Implications of Nato attack

THE unprovoked attack on two Pakistani Army check posts in Salala, Mohmand Agency by multiple Nato aircraft and ground troops on Nov 26, is likely to prove one of the lowest points in deteriorating US-Pakistan relations.

The incident has occurred at a time when a heated debate is under way in Pakistan regarding the contents of a memo sent to Adm Mike Mullen that many believe was another attempt to limit the role of the Pakistani military in politics.

There are reports that the attack occurred when the US Special Operation Forces were operating in the vicinity of the posts.

Could it be that this was the first combined operation against Pakistani forces?

President Obama has called the attack a tragedy. Nato has offered regrets for the incident and ordered an inquiry. Pakistan in retaliation has stopped the transit of material to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Pakistan has also asked for Shamsi airbase, on lease to the US and from where the drones are reportedly operated, to be vacated.At the same time, Pakistan has asked the US not to send any military delegations, and a similar embargo applies to Pakistani military visits to Nato countries.

The net result is the downgrading of US-Pakistan relations. It can be said that the Nato attack on the Salala post in Mohmand Agency perhaps spells the end of Pakistan’s participation as an ally of the US in the war on terror. This will severely limit US/Nato ability to conclude a clean withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Another important aspect related to Afghanistan is Pakistan’s decision not to attend the forthcoming Bonn Conference; without Pakistan’s participation the Afghan endgame cannot be concluded.

It is possible that the Mohmand incident may force the US to continue its presence in Afghanistan into the foreseeable future.

In short, the Nato attack may turn out to be the costliest mistake yet in the Afghan war. It is speculated by many that Pakistan will consider increasing its deterrence capability after this episode to protect its border posts by providing shoulder-fired ground-to-air missiles to its troops stationed there.

Failure to do so will increase dissatisfaction amongst the Pakistani troops guarding the border. The provision of missiles will transform the whole calculus of forces deployed on the Durand Line.

Secondly, Pakistani force commanders will now be less than enthusiastic about cross-border raids. This could lead to further complications. If Taliban attacks increase, Nato will be hard-pressed to protect its mandate. Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s Nato envoy, has said that Russia might suspend the northern supply line that will threaten western operations in Afghanistan.

The Nato position thus appears untenable as the 2014 deadline for withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan draws near. Nato thus may have to brace itself to face new challenges in the days ahead.

One thing is certain — the Nato establishment in Afghanistan will see more militant attacks in the future as Pakistan begins to lose interest in border management.

It is unlikely that Pakistan will conduct independent reprisals against US interests as it has much more to lose. However, it can undertake soft actions by recalling the privileges that have been extended to Isaf/Nato/US forces in the form of provision of supply routes through Pakistan, joint monitoring of borders, exchange of information and closing down of the Shamsi drone base.

Pakistan is also likely to stop joint cooperation with Nato in Afghanistan and the former will be left holding the hammer without an anvil.

Although Nato has expressed regrets, this will not lead to improvement of relations if the current atmosphere of distrust continues to prevail. Some of the steps that could be taken to defuse the situation will include the restitution of losses suffered by bereaved families and the submission of a formal apology.

However, one wonders if this will be done in today’s world where the rule of law and equity in behaviour are rarely seen.

Travelling on this path will require a joint inquiry by Nato and Pakistan into the causes of the tragedy.

If the inquiry finds that some officers neglected to follow the protocol applicable to operations on the border, then such officers would need to face court-martial.

One must also not overlook the consequence of an extended war on the people of the affected region. An examination of the situation shows that both in Afghanistan and Pakistan the majority of the affected people are Pakhtuns. In both countries they have been bearing the brunt of conflict over the last three decades. Death, injury, displacement and economic hardship blight their lives.

In fact, some ask whether the war in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani Pakhtun areas does not fall under the definition of ‘genocide’ as stated in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).

The convention notes, among other things, that actions committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part would constitute the crime of genocide.

Some argue that this attack was the first salvo of a new phase in the war in this region and directed against Pakistan. However, this projection does not fit into the other time lines that indicate a commitment to withdraw by 2014. One thing is certain that when the fighting ends, the Pakhtuns will be the main beneficiaries of peace.

The writer is chairman of the Regional Institute of Policy Research in Peshawar.

azizkhalid@gmail.com

Dial ‘F’ for FBR

GIVEN the advanced state of collapse of so many public-sector enterprises, which one institution or agency should we be most worried about?

Railways, with a loss of ‘only’ Rs40bn? PIA, needing a bailout this year of ‘only’ Rs22bn? Steel Mills, requiring a monthly injection to stay afloat of ‘only’ Rs6bn? Sindh Bank — a potential Rs30bn disaster (‘only’) in the making?

Out of all the institutions being merrily run into the ground by the ‘awam dost’ coalition government, there is one that is not only much larger, has far greater consequences for its acts of omission and commission, but is being pillaged without fear of public scrutiny. Welcome to Federal Board of Revenue, a Rs1,550bn behemoth.

While things have been in a state of secular decline at the FBR for a long time, its one redeeming feature has been its fairly professional cadre. On the whole, a judgment about FBR as an institution has always been corrupt, yes, but competent. Now, however, prima facie it appears FBR has moved to a dangerous new category of ‘corrupt and incompetent’.

This is indicated by the tax-to-GDP ratio hitting rock bottom in 2011, declining to a record low of 8.6 per cent, or by the fiasco of reporting an inflated figure of tax collection on the night of June 30, when even provisional figures are not fully available (and then promoting those responsible while blaming the field formations). Clearly, there are good reasons to worry about the situation with regard to FBR.

Two worrying, and inter-related, developments best illustrate the true state of affairs in FBR, and the scale of the clean-up required. The first is the so-called ‘ISAF missing containers’ case, which the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of. Initially, the Supreme Court entrusted the inquiry into the matter, in which FBR itself estimates that a loss of around Rs50bn at least was caused to the exchequer, to the Federal Tax Ombudsman’s (FTO) office.

The FTO’s inquiry report is a damning indictment of corruption at senior levels in FBR. Excerpts from the report’s findings will best illustrate the issue at hand:

“One-Customs manual clearance system was found particularly prone to huge transit scams.

“The investigation of four mega scams of containers in the past few years indicates a clear pattern. The phenomena of pilferage is not new, neither are the glossing over efforts by senior officers to provide cover up through creating hindrances in

investigations, manipulation of record and data, diverting focus by ‘fact-finding committees’.”

(In one case, the collector who had failed to prevent wrong clearance of 52 containers was made part of the ‘fact finding committee’, according to the FTO report).

“The picture that emerges is of gross inefficiency, maladministration and corruption in an organisation that is geared to further principally individual and communal self-interest of a few individuals at the cost of Pakistan and her people.”

Against this backdrop, the second shocking development provides an insight into how deep and entrenched the vested interest in FBR really is. FBR insiders, after many attempts, have finally succeeded in killing a third-party developed automated customs clearance and risk-management system called Pakistan Customs Computerised System (PaCCs).

While international best practice, our own experience with maladministration and corruption in Customs, and the damning report by the FTO office, all point to the direction FBR should be taking — of strengthening its automated clearance capability in a transparent manner and instituting a stronger risk management system — FBR has chosen to do the complete opposite:

de-automate customs.

My involvement with the PaCCs issue in 2009 and early 2010 gave me a shocking insight into the scale of deception and fraud that FBR insiders at the highest level were prepared to employ to protect ongoing large-scale corruption in their institution.

When the PaCCs issue was first taken up, we were informed in a ‘secret’ briefing that the reason FBR high-ups wanted to shut the automated clearance system was that the security establishment had objected to it as it was somehow deemed to be ‘against the national interest’. Smelling a rat, their bluff was called and appropriate checks made. It was discovered that FBR’s representation made by no one else than the chairman and member was false!

To my amazement, the same ‘secret’ file was presented to the new finance minister a few months later. (Talk about brazenness and persistence). I briefed the minister on the background and the result of our earlier checks. He made a few calls and was told exactly what we had been informed earlier — no objection had been raised by the security establishment to PaCCs.

And yet, months later, PaCCs has finally been abandoned. The task for developing an automated clearance system and associated risk management has been transferred to Pakistan Revenue Automation Limited (PRAL), the very agency which: a) has been indicted in the FTO report for facilitating corruption in Customs; and, b) is ‘owned’ and managed by FBR itself.

So, now FBR is expected to police itself — which goes against the basic principles of governance.

To strengthen FBR as an institution, the following measures will need to be taken:

1) Implementation of the report of the Task Force on Tax Administration (the Shahid Husain Committee Report of 2001).

2) Implementation of the findings of the World Bank mission on tax administration reform, which was headed by Carlos Silvani, an expert of international repute;

3) Independent third-party audit of PRAL and its systems, and implementation of PPRA rules on FBR in its relationship with PRAL.

4) Disclosure and audit of personal, business and family assets of chairman and members FBR;

5) More stringent monitoring of measures to improve tax compliance and enforcement. For the past few years, FBR has set itself a collection target of Rs50bn via better administration, but this is not monitored.

Revamping the tax system in Pakistan is the single biggest challenge facing the economy — and should be the single biggest target of any reform effort.

The writer is a former economic adviser to government, and currently heads a macroeconomic consultancy based in Islamabad.

Conducting foreign policy on martyrdom

When patriotism rules the minds, thinking faculties take the backseat. Patriotism, like religion, is a conviction based on a belief system which cannot be reasoned with. It’s the biggest, all-pervasive cult that entire nation states are besotted with, some to the point of no redemption — and there is no distinction between democratic and undemocratic polities whilst succumbing to patriotism. In the US and in India, for instance, patriotism overrides all else; it is a consistent state of mind through which everything else must be seen and judged. In countries like Iran, Syria and North Korea, autocratic regimes fan patriotic sentiment to show to the world how their people are behind government policies.

In Pakistan, patriotism is an organised affair, managed and overseen by state institutions through their beneficiaries, lackeys and the right wing lobby as and when the need arises. We have a long history of patriotism of the negative variety only, which oscillates between anti-India and anti-US/West rhetoric.

There is hardly anything positive about Pakistani patriotism; it relies mainly on condemnation of the enemy, real or perceived. Once such rhetoric starts it assumes larger than life proportions; everyone everywhere feels obliged to chip in with their own vent of anger until the brinkmen calling the shots decide that tactical results have been achieved. Whilst the fit lasts, nothing can hold back its fury, not even genuine national interest.

The way Pakistan has reacted to the killing of 24 soldiers by Nato air strikes is the most recent case in point, following the Memogate scandal. Granted it’s intolerable and unacceptable that our so-called allies should attack our army posts, but while our military is able to take armed assaults on the GHQ and the Mehran Naval Base from home-grown militants with some calm, western forces attacking our soldiers is somehow much more outrageous. Similarly, hundreds killed in American drone attacks, mostly terrorists, is more disgraceful than over 20,000 civilian lives lost, including those of women and children, in terrorist attacks on shrines, mosques, schools and in the bazaars. Were those not the sons and daughters of Pakistan, who were killed not in the line of duty defending their country on remote hilltops but whilst going about their daily, innocent routine in our cities? They were not even in the war zone, where bloody accidents can happen.

One is not saying that the latest Nato attack was an accident or a terrible miscalculation on the part of the foreign troops and their Afghan hosts, because if truth be told under these charged up conditions, we don’t really know that. The inflexible reaction shown by the ISPR tells us that it has totally rejected such an explanation and called the assault deliberate. The government too has stood firmly behind the armed forces’ stand on the issue, and the media just picked up the story and ran with it, with war songs blaring from TV sets and anchors baying for enemy blood. Cable operators have done their bit for the country and taken western news channels off the air. Under whose orders and under what rules and regulations, no one is willing to ask.

Is this a well thought out stance, especially when an inquiry into the air strikes is underway across the border? Even if it is held that the Nato attack was not a mistake but a deliberate move, it has to be asked what was Nato’s motive behind attacking Pakistan Army check posts? If the motive was to pit the Pakistan Army against the foreign troops based in Afghanistan and make that an excuse to extend the theatre of war into Pakistani territory, then the sinister mind that cast the bait must now feel vindicated because we have taken the bait.

Nato supplies have been cut off from Pakistan and the US has been told to vacate the Shamsi air base in Balochistan, perhaps a fitting response to the provocation, but what is next, you may well ask. Where do we go from here? When nations become angry, they behave like the individuals who run them, and this isn’t the best frame of mind in which to rush to conclusions and take action. The past 10 years show us that the hubris displayed by the US in its ‘war on terror’, whose battle cry is vengeance, is not the way to go, because it has got them nowhere. Is that the destination Pakistan also wants to embark upon?

A saner response would have been to use the Bonn conference to put across Pakistan’s point of view much more aggressively to convince the world that Pakistanis have borne the brunt of this war which is going nowhere. A forceful argument based on logic would perhaps still work better than the knee-jerk reaction shown so far. Islamabad should reconsider boycotting the Bonn moot and not opt for diplomatic isolation by being absent from it. Being absent from Bonn can lead to further estrangement from the international community that can spill over to the economic and military domains — a spectre Pakistanis can ill-afford to grapple with on their own, all alone.

It is time to save Pakistan from international isolation even as we damn Nato and demand retribution for the outrageous attack on our border check posts. The soldiers died in the line of duty in a war zone defending their country, which was their job, and have been duly and rightfully honoured. It would be wrong to conduct foreign policy on their martyrdom.

The writer is a member of the staff at Dawn Newspaper.

Troops free to hit back in future: Kayani

General Ashfaq Kayani prays with other military and government officials during a funeral ceremony for the Pakistani soldiers who were killed in a Nato strike in Peshawar.—AFP

ISLAMABAD: Army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani upped the ante in the standoff with the United States by telling his troops on Thursday that aggressors would not be able to evade a crushing retaliation in future.

Where he vowed to respond to any future ‘aggression’ by United States and Nato troops based in Afghanistan with ‘full force’ regardless of its consequences, he also permitted the troops to respond to any attack without waiting for directions from the command.

“Be assured that we will not let the aggressor walk away easily,” the army chief said in a message for the troops and added that he had “clearly directed that any act of aggression will be responded with full force, regardless of the cost and consequences”.

The message, text of which was shared with Dawn by a source and confirmed by an ISPR official, was specially drafted to deal with the gloom in the ranks after Saturday’s Nato air strikes on border posts.

Paying tributes to the 24 soldiers who were killed in the incident, Gen Kayani said he was proud of his men who responded with all resources at their disposal, including artillery. “We all salute the courage displayed by brave officers and men of 7 AK Regiment.”

He believed that the attack could have been retaliated effectively had the communications network not broken down. “Timely decision could not be taken due to breakdown of communication with the affected posts and therefore lack of clarity of situation at various levels, including corps HQ and GHQ.”

Gen Kayani further clarified that the troops could respond on their own, when attacked, without waiting for orders from the command. “I have full trust in your capabilities and resolve,” he stressed.

The morale-boosting message, however, pointed to a rethink in the military command about the role of soldiers posted on the border with Afghanistan, where they have been assigned to fight militants instead of dealing with border security.

The troops are, therefore, given weapons relevant to the task they are expected to perform. But, the latest attack has forced a rethink of the strategy with the focus shifting from fighting militants to ensuring security of the border.

Mansoor Ijaz says ready to face SC

ISLAMABAD: Mansoor Ijaz, the central player in the memogate controversy, has said that he was ready to face the Supreme Court which had ordered an inquiry into the scandal, DawnNews reported.

A written statement issued by Ijaz quoted him as saying that the apex court’s decision demonstrated that democracy was indeed alive and well in Pakistan.

He further said that the Supreme Court showed independence from the political brinkmanship of Pakistan’s ruling party in investigating the possibility of malfeasance within its own ranks.

Pakistan defends lack of action during Nato attack

ISLAMABAD: Confusion and a communication breakdown prevented Pakistan’s airforce from scrambling to defend troops on the ground during the deadly Nato bombing last weekend of two border outposts, the military said Friday, responding to rare domestic criticism of the powerful institution.

The Pakistani military, which eats up most of the country’s budget and is accountable to no one, has said the attack that killed 24 troops was an ”act of deliberate aggression” that went on for close two hours.

It has also said that Pakistani commanders contacted and pleaded with coalition commanders to stop firing.

Nato and US officials have disputed that account, which has triggered uncomfortable questions in this South Asian country over why Pakistan’s own fighter jets and helicopters stationed close to the border did not take off to defend the ground troops during the attack.

The military has said troops did fire back at the Nato choppers when they attacked.

A Pakistani military statement on Friday said the response could have been more ”effective” if the airforce had been called in, but this was not possible because of a ”breakdown of communication” and confusion at ”various levels” within the organisation.

The incident has pushed already strained ties between Washington and Islamabad over the future of Afghanistan close to rupture.

Islamabad has closed its eastern border to Nato supplies traveling into landlocked Afghanistan and said it is reviewing its cooperation with Washington.

US officials expressed their condolences over the loss of life and denied the Pakistan army was deliberately targeted.

But they have not apologized, saying it would not be appropriate before an investigation into the incident has been completed. In the past, Nato and the US has complained that militants along the border are helped or tolerated by Pakistani soldiers.

US officials have said a joint US-Afghan patrol came under fire from the Pakistani side of the border and called in airstrikes.

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal quoted American officials as saying that Pakistani officers had given the go-ahead for the raid, unaware they had troops in the area.

Pakistan’s military also faced criticism after the May 2 unilateral American helicopter-borne raid that killed Osama bin Laden, with questions – yet unanswered – over how the aircraft were able to fly deep into Pakistani territory without the knowledge of the airforce.

Salahuddin claims he met Mansoor Ijaz on Kashmir issue: BBC

ISLAMABAD: The chief of militant organisation Hizbul Mujahideen (HuM) operating in Indian-administered Kashmir revealed that Mansoor Ijaz, who was behind the alleged memo, tried to convince him to continue ceasefire in the Kashmir valley, a report said.

Syed Salahuddin told BBC Urdu that Ijaz, backed by the United States, met him twice in 2000 in Islamabad and Muzaffarabad immediately after the decision was made to end a ceasefire in the valley.

Salahuddin recalled that former official of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Khalid Khwaja accompanied Ijaz during their first meeting in Islamabad, adding that the second meeting was held in Muzaffarabad in which Ijaz’s mother was also present.

The militant leader told BBC’s correspondent Zulfikar Ali, who has previously reported from Muzaffarabad, that he clearly refused the advice and told Ijaz that India was not sincere and that it was using delaying tactics.

Extending the ceasefire in these circumstances would be harmful, he added.

Salahuddin further said that Ijaz never met him again after he asked him not to contact him on the matter.

The militant leader said that Ijaz tried to lure him by offering economic assistance for the valley’s development if he withdrew the decision of ending the ceasefire.

Salahuddin, however, said that he refused the offer by saying that the international community would provide the aid after Kashmir gets independence from India.

Ijaz also tried to establish himself as a credible interlocutor by saying that he was carrying out these meeting on the behest of President Bill Clinton’s administration, the report said.

He tried to prove his high level contacts by showing me a picture of him with Bill and Hillary Clinton, Salahuddin said.

Pakistan’s decision to boycott Bonn conference irreversible: Khar

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar on Friday said the decision to boycott Bonn Conference was irreversible and Nato supplies have been blocked on violation of parliament’s resolution of May 14, 2011.

Talking to the media outside Parliament House, she said only Parliament was the right forum to review any decision including blockade of Nato supplies and attending Bonn moot.

She said Pakistan was not hostile to any country however national interests would be protected at any cost.

Senate passes resolution against Nato’s Mohmand attack

ISLAMABAD: The Senate on Friday passed a unanimous resolution against Nato’s attack on a Pakistani checkpost, DawnNews reported.

The resolution was tabled by Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri. The resolution stated that in case of foreign aggression, the nation would stand united for the country’s defence.

The resolution moreover demanded that all resolutions that had been passed in the Senate relating to drone attacks and the war against terror should be implemented.

Furthermore, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said that in the wake of the Nato attack, it had become difficult to remain on the same page with the United States.

Khar further stated that the decision to boycott the Bonn conference was well thought out and there was no possibility of reviewing it.

The Senate’s session was then adjourned to December 7.