian and Dutch troops and provide security in provinces that border on Kabul and have seen a surge of Taliban activity in recent months, provide the trainers needed for the expanded Afghan army which, some analysts are suggesting, has to be expanded well beyond the currently planned figure of 134,000 to about 250,000.
   This last item is not, as far as one can tell, a recommendation made by any of the reviews but it appears to be part of the wish list of commanders on the ground who believe that this sort of strength would be required if the Afghan National Army is to be the key to the US exit strategy.
   Theoretically these additional troops will make it possible to not only clear areas now under Taliban thrall but to hold them and thus create the security conditions in which economic development and political reconciliation can move forward. Even as most analysts involved in the review recognise the differences between largely urbanised Iraq and largely rural Afghanistan they hope the success of the surge in Iraq can be replicated in Afghanistan.
   The second premise is that there has to be a new focus on political reconciliation and economic development. Biden's assertion that only 5% of the Taliban are hardcore and 70% are those who are with the Taliban because they provide employment is a clear indication that the new policy will aim to provide employment opportunities in the insurgency affected areas that will rival the financial inducements the Taliban are currently offering.
   The key element will be the expansion of the PRTs (Provincial Reconstruction Teams). Despite the objections of the Karzai government, these PRTs will work with local representatives rather than with the Central government both in term of economic development and in giving the people the wherewithal to defend themselves against the Taliban.
   The premise is that the success of these efforts would lay the ground work for winning over the 70% reconcilable Taliban and for negotiations with the 20% or so who could be persuaded with the right political inducements to join the peace process. Several hundred new positions have been created in the American embassy in Kabul to be filled by American diplomats along with specialists from other departments to undertake this economic development and probably to establish the quiet contacts needed to advance the reconciliation process.
   The third premise is that the Karzai government can be cleansed of corrupt elements and can win the confidence of the Afghan people sufficiently for Kabul to be able to negotiate with the Taliban from a position of strength.
   The Americans would be happy to accept that in these negotiations Karzai agrees that there will be a large measure of autonomy for the provinces and that so long as the Taliban undertake not to allow Al Qaeda or other terrorist organisations to operate in the areas that are under their control they could enforce their own system of government in these areas and enjoy a share of power in the central government.
   The fourth and possibly the most important premise is what can be done in Pakistan. In addition to America's concern over the known groups operating in the NWFP and FATA, in the past two weeks, there have been a number of reports in the American press about the freedom with which the so-called Quetta Shura of the Taliban has been planning and executing operations in Afghanistan.
   At a recent Congressional hearing questions on this subject elicited the response that the Pakistani authorities were concerned about local repercussions if they took action. Two days ago the New York Times reported that the Obama administration was considering the use of drones to attack the Taliban leadership in the areas around Quetta and in the refugee camps.
   This was, however, contradicted in a Washington Post story a day later which said that the American military was reluctant to extend the drone attacks beyond the tribal areas and expected that the "Pakistan military must recognise the threat and organise themselves to deal with it".
   The activities of the Taliban in the border areas of Balochistan therefore will now figure more prominently in American military and political calculations, the more so now that alongside the attack on the container terminal for NATO cargo in Peshawar there has also been an attack on trucks carrying NATO goods into Afghanistan from Chaman. The jeopardy this cause for the logistic support for NATO forces will not be easy to countenance.
   In all likelihood, at the conferences scheduled on Afghanistan, the SCO conference in Moscow on March 27 and the March 31 conference in The Hague, Pakistan's representative will be asked to recognise the threat posed to Pakistan by the Taliban leadership in Quetta and its environs. But even more importantly, Pakistan will be asked to use its influence and its coercive powers to induce these leaders to seek reconciliation on the much more acceptable terms the Americans now seem to be offering.
   The US could also likely use the leverage of the large scale aid that Pakistan is expecting both from the United States directly and, with US assistance, from the Friends of Pakistan, making it dependent on how successfully Pakistan tackles the Quetta Shura.
   There are sound reasons for being sceptical about the success of the new Afghan policy. But the one element which we should recognise and must cooperate on is the fact that the Afghan Taliban, their protestations notwithstanding, have ties with our own extremists and that their presence on our soil represents as much of a danger to us as it does to the NATO forces in Afghanistan.
   -SAN-Feature Service
   The writer is a former foreign secretary of Pakistan

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Iraqi newsmen divided over jail sentence

Abeer Mohammed and Basim al-Shara in Baghdad

Iraqi journalists say they do not regard the decision to imprison a reporter who threw his shoes at President George W Bush as an attack on their profession.
   While journalists were divided over whether Muntader al-Zaidi deserved his three-year jail term, most distanced themselves from the reporter and dismissed concerns that his case would affect press freedom.
   Zaidi interrupted a press conference by hurling insults and a pair of shoes at Bush during his final visit to Baghdad as president last December. His actions delighted the Arab world but dismayed many Iraqi journalists who felt he had discredited their profession.
   The 30-year-old reporter for Baghdadiya TV was tried on charges of assaulting a foreign dignitary, which carries a maximum punishment of 15 years in jail. Recently, he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in a court normally used for terrorism cases.
   Some of the Iraqi press corps' initial scorn for Zaidi seemed to soften as news of his sentence spread. Several journalists told IWPR they sympathised with the reporter and saw his punishment as unduly harsh. Others, however, maintained that he embarrassed the nation.
   Irrespective of their views on the jailing, most journalists agreed that the verdict against Zaidi could not be construed as an attack on the press. Many argued that he had ceased to be a journalist when he made his extraordinary protest.
   "Long live Zaidi's hand - that's my opinion as an Iraqi," said Iman Jafer, a TV reporter for a pro-government channel. "However, as a journalist, I would like to say that his actions were shameful."
   Jafer was shocked by the sentencing. "We expected him to be released or maybe given a one-year jail term - but not three! Even if he made a mistake, he does not deserve such a sentence," she said.
   Kamal Badran, of the Al-Fayha satellite channel, also said Zaidi had lost any professional privileges. He felt the sentence was just. "When the journalist uses methods other than his mouth and his pen, he becomes a normal person with no immunity at all," Badran said.
   Sadiq Jafar, a presenter on Al-Nas Radio, said the sentence was milder than expected. As Zaidi had insulted Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki and his guest, Bush, he said, "Should we expect them to offer him roses?"
   Media unions and rights groups sought to strike a balance between criticising Zaidi's actions and voicing alarm at his punishment. Leading journalism advocacy groups in Iraq have appealed to top leaders for his release.
   Ziad al-Ajeely, the head of the Journalists' Freedom Observatory, JFO, in Baghdad, told IWPR, "Zaidi didn't act in a professional way at all - he took advantage of the democratic environment which is still new to the Middle East."
   Nonetheless, he cautioned that the severity of the sentence seemed a throwback to an earlier era.
   The JFO and other journalists' rights groups have in the past warned that Saddam Hussein-era laws - such as the one Zaidi was tried under - threaten press freedom in Iraq.
   "We hoped he would get less than three years or even a 'not guilty' verdict," Ajeely said.
   Mouyad al-Lami, head of the Iraqi Journalists Union, said the Zaidi case would not affect the perception of journalism in Iraq but voiced concern about the sentencing.
   "The president and prime minister need to use their constitutional powers to pardon Zaidi - he is a young man and it is a humanitarian case," Lami said. He said journalists in particular had suffered a great deal in Iraq and Zaidi may have been acting on this frustration.
   Zaidi is believed to have been kidnapped briefly by an armed group some years ago. Despite a recent drop in violence, Iraq remains the world's deadliest country for journalists.
   The international media rights group, Reporters Without Borders, criticised Zaidi but described the prison sentence against him as deeply unfair.
   "We obviously regret that Zaidi chose this way to protest against President Bush's policies but there is no justification for this prison sentence," the Paris-based rights said in a statement. "The sentence is cynical in a country where so many people who kill journalists are never brought to justice."
   Most journalists interviewed by IWPR said Zaidi's actions had not led to tighter curbs on their work, though many had expressed this fear immediately after the incident at the press conference in December.
   "I will not be fearful of questioning any official, even Bush himself, because I do my job in a professional way," said Mustafa Ahmed, a radio reporter working for an independent media group. "Zaidi was a bad example of an Iraqi journalist and a worse example of an Iraqi citizen."
   Omar al-Hadithi, a journalist with Al-Sabah News, said Zaidi had carried out an act of "revenge for the Iraqi people against all the crimes Bush has committed". But he maintained that the sentencing would not impact journalism. "Zaidi got a fair trial," he said.
   However, Ibrahim al-Saraji, the head of the Iraqi press freedom watchdog, the Association to Protect Journalists' Rights, cautioned that the sentencing had been harsh and hasty.
   "There are so many other issues with journalists still pending - so why the rush in the Zaidi case?" he said. "The sentence will make journalists review their relationship with the courts."
   Saraji warned that journalism had become dangerously politicised and reporters had been mocked and harassed after the Zaidi incident.
   A cameraman working for the same private TV station as Zaidi said guards at press conferences had begun singling out the channel's employees for tough treatment.
   "The guards treat us badly when they find out we are from Baghdadia TV. They keep searching us and checking our identity cards over and over again," said the cameraman, who did not give his name because he was not authorised to speak to the press.
   Zaineb Naji, Abeer Mohammed and Basim al-Shara are IWPR-trained journalists in Baghdad.
   --Institute of War and Peace Reporting.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

LTTE brutally treating with
trapped civilians

Jehan Perera

Many countries in the Security Council are reported to be in favour of discussing the humanitarian crisis in the northern part of Sri Lanka. The countries supportive of discussing Sri Lanka at the Security Council level are reported to include the United States, while those opposing include Russia and China. A few weeks ago the United States was reported to be prepared to lead a sea borne evacuation of trapped civilians from the north, but this offer did not come to fruition due to different sources of opposition. Consequently, scores of civilians have either been reported to be fleeing the north by foot and by sea, or are being killed and injured by the fighting that is raging in the area where they are trapped.
   
   Trapped civilians
   It seems that many countries and especially those in which large numbers of Tamil people live are keen to do something to alleviate the sufferings of the trapped civilians. So far their standard prescription is to call for a humanitarian ceasefire that would permit the evacuation of the trapped civilians. They have also called for care to be exerted so that the civilians are not targeted by the fighting. Some have also called for a ceasefire to be accompanied by a political settlement. Unfortunately but predictably, these urgent calls by the international community have not had the desired effect. With both the government and LTTE giving primacy to military victory and resistance respectively, civilians continue to be targeted in violent ways.
   Reports have recently emerged of the forced conscription by the LTTE of a UN worker and members of his family, including his sixteen years old daughter. Coming just days after the UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay has spoken of the "brutal and inhumane treatment" of civilians under LTTE control. She has also said that "certain actions being undertaken by the Sri Lankan military and LTTE may constitute violations of international human rights and humanitarian law." This report only underlines the vicious nature of the conflict. UN sources say that close to 10,000 civilians have been either killed or injured in the past two months, which dwarfs the casualty toll in Gaza, though it is considerably less than in Sudan where the President was recently indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.
   
   Limited response
   The government has denied the allegations by the UN High Commissioner and the numbers of casualties mentioned. There are also concerns about the well being of civilians who cross over to government territory, the manner of their screening and confinement to camps. The government is now reported to be responding to these concerns by opening up the camps to humanitarian organizations, both national and international. In addition, if a party that has the confidence of all concerned were able to monitor the conflict zone it would provide information that would be readily acceptable to the outside world. Such monitoring and presence with both national and international participation would also provide a strong incentive to the conflicting parties to act according to internationally accepted norms of humanitarian conduct.
   With the eyes of the world getting focused on Sri Lanka due to both the military operations and humanitarian crisis, accusations made by the international community are serious and cannot be ignored or easily brushed aside. However, these expressions of international concern are only likely to be followed with action in the future, when conditions of relative normalcy have been obtained and reliable and verifiable data has been collected. In the short term, there is unlikely to be any concrete action by the international community that could force the hands of the conflicting parties. The only international actor that could act unilaterally is India, and it is preoccupied with a crucial general election that falls next month.
   In the meantime, the fighting on the ground is continuing. The Sri Lankan government's main concession to international concerns with regard to civilian casualties has been to promise to reduce its reliance on firing with heavy weaponry. As a result there will be fewer civilian casualties but higher military casualties as the government forces take on the LTTE in face to face combat. For its part, the LTTE has announced its willingness to accept an unconditional ceasefire. This is a change from its previous position that a ceasefire should be one to provide humanitarian relief to the trapped civilian population. But the government has rejected this LTTE offer, and insisted that the trapped civilians should be first evacuated or the LTTE should lay down arms.
   
   Clear position
   If it is acknowledged that innocent civilians are being held hostage, and also being forced to carry arms, that those who are attempting to liberate them must employ methods that seek to minimise the suffering of such captives. Those forced against their will to hold a weapon need to be provided with the opportunity to surrender and not be killed in action. This is the moral dilemma that the government faces. However, with the Sri Lankan military having the clear advantage in both manpower and firepower, and the government having the political will and electoral support for its military campaign, there does not appear to be any realistic prospect of moral arguments prevailing at this time. The problem is that the trapped civilians have become a part of military strategy.
   The Sri Lankan military is now set to recapture all LTTE held territory. The failure of efforts to secure a humanitarian ceasefire for the specific purpose of evacuating the trapped civilian population needs to be assessed in the context of what appears to be inevitable. In these circumstances, those who seek to keep the civilians with the LTTE are, in fact, aiding in their continued vulnerability to being killed and injured in the war. But so long as the LTTE can hope that the international community will intervene in a manner that stops the Sri Lankan military from advancing any further into their last remaining territory, they will wish to keep the civilian population with them. This is where the international community needs to make its position clear.
   The statements that have been put out by the international community at various times gives the LTTE and its supporters the hope of international intervention that could halt the Sri Lankan military's expected recapture of the remaining LTTE held areas. The UN High Commissioner's statements and reported US support for taking the humanitarian crisis in the country to the UN Security Council may be adduced as evidence of the possibility of such international intervention. These positions of the international community may have implications in the future. However, in the present, the international community will not be willing to take any action that continues to keep civilians trapped and hostage in the north. In these circumstances the sooner the trapped civilians of the north are evacuated the better it will be for them.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Spirit of reconciliation at last

Jonaid Iqbal

The masses are singing and clapping again. A day before the traditional celebration of Pakistan Day (March 23) Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan raised the national flag atop reinstated Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry's reseidence to mark his return to work.
   In a festive mood the people went to puppet shows and folk fair where artists sang with abandon at Nawaz Sharif's meeting at Jatli where he responded to the spirit of reconciliation promising to work with the Pakistan People's Party to implement Charter of Democracy (CoD), a document jointly signed by him and the assassinated leader Benzair Bhutto at London two years ago.
   There was introduction of three Bengali story books, Urboshee Shaa, Niruddisto Nakful and Ramonikosh Taii at Islamabad, launched by Bangladesh High Commissioner, Begum Yasmeen Morshed.
   To restore trust as well as to pull Nawaz Sharif to be patient with the PPP Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani had to come to Sharif's home ground at Jatli in Raiwind. As he said on arrival 'he had come with an olive branch on behalf of President Asif Zardari and his government.
   This time Gilani came alone, without no minister or aide, in order to establish personal rapport with Sharif, and to steer him to a meeting with President Zardari. We are told that the date of the meeting between the two has been fixed, probably on March 28, when the President is expected to address the opening of the new parliamentary year.
   All this is happening because Zardari realises that the PPP is running at a loss. According to Ahmad Bilal Mahboob, chief of think-tank Pildat, "The PPP which was Pakistan's largest political entity founded in 1967 by former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, currently finds a double crisis. On the one hand the party faces a serious crisis of credibility among the masses that it represents and the second is a crisis of commitment, or lack of it, to the ideals that Bhutto and later his charismatic daughter Benazir Bhutto struggled for.
   The image and performance of the party is revolving around the personality and performance of its co-chairman and President, Asif Ali Zardari, who cannot feel the pulse of the people, has become completely detached from reality. A news item stated that Zardari's approval rating was 19 per cent in January 2009 against his predecessor, military dictator-president General Musharraf's 17 per cent.
   Here is a piece of good news that I wish to share with the Holiday readers. It is about Habib Jalib (1928-1993) the poet of dissent, Marxist leaning, and one of the most revolutionary among Urdu poets. He received the high civil Nishan-i-Imtiaz award by President Asif Zardari. The award was given posthumously to Tahira, his daughter, and 16 years after the renowned poet's death.
   In a similar gesture, eight days ago, in recognition of the eminence of the poet, President Zardari donated Rs. one million for the treatment of ailing widow of the poet.
   It is significant that the government has honoured the revolutionary poet who was wont to say during his lifetime that though the masses loved him every successive government imprisoned him for expressing his Communist views, and publicly refused to acknowledge.
   Jalib wrote: How can one see a dawn that had no light?

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE