— Shibdas Bhattacharjee The new US strategy for the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, unveiled by President Barack Obama, has little new to say on some of the key issues that have dogged the western effort in bringing peace in Pakistan and Afghan despite two, conceptual departures from the traditional US policy. The American leadership is now speaking of getting started a UN Contact Group on Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is an important step at the level of thought. Since the ouster of the Taliban from Kabul in late 2001, the latter has invariably been seen as an Atom issue in which Pakistan was involved only lo the extent that lslamabad’s assistance was thought necessary in dealing with Taliban and Al Qaeda. This myth stands dissolved and the problem is now being seen from a wider perspective as incision of the Pak-based insurgent outfit in the so-called action plan has been tried to assure. The second conceptual is with regard to involving regional countries in helping to solve the terrorism problem that has come to threaten regional and international security. This is a recognition that the broad back the US has so far adopted has not delivered the desired results as far as the question of peace and security of this region is concerned. President Barack Obama’s administration is counting on its AfPak policy to produce a rift in the Taliban resulting in those not ideologically wedded to the extremist group to break rank and join hands with the government in Kabul. Naturally Obama’s plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan prompted a sharp rebuke from the Taliban, which accused the United States of repeating the same mistakes made by the Russians in Afghanistan.
Since July 15 2007 to March 30,2009 there had been as many as 19 major incidents of terrorist attack that rocked Pakistan in which more than 1000 people were killed. During the last one month three devastating attacks had been executed by the militants in this country. But attack on the Lore Police Academy was a direct challenge to US President’s ‘Af-Pak’ policy. Baitullah Mehsud, chief of the Pakistani Taliban and the most wanted man in Pakistan, declared plans to launch an attack in Washington. Claiming responsibility for the terror attack on Lahore police academy Mehsud threatened to launch more strikes within Pakistan as retaliation fora series of attacks by US drones in tribal areas. In fact, the attack on the police academy at Manawan had every look of a negotiated civil, an attempt to convey the psychological message that they count for more than any national institution. In other words, this is a bid to assert supremacy. But more viable question that is above all other considerations is who runs present Pakistan. The deal made with the jihadi insurgents in Swat, which allowed Shariat law to be established in Malkand division, was the first legitimate acceptance of the demands of jehadi elements by the Pakistani regime. So attack in Lahore confirmed that Pakistan has to make a choice about the ownership of the war. The Taliban threatened the Zardari regime against fighting the US war and frequently unleashed suicide bombers in Lahore and Islamabad for Army operations in tribal areas. It called for all phalli groups, including the LeT and Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, to unite to fight the Pakistani Army also and not just the American, Indian and foreign troops as American drone attacks targeting Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership caused much civilian casualties. Since August 31 last year, the CIA has carried out 39 Predator strikes in northwest Pakistan, compared to 10 attacks in 2006-07.
On the other hand, the political stability in Pakistan depends President Asif Ali Zardan giving up his dictatorial presidential powers like power to dismiss Parliament, according to PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif. Shard asked Zardan to honour a pledge to transfer key powers to his Prime Mirikoter Yusuf Raza Gilani. Zardari, who had previously failed to honour the pledge that was part of a pro-democracy agreement between his late wife Bhutto and Sharf, is expected to announce his intention to curb some of powers in his parliamentary address. “Zardari should accept his own that Pakistan has a parliamentary democratic system. It (the future) all depends on how democratically he conducts his role,” said Shaf. The political situation in Pakistan has altered dramatically in Shades favour since last week when he defied house arrest and led a victorious protest that forced the government to restore deposed chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Shanf frowned at reports that he had wanted to name himself as Amir-ul-Momin, Commander-of-the-Faithful, as “absolutely a joke,” and described reports of his closeness to religious conservatives as propaganda started by his political adversaries. Sharif’s critics say that he has been silent on the Taliban insurgency when leadership is desperately required to galvanise popular opinion.
It is true that the situation in Pakistan is certainly now or never. So the relevant question is whether the new Pak policy of Weston can save Pakistan from a complete disaster and disintegration. The Obama administration’s new strategy for Pakistan induces pledge to triple the money spent on economic development for the shaky country. But some Pakistanis question the effectiveness of pouring more money into a leaky economy without fundamental reform. The aid, however, keeps flowing. The World Bank announcing last week it would pour an additional $500 million into Pakistan. The Obama administration plan, if approved, would provide $1.5 billion in nonmilitary aid over five years to the country. Besides these, the Kerry - Lugar legislation will provide the Pakistani people $ 1.5 billion every year for the next five years, resources that will build schools, roads and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistani democracy. In addition, there will be aid to create opportunity zones in the border region to develop the economy and bring hope to the places plagued by violence.
No doubt these are some important steps declared by the US President. The effort of bringing the derailed Pakistani economy right on the track is a significant attempt to address the root cause of terrorism in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the so-called AfPak seems to deny some harsh reality. The US policy of taking for granted the role of Pakistani government Pak-army and ISI is nothing but overlooking the fountain of the problem. So also it will be partially correct if the problem of insurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan is seen just from the global perspective. In fact, the wrong US policy and the lslamabad’s policy of nurturing the radical elements in the country since the creation of Pakistan in 1947 are two main reasons that hindered Pakistan to evolve as a true nation that has brought the country on the verge of disintegration. It is time the Washington administration should change its traditional appeasement policy towards Pakistani regime by considering the problem from an open and unprejudiced perspective. In fact, this is the most important pre-requisite for the success of the Afghan- Pak policy. ASSAM TRIBUNE
On the other hand, the political stability in Pakistan depends President Asif Ali Zardan giving up his dictatorial presidential powers like power to dismiss Parliament, according to PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif. Shard asked Zardan to honour a pledge to transfer key powers to his Prime Mirikoter Yusuf Raza Gilani. Zardari, who had previously failed to honour the pledge that was part of a pro-democracy agreement between his late wife Bhutto and Sharf, is expected to announce his intention to curb some of powers in his parliamentary address. “Zardari should accept his own that Pakistan has a parliamentary democratic system. It (the future) all depends on how democratically he conducts his role,” said Shaf. The political situation in Pakistan has altered dramatically in Shades favour since last week when he defied house arrest and led a victorious protest that forced the government to restore deposed chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Shanf frowned at reports that he had wanted to name himself as Amir-ul-Momin, Commander-of-the-Faithful, as “absolutely a joke,” and described reports of his closeness to religious conservatives as propaganda started by his political adversaries. Sharif’s critics say that he has been silent on the Taliban insurgency when leadership is desperately required to galvanise popular opinion.
It is true that the situation in Pakistan is certainly now or never. So the relevant question is whether the new Pak policy of Weston can save Pakistan from a complete disaster and disintegration. The Obama administration’s new strategy for Pakistan induces pledge to triple the money spent on economic development for the shaky country. But some Pakistanis question the effectiveness of pouring more money into a leaky economy without fundamental reform. The aid, however, keeps flowing. The World Bank announcing last week it would pour an additional $500 million into Pakistan. The Obama administration plan, if approved, would provide $1.5 billion in nonmilitary aid over five years to the country. Besides these, the Kerry - Lugar legislation will provide the Pakistani people $ 1.5 billion every year for the next five years, resources that will build schools, roads and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistani democracy. In addition, there will be aid to create opportunity zones in the border region to develop the economy and bring hope to the places plagued by violence.
No doubt these are some important steps declared by the US President. The effort of bringing the derailed Pakistani economy right on the track is a significant attempt to address the root cause of terrorism in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. But the so-called AfPak seems to deny some harsh reality. The US policy of taking for granted the role of Pakistani government Pak-army and ISI is nothing but overlooking the fountain of the problem. So also it will be partially correct if the problem of insurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan is seen just from the global perspective. In fact, the wrong US policy and the lslamabad’s policy of nurturing the radical elements in the country since the creation of Pakistan in 1947 are two main reasons that hindered Pakistan to evolve as a true nation that has brought the country on the verge of disintegration. It is time the Washington administration should change its traditional appeasement policy towards Pakistani regime by considering the problem from an open and unprejudiced perspective. In fact, this is the most important pre-requisite for the success of the Afghan- Pak policy. ASSAM TRIBUNE
No comments:
Post a Comment