US wants restoration of bilateral relationship: Munter

ISLAMABAD: US Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter on Monday said that the United States would ensure there is no repetition of the incidents like the Salala attack, in which 24 Pakistani soldiers lost their lives.

In an interview with Pakistani state television, the ambassador said there was a mechanism in place on both sides of the border to prevent such things but the fact that it did happen, indicates a failure of that mechanism.

He added that, based on the findings of the inquiry under way, the United States would take steps to ensure such incidents do not recur in future.

Mr Munter, however, pointed out that for this to happen both Pakistan and the United States will have to remain engaged and talk to each other.

The US wants restoration of the bilateral relationship to its previous level, said the ambassador.

When his attention was drawn to previous inquiries in similar attacks that produced no tangible results, the US Ambassador said his country requested Pakistan to join investigation of the incident, but Pakistan has decided not to join it.

He said when result of the inquiry would be known within a few weeks, they will share it with Pakistan.

When asked to comment on Pakistan’s oft-repeated stance that it wanted new rules of engagement, Munter said the two sides should talk to each other at different levels. There is a need for leaders to remain engaged and there should be interaction between militaries, intelligence agencies and economic experts, he added.

He said the United States wants Pakistan to succeed and is ready to provide any kind of cooperation for the purpose.

Replying to a question about perception in Pakistan that the country should come out of the war on terror, he said as far as Mohmand Agency attack is concerned, “we understand the concerns of people of Pakistan as it was a terrible tragedy.”

About broader question of war against terror, he said: “Both were facing militants. This is not just America’s war but people of Pakistan are also threatened by terrorists.”

He said Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States should work together to eliminate this threat.

About Bonn Conference, he said the United States wanted Pakistan to attend the moot but “we respect its decision not to participate”.

To a question he said Mansoor Ejaz’s claim that someone in Pakistan was notified about Osama operation in Abbottabad was false.

Key US senators urge review of Pakistan funding

WASHINGTON: The United States must “fully review” its ties with Pakistan and consider cuts or new restrictions to military and economic aid, Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham urged Monday.

A joint statement from the veteran American politicians conveyed the depth of feeling felt by many of their contemporaries in Washington about the need to re-evaluate a decade-long strategic relationship that has foundered this year.

“The United States has been incredibly patient with Pakistan. And we have been so despite certain undeniable and deeply disturbing facts,” they said.

“The time has come for the United States to fully review its relations with Pakistan. We must assess the nature and levels of our support.”

McCain serves as the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, while Graham is a member of that panel and is the top Republican on the committee that allocates US foreign aid.

“All options regarding US security and economic assistance to Pakistan must be on the table, including substantial reductions and stricter standards for performance,” they said.

The senators then cited alleged support from Pakistani army and intelligence officials for the Haqqani network “and other terrorist groups”blamed for attacks on US targets in Afghanistan “that are killing US troops.”

Such actions require that “US policy toward Pakistan must proceed from the realistic understanding that certain actions of Pakistan’s military are contributing to the death and injury of our men and women in the military and jeopardising our national security interests,” said the senators.

McCain and Graham also offered their “deep condolences” over those Pakistani troops killed in what they called an “unfortunate and unintentional” strike and predicted the investigation would “clarify the circumstances of this terrible tragedy.”

“The Pakistani government’s response to these events, however, has been deeply troubling and has added to the continued deterioration of our relationship,” they added.

They were referring to Pakistan’s decision to prevent Nato supplies from reaching Afghanistan, ordering US intelligence officers to leave the country, and boycotting the Bonn conference, and reports that Islamabad may have decided to suspend all bilateral counter-terrorism agreements.

“Such steps by the Pakistani government would mark a new low for our relationship,” they warned.

The Arab Spring and after

THE `Arab Spring` was fast and dramatic: non-violent revolutions in the streets removed dictators in Tunisia and Egypt in a matter of weeks, and similar revolutions got under way in Libya, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen. The `Arab Autumn` is a much slower and messier affair, but despite the carnage in Syria and the turbulent run-up to Egypt`s first democratic elections, the signs are still positive.

Demonstrators in Bahrain were driven from the streets by massive military force, and Libya`s revolution only triumphed after western military intervention in support of the rebels. In both Syria and Yemen, originally non-violent protests risk tipping into civil wars. But there is still more good news than bad.

In October, Tunisia held its first-ever free election, and produced a coalition government that is broadly acceptable to most Tunisians. Some worry that the leading role that the local Islamic party, Ennahda, gained in the new government bodes ill for one of the Arab world`s more secular societies, but Ennahda`s leaders promise to respect the rights of less religious Tunisians, and there is no reason not to believe them.

Elections in Morocco produced a similar result, with the main Islamic party, the Justice and Development Party, gaining the largest share of the votes but not an absolute majority. It will doubtless play a leading role in the new government, but it will not seek to impose its views and values on everybody else.

This Moroccan party took its name from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey, an Islamic party that has won three elections in a row and presided over the fastest economic growth in Turkey`s history. Like the AKP, the Moroccan version is socially conservative, pro-free market, and fully obedient to the secular constitution.

These parties are `Muslim Democrats`, as one AKP member in Turkey put it, comparing them to the Christian Democratic parties of western Europe. They have nothing to do with radical Islamist groups like Al Qaeda. They are simply the natural repository for the votes of conservative people in a Muslim society, just as the Republican Party automatically gets the votes of most Christian conservatives in the United States.

There was no revolution in Morocco: the new constitution that was approved by referendum last July was an attempt by King Mohamed VI to get ahead of the demands for more democracy that are sweeping the Arab world. It obliges the king to choose the prime minister from the party that wins the most seats in parliament, rather than just naming whomever he pleases, and restricts his freedom of action in several other ways.

Similar changes are under way in Jordan, where King Abdullah II is also trying to ward off more radical demands for reform. And even the deeply conservative monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula all supported the Arab League`s decision to impose sanctions against the brutal Assad regime in Syria, including an asset freeze and an embargo on investments.

Syria may yet drift into civil war, but its fellow Arab states are taking their responsibilities seriously: only two Arab countries voted against the sanctions. And Yemen`s president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, resigned on Nov 23 after months of prevarication and 33 years in power, giving that country at least a chance of making progress towards a democratic future.

In Egypt, by far the biggest Arab country, one sees the start of parliamentary elections that will roll across the country region by region until early January. Demonstrators have re-occupied Tahrir Square in Cairo, claiming that the army wants to hold on to power, but things are not quite what they seem.

The army has already conceded that the new president should be elected by next June rather than six months later, but the demos on the square were not really about that. They were an attempt to force the postponement of the parliamentary elections.

Afghanistan’s future

THE international leadership meets in Bonn today to discuss, yet again, the future of Afghanistan. The main issues of discussion pertain to the civilian aspects of transition in the war-torn country, post-2014 international involvement in Afghanistan and the reconciliation process with the Taliban.

Although the international community, mainly western nations, have invested rather large sums of money in the infrastructure, economy, security and social sectors of Afghanistan there has been little progress on the crucial elements of political transition and institutionalisation as Afghan society has remained divided. The Taliban have exploited this shortcoming, and the international community finds itself in a fix on how to deal with the issue.

Despite several years of attempts to engage the Taliban in the political process, nothing concrete has been achieved so far, the main reason being the communication gap between the adversaries and the hesitation of the United States to include the Taliban in any peace process without achieving some success against them on the battlefield.

At Bonn too the Taliban will not have representation, as was the case in two important meetings last month at the Istanbul conference and the Loya Jirga in Kabul. In the absence of a central party to the Afghan conflict, the West cannot reach an agreement that leads to peace in Afghanistan before foreign troops pull out of the country.

Terms such as `power-sharing` and `political process` that have been in extensive currency still remain fluid and offer little incentive to the Taliban to soften their stance on the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan. The Taliban are still keeping their links with Al Qaeda as a trump card. Although there is growing realisation in western capitals that Pakistan can help bring the various Taliban factions to the negotiating table, it is the US approach towards the region that sets the tone for the West.

Now is the time to adopt a top-down approach to reach a workable mechanism on Afghanistan before 2014. Measures such as the announcement of a ceasefire can provide the impetus for engagement. Pakistan favours a ceasefire and considers it a first step towards the endgame in Afghanistan, and the US seems to be giving serious thought to the idea.

During her last visit to Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had hinted that the US might be open to considering an Afghan ceasefire. Gilles Dorronsoro, prominent analyst, author and expert on the region, favours the idea of a ceasefire as a last resort and argues that even if some of the Taliban accept a deal while others don`t, that should be considered progress.

The West is still sceptical about the Taliban`s response to such an offer, but in the recent past the Taliban have agreed to short-term ceasefires on at least two occasions — once with the United Nations when a weeklong ceasefire allowed health workers to launch a polio vaccination campaign, and again during the Afghan presidential elections in the north-western provinces when the insurgents agreed not to target the candidates and to allow them to set up campaign offices.

It is not at all far-fetched that the Taliban might respond positively if a ceasefire is announced. This idea can be floated for discussion with back channels employed to negotiate a truce with the Taliban. As Gilles argues, it will indeed be a test for the Taliban and to see how they react to such an overture, and will help remove ambiguities about matters such as relations between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which remains a prime concern for the US.

The response of the various Taliban factions to a ceasefire offer would also expose the depth of their ties with Al Qaeda and the probabilities of detaching them from the terrorist network. It can be included as a priority agenda along with a power-sharing formula during negotiations.

The Taliban might make demands for constitutional amendments for a more Islamic dispensation, but the occasion would also offer an opportunity to reach an agreement on issues such as the rights of women, children and religious minorities and the sectarian and ethnic balance of Afghan society.

Concerns have been raised about the make-up of parties at the talks after such a ceasefire, including apprehensions that if Pakistan and the Taliban act in unison they would have virtual veto power on the negotiating table. But the talks should have two levels.

The first one can be at the national level among the Taliban and other major stakeholders in Afghanistan for evolving a power-sharing formula, consensus and a trust-building process on other national issues. Pakistan and the US can act as facilitators.

On the strategic level, the talks could be among Kabul, Islamabad, Washington and the Taliban, aimed at addressing the issues of Al Qaeda on a priority basis and matters of border security and geo-economic cooperation at a later stage.

Pakistan and Afghanistan reaching a non-interference treaty, including commitments against supporting each other`s non-state actors, could be a great achievement for the process. Once this process is completed, the regional stakeholders can be taken into confidence and their guarantees involved, as the US desires.

A ceasefire should not only focus on suspending military operations in Afghanistan but also on an end to drone strikes inside Pakistan. Otherwise, the latter would remain a major irritant in any peace process. Although no major breakthrough is expected at Bonn, especially with Pakistan not participating, if negotiations start in the near future, they can pave the way for a successful gathering with similar objectives in Chicago, scheduled for May next year.

The writer is editor quarterly research journal Conflict and Peace Studies.

mamirrana@yahoo.com

In the realm of fear

SINCE the Nato incident, the decibel level of Pakistan’s public sphere has been soaring. Politicians, political talk-show hosts, civil society — all have upped the ante to express themselves as shrilly and brashly as possible.

The world has heard a collective Pakistani howl, further amplified by dozens of private television channels, Twitter feeds, Facebook status updates and text messages. But listen more closely, and the silence seems even more deafening than the noise. The more precarious Pakistan’s domestic and geopolitical position becomes, the longer is the list of what not to say.

You wouldn’t think it while surfing channels or the Internet, but censorship is making a major comeback — not only as a political tactic, but also as a way of life.

The decision by the All Pakistan Cable Operators Association to stop broadcasting international news channels that air ‘anti-Pakistan’ material is only the latest shenanigan in a growing list of transgressions aimed at making Pakistanis see no evil, hear no evil. In a different world, the Pakistani public would have been relieved to see the uncomfortable issue of the ‘double game’, addressed in a recent BBC documentary titled Secret Pakistan, taken out of the mouths of Washington heavyweights and placed in the realm of reliable journalism.

In that other world, Pakistanis might have used the findings of BBC journalists to trigger a reasoned national debate about why our country finds its foreign policy in such a bind. Rather than reconsider the wisdom of Pakistan’s strategic decisions, we have chosen to ban the channel, thereby taking one step closer to the deluded isolationism that states such as Iran have perfected.

Of course, the BBC blackout comes as no surprise to those who have been following the proliferation of censorship in Pakistan’s supposedly bubbling media space. It began with the efficient blocking of Baloch websites. Then came the Facebook ban in May 2010, when a controversial page calling upon users to draw illustrations of the Prophet (PBUH) caused widespread offence.

At the time, few were able to argue with the legal fraternity’s claim that ‘un-Islamic’ and ‘blasphemous’ content was unwelcome in Pakistan’s public sphere. But eyebrows did rise a year later when Pemra warned TV channels that it would take action against satirical shows that defamed our oh-so-honourable dignitaries. Last month’s farcical attempt by the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority to block over 1,000 supposedly obscene words from all text messages was the only censoring measure to receive a proper response: universal ridicule and scorn.

Pakistanis may be laughing at our authorities’ clumsy attempts to censor content, but there is nothing funny about a society intent on silencing itself.

The truth is, the government is coming late to the game. While the authorities have been trying to create official mechanisms to censor troublesome viewpoints, society has honed the art of self-censorship. In recent years, Pakistan has proved unique in the ability to use tools that have empowered vibrant and representative discourse elsewhere to foster silence and repression. The private televisions channels and social networking sites that have heralded the spring of other nations’ discontent have helped us articulate our latent authoritarianism.

In September, for example, the music band Laal complained that private TV channels had refrained from airing the video of its song, Jhoot Ka Uncha Sar, because they deemed it to be ‘anti-army’. The ISPR didn’t even have to blacklist the video — our free media acted preemptively on behalf of the authorities. And this is a relatively trivial example; readers are aware that the most difficult questions about terrorism, missing persons, defence budgets, corruption and rampant religious extremism remain unasked, and thus unanswered.

Talk-show hosts banter, bloggers blog, twits tweet, but this active public discourse often seeks to silence, rather than engage, voices of dissent. More Pakistanis are making themselves heard than ever before, but this collective noise drowns out rather than develops multiple perspectives. Say something contrary on the comment thread of a blog and strident voices will rally to label you a CIA spy, Hindu or Zionist.

Some may accuse me of confusing self-censorship with self-conservation and argue that the heavy hand of the authorities is compelling a culture of caution. How can I expect better of a society in which journalists are routinely intimidated, tortured, abducted and even murdered?

But let’s be honest: the strictest censorship is currently being enforced in our most private spaces — dining rooms, office cubicles, private cars. As Pakistani society becomes more extreme, polarised and moralistic, people are becoming equally careful about what they say in private — amongst friends, family members and colleagues — as in public, on air, or in print.

Those who were appalled by Salmaan Taseer’s assassination, but couldn’t denounce Mumtaz Qadri vociferously enough; those who believe an amicable bilateral relationship with the US is to Pakistan’s benefit, but dare not praise Washington in the midst of jingoistic ire; those who think Imran Khan is dangerously soft on extremist groups, but fear being labelled cynics or

traitors; those who believe Ahmadis should be allowed to practise their faith freely, but say little for fear of what might be construed as blasphemy — these Pakistanis see the BBC ban as a logical extension of a cultural characteristic.

The most basic criterion for a democracy to function is that all citizens believe they have a voice. As swathes of Pakistani society are silenced, our dream of democracy slips further away. The current situation threatens to be even more regressive than the infamous Zia years. Back then, top-down censorship resulted in press advices and public lashings of journalists, but bottom-up cultures of protest and discourse caused the dissent expressed in private spaces to coalesce as strong, effective civil society movements. Now, speech itself is becoming a tactic of silence.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

huma.yusuf@gmail.com

‘See something, say something’

I FLEW into a cold, grey England from a hectic trip to the United States. Against all expectations, London’s Heathrow airport was not backed up with passengers and luggage in the aftermath of the general strike called last Wednesday by several unions.

Despite the millions who marched against the changes in their pension benefits, the strike was entirely peaceful. And although the public were inconvenienced, there was a lot of sympathy for the strikers. As people watch the quality of their lives drop steadily as a result of the financial crisis gripping most industrialised countries, they realise there is worse economic news to

come.

While most have cut down their expenses sharply, expensive restaurants in London are still thriving. According to a recent article in a Guardian food magazine, there are still many in the capital who think nothing of dropping a hundred pounds or more per head for a meal. This is a reflection of the income inequalities that now characterise modern capitalism. According to one study, while the average ratio between the highest and lowest paid employees in business firms was 40:1 in the seventies, it is now 400:1.

But these hard times are even more visible in the US than they are in the UK, at least to a visitor. Returning to New York, Boston and Washington after twenty years, I was struck by the number of people asking for money and sleeping rough.

Downtown areas seemed more rundown than before, and plastic bags and litter were visible everywhere.

Resentment against the unfairness of the system was increasingly being voiced, whether by taxi drivers, or the Occupy Wall Street campaigners at Zuccoti Park. Several cabbies wanted to know why bankers seen as causing this crisis haven’t been touched. Rather than being tried and sent to jail, they continue to draw their fat salaries and obscene bonuses.

The financial crisis has hit countries like Greece, Ireland and Portugal even harder, with savage cuts spreading discontent across the continent. Greece has recently sent increases in property tax along with electricity bills, threatening to cut off power to homes that have not paid the new tax. This has caused howls of protest with owners refusing to pay.

Now George Osborne, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, has announced that it could take till 2017 for the economy to recover. Five more years of cuts to social services would devastate the middle classes, sending millions into poverty. Perhaps the young are the hardest hit, with thousands of fresh graduates unable to find jobs. This has resulted in many of them accepting temporary work as unpaid interns, just so they can build up their CVs. However, this is only possible if they can stay rent-free in London or some major town.

Despite the economic downturn, one sector that’s still booming in the US is security. Returning after so many years, I was shocked by the emergence of a huge infrastructure to safeguard private and public buildings and services. On my book tour, I travelled by train from one city to another, and I was asked for photo ID while buying my tickets, as well as by ticket-

checkers.

On one leg of my trip, I was in the Amtrak waiting area in New York’s Penn Station with a video playing. As I watched, I realised it was about the security measures the train operator had put into place, from undercover agents on the trains, to trained sniffer dogs.

On one three-hour journey from Washington to New York, I saw three different security guards with dogs walking along the aisle. And these guards were equipped with pistols, walkie-talkies, handcuffs and clubs. Dressed all in black, they looked very intimidating. The constant refrain on the security video was: “See something, say something.”

The sad part is that none of my American friends seemed to even notice this encroachment of the security syndrome into public life. Flying from New York’s JFK airport, I was subjected to the most intrusive and intimate pat-down search I have ever experienced. As I have a cardiac pacemaker, I am not supposed to walk through metal detectors, so I routinely inform security staff at airports around the world. Normally, I get a quick pat-down search that takes a few seconds. Not this time.

At the end of this long investigation, when I said to the guard that I had never been subjected to this level of thoroughness before, he replied: “It’s these dangerous times we live in.”

Indeed. But by creating a constant environment of fear of terrorism, the government also sustains a largely unnecessary

security industry on which billions are being squandered. And by and large, this effort has attracted some of the least intelligent people around. It is my experience that when you put a uniform on somebody who is poorly educated and has an IQ of less than 100, you give him licence to throw his or her weight around.

But instead of resisting this erosion of their personal liberties, the American people have allowed the governments of Bush and Obama to do more to intrude into daily lives than any of their predecessors. And ironically, most of the terror plots foiled have been through foreign tip-offs, coincidence, incompetence, or by the public.

So it is questionable if the vast security apparatus put in place has been very useful. But this pervasive feeling of being under constant threat makes it easy for the government to get support for its bloated defence budget.

Britain has the highest number of CCTV cameras per head in the world. And yet experts doubt they are cost-effective. Indeed, brighter streetlights would do more to deter crime. Nevertheless, politicians are keen on surveillance, and the public doesn’t seem to mind very much, apart from a few human rights groups who fear the state’s increasing desire to collect information on its citizens.

So for the time being, defence and internal security budgets seem cut-proof. Everything else is getting axed, ranging from education to health. What will Britain look like when it finally emerges from this recessionary era?

Pakistan wants to rebuild ties with US, says Gilani

LAHORE: Pakistan wants to rebuild its ties with the United States despite ongoing retaliation over deadly Nato air strikes on its troops along the Afghan border, the country’s prime minister said on Monday, stressing that he believes “it won’t take long” to achieve a new relationship with its uneasy ally.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s remarks indicate that Pakistan is looking for a way to restore some normalcy to ties with Washington following the November 26 air strikes by the US-led coalition in Afghanistan, but wants to leverage the situation to try and reset the relationship in ways more beneficial to Pakistan.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Gilani also said the country remained committed to working with Afghanistan to bring insurgent leaders – many of whom are believed to be on Pakistani soil and to enjoy close relations with Islamabad’s security forces – into talks with the government and allow the US to begin withdrawing its troops as it is committed to doing.

“I think we have evolved some mechanisms, and we are ready to cooperate,” he said, referring to meetings with Afghanistan’s military and intelligence chiefs on a framework for talks. “We are committed (to reconciliation), despite that we are not attending” the conference on Afghanistan, he said.

That may offer some reassurance to international leaders meeting in Bonn, Germany, to discuss the future of Afghanistan.

Islamabad boycotted the talks because of the air strikes along the Pakistan-Afghan border that killed 24 Pakistani troops. The decision disappointed Afghan and Western leaders, who realize the vital role Pakistan has in any future stability in neighbouring Afghanistan even as they complain that it tolerates, or even supports, insurgents along the border.

Pakistan refused pleas by Afghan and US leaders to attend the Bonn conference. Gilani said he did not regret skipping the meeting, saying “since the soil of Afghanistan was used against Pakistan in the Nato raids, there was a tremendous protest in my country and people were putting pressure that we not attend.”

Speaking in Germany, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers tragic and reiterated a pledge for a thorough investigation. “No one is more interested than the United States in getting to the bottom of what happened in the border incident,” she said.

President Barack Obama called Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari on Sunday to offer his condolences. No one from either Nato or the US has formally apologised, but they have disputed comments by Pakistan’s army that the act was a deliberate act of aggression.

Gilani said new ties being negotiated with the US would ensure that the two countries “respected each other’s red lines” regarding sovereignty and rules of engagement along the border. While he gave few details, he made it clear he thought this was both desirable and possible.

“We really want to have good relations with the US based on mutual respect and clearly defined parameters,” he said in an interview at his residence. “I think that is doable. I think that it won’t take long.”

Washington and Islamabad have given differing accounts of what led to the air strikes on the Pakistan army posts last month, in what is at least the third such incident along the porous and poorly defined border since 2008.

US officials have said the incident occurred when a joint US and Afghan patrol requested air support after coming under fire. The US checked with the Pakistan military to see if there were friendly troops in the area and were told there were not, they said.

Pakistan has said the coordinates given by the Americans were wrong — an allegation denied by US defence officials.