NATO gets its supply route from Russia: What it means for Pakistan?

Editorial: NATO gets its supply route from Russia
Daily Times, July 8, 2009

The summit between Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvedev at the Kremlin on Monday has produced an agreement that will let the NATO-US forces fly their troops and weapons across Russian territory. The agreement allows 4,500 US military flights annually over Russia “at no extra charge”. A White House announcement stated: “This agreement will enable the United States to further diversify the crucial transportation routes used to move troops and critical equipment to re-supply international forces in Afghanistan”.

The joint statement issued after the summit had the following comment bearing on the situation in Afghanistan: “The two countries will work together to help stabilise Afghanistan, including increasing assistance to the Afghan army and police, and training counter-narcotics personnel. They will work together with the international community for the upcoming Afghan elections and they will help Afghanistan and Pakistan work together against the common threats of terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking.” President Obama’s own comment after the summit made it clear that the two countries had resolved “to reset US-Russian relations so that we can cooperate more effectively in areas of common interest”.

The highlight of the summit, of course, was the supply route for NATO which Russia had opposed in the recent past. The next highlight of the summit, not spelled out but certainly a subject of mutual understanding, was NATO policy towards Russia, especially its US-led move to include under its umbrella those states that Russia considers within the orbit of its own influence. The Americans may therefore have agreed to soft-pedal on the Ukraine front, and policy rollback in Georgia, also a former member republic of the USSR, which Russia had attacked last August to target the military installations the Georgians had built according to NATO standards.

The transit route issue has clearly forced the Obama administration to step back from the Russia policy of the Bush administration, signalled by the Monday summit’s new agreements on nuclear arms cuts and replacement of a key disarmament treaty, including figures for reduction in nuclear warheads to between 1,500 and 1,675 within seven years. This came under the unspoken rubric of undoing the Bush administration’s decision to renege on disarmament with Russia.

Before the summit Kyrgyzstan had already indicated that it would “renegotiate” the American bases on its soil and will not insist on their immediate removal. Russia had been mollified and this mollification must have embraced Russia’s complaints in relation to the expansion of NATO in particular and the general feeling in Russia that America was spreading its tentacles eastward after destroying a Slav state in the Balkans in 1999. The consequent thaw will have direct bearing on the situation in Afghanistan; and it will include a nod from China which fears the terrorists more than the expansion of American influence in the region.

Will this mean a reduction of Pakistan’s leverage in any way? Islamabad remains important because of the land route it provides for NATO supplies. If there is any reduction it will be bought by the US only at a big financial cost. But far more than that is the developing consensus in the neighbourhood of Pakistan behind the NATO presence in Afghanistan and the success of its mission against terrorism. This development will affect Pakistan’s policy of assistance to this mission conditional to rolling back the Indian encroachment in Afghanistan and resultant interference inside Pakistan. No one at the international level seems to worry about Governor NWFP Owais Ghani’s warning about “dangerous” American activities across the Durand Line.

The summit will disabuse a lot of Pakistani analysts who have been hoping that Russia would defeat America, now that it is stuck in Afghanistan, the same way America had defeated Russia when it was stuck in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The other jolt the development will deliver is to the strategists who think nothing of the regional consensus gelling against Pakistan’s lingering policy of “strategic depth” and its permanent posture of deterring and challenging India. The general feeling in Pakistan is that if the NATO-US forces leave Afghanistan, the power vacuum thus created would be filled by Pakistan. That may be an erroneous conclusion. *

Related:
Russia, U.S. may sign Afghan military cargo deal - Reuters
Russia lets U.S. fly troops, weapons to Afghanistan - Washington Post

Unrest in China's Xinjiang between Muslim Uighur and Han Chinese

As Unrest Spreads, Chinese President Skips Summit
Clashes Continue in Western City Amid Crackdown
By Ariana Eunjung Cha, Washington Post, July 8, 2009

URUMQI, China, July 8 -- Chinese President Hu Jintao canceled plans to attend a major summit in Italy and flew home early Wednesday after reports that chaos and panic had spread throughout the capital of China's far western region of Xinjiang.


Since clashes erupted Sunday between the region's Muslim Uighur minority and the dominant Han Chinese, leaving more than 150 dead, the government has deployed police and paramilitary troops, closed mosques, instituted a curfew and rounded up at least 1,400 people. Hu's withdrawal from the Group of Eight summit, reported by state media, signaled his government's growing concern about the unrest that continued to flare across this city.

Early Tuesday morning, a group of several hundred Uighur protesters, most of them women in head scarves, gathered to demand that their detained husbands and brothers be released and their dead be accounted for. At midday, Uighur and Han Chinese men traded blows at the train station until riot police dispersed them with tear gas. In the late afternoon, hundreds of Han Chinese men armed with everyday items such as kitchen knives, shovels, hammers and pipes began smashing Uighur food stalls and stores, and headed to a local mosque.

Around the same time, the No. 2 People's Hospital was under siege as protesters demanding the bodies of the dead, which have not yet been released to the families, clashed with police who fired warning shots at the crowd.

Witnesses reported casualties in Tuesday's clashes, but the local government did not immediately say how many people had been injured or killed, if any.

The continuing violence underscored the extent of the mistrust between Uighurs and Han Chinese and how close the city remains to another major clash. The conflict erupted after what started as a calm demonstration by Uighurs apparently spun out of control. Since then, protests have broken out in Kashgar, Yili, Aksu and other major cities in Xinjiang.

For complete article, click here

Related:
In Latest Upheaval, China Applies New Strategies to Control Flow of Information - New York Times
Uprising in Urumqi - Wall Street Journal

Asia's Hour by Jamie F Metzl

VIEW: Asia’s hour? — Jamie F Metzl
Daily Times, July 2, 2009

Despite the growing promise of a multi-polar world with Asian powers playing a greater role in addressing global challenges and sharing leadership with a weary US, that world does not yet exist

As Asia emerges from the global economic crisis faster than the rest of the world, it is increasingly clear that the world’s centre of gravity is shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It is equally clear that Asian states are not yet ready to assume the more meaningful leadership in global affairs that will be necessary to ensure that this tectonic shift can make the world more stable and secure than it has been. Asian states have a tremendous opportunity to rise to this challenge.

The signs of Asia’s rise are unmistakable. Over the past five years, China’s contribution to world GDP growth has steadily increased from one-fifth to one-third, and India’s from approximately 6 percent to 16 percent. Given their growing footprints on global economics, politics, and the environment, it is now impossible to imagine any major international agreement without China, Japan, and India on board.

For complete article, click here

Pakistani Public Turns Against Taliban

Pakistani Public Turns Against Taliban, But Still Negative on US
Worldpublicopinion.org; July 1, 2009

Most Pakistanis now see the Pakistani Taliban as well as al Qaeda as a critical threat to the country--a major shift from 18 months ago--and support the government and army in their fight in the Swat Valley against the Pakistani Taliban. An overwhelming majority think that Taliban groups who seek to overthrow the Afghan government should not be allowed to have bases in Pakistan.

However, this does not bring with it a shift in attitudes toward the US. A large majority continue to have an unfavorable view of the US government. Almost two-thirds say they do not have confidence in Obama. An overwhelming majority opposes US drone attacks in Pakistan.

These are some of the results of a new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll conducted May 17-28, 2009. The nationwide random sample included 1000 Pakistani adults, selected using multi-stage probability sampling, who responded in face-to-face interviews. The margin of error is +/- 3.2 percent.

"A sea change has occurred in Pakistani public opinion. The tactics and undemocratic bent of militant groups--in tribal areas as well as Swat--have brought widespread revulsion and turned Pakistanis against them," comments Clay Ramsay, research director. However, he adds: "It's crucial to understand that the US is resented just as much as before, despite the US having a new president."

There has been a huge increase in those who think the "activities of Islamist militants and local Taliban" are a critical threat to Pakistan--a 47 point rise to 81 percent, up from 34 percent in late 2007. If the Pakistani Taliban were to gain control of the country, 75 percent say this would be bad (very bad, 67%)--though only 33 percent think this outcome is likely.

Seventy percent say their sympathies are more with the government than with the Pakistani Taliban in the struggle over Swat. Large majorities express confidence in the government (69%) and the military (72%) to handle the situation. Retrospectively, the public leans (by 45% to 40%) toward thinking the government was right to try to make an agreement in which the Pakistani Taliban would shut down its camps and turn in its heavy weapons in return for a shari'a court system in Swat. But now 67 percent think the Pakistani Taliban violated the agreement when it sent its forces into more areas, and 63 percent think the people of Swat disapprove of the agreement.

For complete article, click here
For complete report (pdf), click here

Pakistan Fights, Congress Sleeps: WSJ

Pakistan Fights, Congress Sleeps
Democrats slow-roll aid to an ally.
Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2009

More now than ever, Pakistan is acting as if it is committed to fighting the Taliban. The military in recent days has expanded a high-stakes offensive along the Afghan border, while the government enjoys wide public support, even as casualties and refugees mount.

So naturally, the U.S. Congress is finding a way not to help. An aid package has hit repeated hurdles on Capitol Hill, while U.S. allies shortchange Pakistan on humanitarian assistance for the people displaced by the fighting. This is myopic and dangerous. If Pakistan fails to defeat the Islamist insurgency, the consequences will resonate far and wide, in the worst case with al Qaeda getting Pakistan's nuclear stockpile.

Earlier this year, the Obama Administration prodded, pleaded and shamed Pakistan to fight. Passive acceptance of Taliban gains turned into the current counteroffensive. The military has since taken back the Swat Valley and shifted its sights to such tribal regions as Waziristan. Count that a tentative success for Pakistan and the Obama foreign policy team.

Those gains are fragile, however, and need urgent shoring up. General David Petraeus got $400 million in the supplemental budget this spring to improve Pakistani military capabilities. The U.S. is speeding up the delivery of helicopters and other hardware for counterinsurgency. In the past, the Pakistanis were all too happy to upgrade their F-16s and put them on the border with India while ignoring the Taliban threat.

More disappointing has been the slow Congressional progress of the five-year, $7.5 billion aid package requested by President Obama. The bill got bogged down in the House over Pakistan's past sins of nuclear proliferation and abetting of terrorism. We share the anger over atomic salesman A.Q. Khan and the use of Pakistani safe havens to launch attacks against Afghanistan and in November against Mumbai. But the explicit certification requirements written into the House bill by California Democrat Howard Berman would have tied the Administration's hands and angered Pakistanis.

For complete article, click here

Investigating Kargil

Investigating Kargil
The News, July 02, 2009
Taj M Khattak
The writer is a retired vice-admiral and former vice-chief of the Naval Staff, Pakistan Navy.

'What have you done, my friend, Nawaz Sharif?' was how, as narrated in Bill Clinton's memoirs My Life, the Clinton-Nawaz discourse began soon after the photo-op at the steps of the White House on July 4, 1999. Nawaz Sharif had embarked on that fateful sojourn a little over ten years ago for a face-saving climb-down from Kargil. It triggered politico-military consequences for the country and within a span of another three months, Sharif was overthrown, and the country is still reeling from its effects. Musharraf's unceremonious exit after a rule of nearly nine years has made little or no difference at all.

During much of the eight week period preceding the July 4 meeting in Washington, we had looked helplessly at TV images of pinpoint artillery shoots and resultant instant pulverization of some of the nation's bravest sons on such mountainous salients in the war zone as Point 5140 (Dras), Point 5203 ( Batalik), Three Pimples (Dras) and Tiger Hill.

'Operation Badr', as it was called, was launched to coincide with thawing of snow and summer opening of India's National Highway 1A, which links Srinagar to Leh via Kargil. Regular army personnel of the Northern Light Infantry, supported by special forces, artillery, engineers and other combat support personnel, in the garb of mujahideen and under a well-executed cover plan, infiltrated through gaps into Indian territory to occupy mountain tops between the LoC and the highway at several points.

For complete article, click here

Related:
Gang of Four Planned Kargil - South Asia Tribune, 2004

Changes needed in US bills for Pakistan

Changes needed in bills By Ahmer Bilal Soofi
Dawn, 01 Jul, 2009

The Kerry-Lugar and Berman bills are being moved simultaneously in the Senate and House of Representatives. A joint committee of legislators from both the houses shall then sit and merge them to enact what is likely to be called a PEACE Act through which Pakistan shall be given an annual aid package.

Both these bills contain several conditions as a prerequisite for aid to Pakistan. However, the text of both bills leave out certain necessary provisions that are expected in a country-specific legislation of this nature. Here I intend to collectively review the text of both bills and also propose the inclusion of certain issues.

The draft law that would be eventually adopted after merging the Kerry Lugar and Berman bills must contain a provision to respect the sovereignty of Pakistan. Right now such a statement is missing. The US government needs to recognise the territorial integrity and political independence of Pakistan. The US government should in legislative language assure Pakistanis that it shall not implement this act in any manner that may affect the territorial integrity and political independence of the state. Such a statement is almost customary in extra-territorial legislation. It would have not only legal value but also enormous political value for Pakistanis.

For complete article, click here

Related:
US Senate approves Kerry-Lugar Bill - DT, June 26
Stabilizing Pakistan - Steve Coll, New Yorker

Women in Fata find a voice

Women in Fata find a voice By Huma Yusuf
Dawn, 30 Jun, 2009

PESHAWAR: In a small recording studio in Peshawar, Asma rushes around with a minidisc recorder. She has to finish editing a news bulletin and make it back to her home in Nowshera before it gets dark. ‘If I don’t get the bulletin done in time for this evening’s show, the station won’t let me continue as a radio journalist,’ she says. ‘But if I don’t get home on time, then my parents won’t let me continue working either.’

Asma is one of 15 reporters for Radio Khyber, a Jamrud-based FM radio station, and one of the few legal media outlets in Pakistan’s tribal belt. The station, which is supported by the Fata Secretariat, aims to counter the extremist, pro-jihad and anti-West programming that is typical of dozens of illegal radio stations run by hard-line clerics throughout the tribal agencies.

The station’s programming is notable – listeners enjoy a mix of infotainment shows, call-in talk shows, development-oriented programmes that touch on social taboos and health care, and music, particularly hits in Pashto by Fata-based artists. Broadcasting for a total of six hours a day – three hours in the morning, and then again in the evening – the station also airs religious programming, but sermons or religious discussions are kept short and are sandwiched between music shows and humorous chat shows.

What is particularly remarkable about Radio Khyber, though, is that it employs three women as radio journalists. Given that women in the tribal belt do not have as many job opportunities as their counterparts in settled areas or major cities, the option to work for Radio Khyber is invaluable. But the symbolic value of these women’s participation in the station is even more important.

For complete article, click here

Nuclear Security Cooperation Between the United States and Pakistan

Nuclear Security Cooperation Between the United States and Pakistan
A Survey from 2000-2009
By Andrew J. Grotto, Michelle Hammer, Center for American Progress, June 24, 2009

Pakistan and the United States share an interest in denying Islamist extremists access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and preventing rogue Pakistani officials from peddling nuclear technologies. The countries have been working together behind the scenes on this issue since before 9/11. A survey of their efforts, based on publicly available information, suggests substantial progress. The United States must continue to make nuclear security an essential element of its bilateral relationship with Pakistan.

President Barack Obama stated in May that the United States and Pakistan retain “strong military-to-military consultation and cooperation,” but full collaboration is limited in the nuclear arena. The main obstacle is a belief among some Pakistani leaders and the general public that American offers of assistance mask more nefarious motives of espionage or even seizing Pakistan’s arsenal. Media outlets such as The Wall Street Journal report that U.S. Special Forces teams stand ready to forcibly secure weapons stockpiles in the event of an extremist takeover of the Pakistani government do little to assuage these suspicions.

Such insinuations tarnish U.S. credibility and damage its efforts to forge a working partnership with Pakistan and its military establishment as instability mounts in the region. The United States must continue to seek ways to build trust while countering misperceptions.

For complete report, click here

Related - Varying Viewpoints:
No US money being used for nuclear security’ - Daily Times
How the U.S. Has Secretly Backed Pakistan's Nuclear Program From Day One - Counterpunch
Trieste, Al Qaeda and the Stakes in Afghanistan and Pakistan - Bruce Reidel, Brookings
Pakistan Must Expand Its Nuclear Arsenal - S. M. Hali

Pakistan Treads Warily as New Fight Looms

Pakistan Treads Warily as New Fight Looms
Preliminary Efforts Against Fighters in Tribal Waziristan Yield Mixed Results
By Pamela Constable - Washington Post, June 29, 2009

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, June 28 -- More than 70 years ago, the British army went to war against tribal forces loyal to a charismatic religious figure in what is now the Pakistani region of Waziristan. The ensuing guerrilla conflict lasted more than a decade. The British troops, though far more numerous and better armed, never captured the renegade leader and finally withdrew from the region.

Today, the Pakistani army is preparing to launch a major operation against another warrior in Waziristan, the ruthless Islamist commander Baitullah Mehsud. Taking a lesson from history and its own recent failures, the army is attempting to isolate and weaken Mehsud before sending its troops into battle.

Every day for the past two weeks, Pakistani bombers have crisscrossed Mehsud's territory, pounding his suspected hideouts and killing dozens of his fighters, including 16 who officials said died in bombing raids Saturday. Military forces have also surrounded the region to choke off Mehsud's access to weapons and fuel from outside.

"We are trying to shape the environment before we move in for the fight," Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, the chief military spokesman, said in an interview. "We are also trying to minimize the loss of life. Ours is the only institution that can stand up to the militants, but public support is crucial. When we do move in, it must only be against Baitullah and his group. We cannot afford to provoke a tribal uprising."

So far, the effort has produced mixed results. On Tuesday, a Mehsud loyalist assassinated a key pro-government tribal leader in South Waziristan, and U.S. drone strikes killed 46 people at the funeral of a slain Mehsud commander, muddying the waters of tribal loyalties and antipathies.

"It is now clear that any tribals who side with the army will be violently suppressed," said Rifaat Hussain, a professor of defense studies at Quaid-i-Azam University here. "They may tacitly support the state, but they will not dare actively support it." He also noted that many army officers are from the same ethnic Pashtun group as Mehsud, making them reluctant to take him on.

For complete article, click here

Related:
Window of Consent - Dr. Maleeha Lodhi
Army facing tough choice after NWA ambush - Rahimullah Yusufzai, The News

Difficulties of Self-correction

analysis: Difficulties of self-correction — Khaled Ahmed
Daily Times, June 30, 2009

Self-correction looks like defeat, especially in small and weak states prizing honour and self-respect above other fundamental interests of the state such as the national economy

On June 19, 2009, a Dunya TV discussion had ex-foreign secretary Mr Riaz Khokhar protesting that President Asif Ali Zardari had not conformed to norms of ‘protocol behaviour’ while talking to Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. The newspapers had earlier moaned about Mr Singh having insulted Pakistan by telling Mr Zardari to mend his ways before asking for a dialogue. Mr Singh had insulted Pakistan and Mr Zardari had simply cowered instead of insulting him back.

Anchor Dr Moeed Pirzada rang up the Indian Express’ editor Shekhar Gupta to find out if the Indians thought their PM had given them the satisfaction of insulting Pakistan. Mr Gupta thought that Mr Singh was normal instead of insulting while accepting a foreign secretaries’ meeting. As for the reference to terrorism, he thought Mr Singh was simply repeating what he had been saying to Pakistan earlier without apparently offending its media.

For complete article, click here

Policing Pakistan by Christine Fair in Wall Street Journal

Policing Pakistan
The army isn't well equipped to fight the insurgency.
By C. CHRISTINE FAIR From today's Wall Street Journal Asia, June 30, 2009.

The United States has spent some $12 billion trying to help Pakistan save itself. Unfortunately, Washington has lavished most of the aid on the Pakistan army. It is time to reconsider that decision and focus instead on improving the country's police force.

There are many reasons why the army can't fix what ails the nation. First, sustained use of the army against its own citizens goes against the grain. A number of Pakistani officers have told me that they did not join the army to kill Pakistanis; they joined to kill Indians. Officers themselves debate whether the army can successfully oust the militants, and even if it can, whether it could hold the area for long. The army's past and recent track record in clearing and holding territory is not encouraging.

Second, the army has resisted developing a counter-insurgency doctrine. It prefers to plan and train for conventional battles and views its struggle against insurgents as a "low-intensity" conventional conflict. Washington has been slow to understand that this is not a quibble over semantics but a serious difference in how the army intends to contend with the threat. The Pakistani army believes India is its principal nemesis, not the insurgents who have occupied the Swat valley and destabilized Pakistan and the region.

Third, the army's sledgehammer attempt to expel militants from their various redoubts has devastated much of Pakistan's Pashtun belt, flattening villages and forcing more than three million people to flee. The devastating blitzkrieg shows that the Pakistani army resists developing an effective counter-insurgency capability to secure, not dispossess, the local population.

A police force-led effort would be better than one led by the army, as the history of successful counterinsurgency movements in disparate theatres across the globe shows. Militants understand the potential power of the police even if Washington and Islamabad do not. Since 2005, insurgents and terrorists have killed about 400 police each year in suicide bombings, assassinations, and other heinous crimes, according to Hassan Abbas, a former police officer in Pakistan who is now a research fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

The police make for easy targets because they are outgunned, under-resourced, inadequately equipped and poorly trained. Because most don't even have the same lucrative death benefits as army personnel, many have simply fled the fight to protect their families. Police officers in Swat have even taken out newspaper advertisements declaring that they have left the force in hopes that insurgents will spare them and their families. To take the lead in fighting the militants, Pakistan's police will need training, modern weaponry, personal-protection equipment, life insurance and access to civilian intelligence.

Police in Pakistan are admittedly widely reviled for being corrupt. However there are encouraging signs of change. Several policing organizations, such as the National Highways and Motorway Police, the Islamabad Police and the Lahore Traffic Police have all gained the trust of their citizenry through professional and courteous conduct. In these forces, police are paid a handsome salary and are subject to strict accountability for their performance. Their new salaries are too valuable to lose by taking small bribes.

Pakistan's police leadership seems up for the challenge. Since 2000, Pakistan's own police leadership has led the demand for police reform only to be stifled by military and civilian political leadership who benefit from a corrupt police force that does their bidding. It's time for the international community to support these unexpected reformers.

So far, only 2.2% of U.S. funding to Pakistan has gone to assisting the police -- $268 million between 2002 and 2008 for narcotics control, law enforcement and border security. The U.S. has an enormous opportunity to help the one Pakistani institution that actually wants American help.

Should the Obama administration embrace this task, it will need to change its approach to police training, and it will need international partners. The State Department, which has traditional responsibility for this area, cannot do it alone. As the experience with police training in Afghanistan has shown, the Department of Defense has to step in to take the lead on police training. Unfortunately, the international community has resisted supplying trainers or resources to the Afghanistan effort and some contractors have not performed well.

Now more than ever, Pakistan's insecurity touches the shores of Europe and Asia. Washington and other friends of Pakistan should commit to helping Pakistan's police secure the country. It will take years. But it can only happen if preparations begin now.

Ms. Fair is a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation.

Related:
Police and Law Enforcement Reforms in Pakistan - ISPU
Police Need Immediate Support from Intelligence Agencies - The News