But after Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry departed from Quetta, (the hearing, headed by the chief justice, over law and order in Balochistan resumed on Monday in Quetta) a few weeks back the situation soon reverted to the status quo. Since then, more mutilated bodies of Baloch activists have been recovered. Many activists have reportedly been ‘abducted’.

The piecemeal nature of the SC’s approach is neither helping victims nor discouraging the violators of human rights from curtailing what appears to be a policy to eliminate moderate Baloch activists under the pretext of counter-insurgency efforts.

The apex court in the federal system has, in this regard, two sets of responsibilities: first, to ensure the provision of fundamental rights and restrain dominant ethnic groups from abusing the rights of non-core groups, and secondly, to guarantee the full implementation of the constitution with regard to the political and economic rights of the federating units and check the systematic exploitation of groups and individuals.

Sadly for Pakistan, the role played by the apex as well as the high courts in terms of conflict prevention and resolution has been disappointing. In order to prevent further political and human catastrophes, this forum ought to immediately order a comprehensive and impartial inquiry with regard to Balochistan’s political, economic, security and human rights’ complexities.

The inquiry should focus on examining the role of the central government and law-enforcement agencies in Balochistan, and their involvement in the way decisions were made by the Musharraf-led and subsequent governments.

The decisions made and actions taken between 2004 and now must be looked into to establish as accurately and reliably as possible where things went wrong and what lessons must be learnt.

If an inquiry could be conducted impartially and free from the influence of institutions notorious for interfering, it could provide a reliable account of the events that drove matters to the current pass.

This would identify lessons helpful in guiding federal-provincial relations, addressing social and economic disparities, reducing ethnic prejudice and instituting security-sector reforms that are not ethnically biased. There would be the further potential of defining conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms.

This is without doubt a challenging task. Should the SC be able to make a bold decision, though, what the country stands to gain is the restoration of the trust of marginalised ethnic communities, and the restoration of rights to the people that have been devastated by discriminatory policies and state structures that are imbalanced in terms of ethnicity.

The judicial inquiry constituted by the SC should provide a reliable account of the nearly eight-year-long and continuing conflict in Balochistan. A Balochistan inquiry committee could take matters further and ask national and international experts and advisers to assist in its work of asking the questions that need to be asked to establish the truth, resolve the situation and prevent it in the future.

The stakeholders to be called on would include Baloch nationalist parties, victims of enforced disappearances, the family members of ‘kill and dump’ victims, journalists, Baloch leaders here and in exile, and Baloch writers and intellectuals.

From the side of the state, respondents would include former and current federal government representatives, former and current heads of the Frontier Corps, representatives of the intelligence agencies and all other actors that were involved in Musharraf’s deadly policy vis-à-vis Balochistan.

Everything would hinge, though, on witnesses’ ability to speak freely and provide truthful, fair and accurate evidences and assessments. Matters could be improved if the government extended immunity from disciplinary action to serving official and military and paramilitary officials who give evidence to or otherwise assist the inquiry committee.

It is possible — indeed, likely — that the issues raised will include political, economic and development dimensions. However, all these fields are intertwined and central to the ongoing conflict. An example is the role played by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, or the Oil and Gas Development Corporation, which are earning billions of rupees a year from the wells of Dera Bugti. Meanwhile, the government must ensure full cooperation with the inquiry committee by committing that no document or witness lies beyond the scope of the forum — including reports by the intelligence agencies and top military commanders’ decisions that led to the endless blood-letting.

Furthermore, the state must make sure that the inquiry committee has all the resources it needs to properly fulfil its mandate.
The latter must reciprocate by making sure it functions efficiently and does not waste public money.

There would be a great deal of interest in how the inquiry committee conducts its business, particularly in how it ensures fairness to witnesses whilst making sure that it is able to elicit a full, accurate and truthful account of the military operation in Balochistan.

To have credibility, though, the inquiry must be transparent about its approach and the processes it adopts. All the citizens of the country have a right to know what underpins the conflict and what its destructive consequences have been.

Accounts of the hearings and copies of all the documents submitted should be put on the Internet, and the media must have full access to the hearings. Arrangements should be made for both the media and the public for the public evidence sessions. This would help increase public understanding and reduce the chances of further misadventures.

Balochistan has suffered immensely in the past six decades. It is time to redress the grievances and end systematic oppression and exploitation through a genuine and credible process. Genuine peace — one that is not enforced through the security apparatus — will produce an assortment of positive outcomes.

Courtesy: Dawn.com

China recently expressed its displeasure that a certain South Asian country was used to create unrest in its Muslim majority Xinjiang province. China did not name Pakistan in its official press release, which is an interesting point to note for many reasons. First, it indicates that China does not believe that Pakistan is directly involved, but rather that the presence of foreign intelligence assets could be operating to train those terrorists. Second, China has a narrow but significant border with Afghanistan. The failure of the US in Afghanistan and emergence of an extremist conservative government could be counter to their interests. Therefore, they would prefer that the US special operations forces remain in Afghanistan as a hurdle to Taliban re-emergence. It is in this perspective that we should read the inclusion of the articles in the final draft that Pakistan’s soil will not be used for attacks on other countries, removal of foreign intelligence operatives from Pakistan and stoppage of granting access to military bases in Pakistan. Logistical services through Pakistan Railways and the National Logistics Cell (NLC) will ensure that containers are not abused for transportation of illegal material as happened in the last few years.

India has recently demonstrated a shift in its foreign policy position in the region. India is expressing appreciation for Pakistan’s interest in regional stability. Our insistence on the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline might be with the consent of India, considering its long-standing relationship with Iran and India’s insistence on the multilateral platform that the nuclear deadlock should be resolved through negotiations. The recent visit of President Zardari to India has opened the doors for increased diplomatic contacts. Approval of foreign direct investment from Pakistan and Pakistan’s granting of most favoured nation (MFN) status to India will further strengthen the relationship. India’s willingness to sell 5,000 MW of electricity will help reduce the supply-demand gap, thereby reducing incidents of public unrest. In the upcoming visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it is expected that agreements could be signed on Sir Creek and Siachen as well as adoption of an outline of negotiations to resolve the Kashmir issue. The PCNS articles on prevention of foreign terrorists attacking neighbours will be welcomed by India as they have filed repeated complaints on infiltration of terrorists into Kashmir. UN members considering India’s candidacy for a permanent seat on the Security Council will view improving relations with neighbours favourably.

The PCNS recommendations include provisions that will strengthen bilateral relations with Iran, which have been lukewarm in recent years. Unrest in Balochistan is a concern for Iran as the Baloch are a majority in its Seistan province, which has substantial production of oil. International media reports of foreign intelligence agents’ collusion with the terror group Jundullah have been viewed with suspicion by Iran. The public hearing by a US Congress sub-committee on Balochistan has aligned the interests of the two countries to work together. The recommendations of the PCNS to pursue the IPI pipeline, stoppage of drone flights and prevention of foreign terrorists attacking other countries will be welcome news for Iran. The visit by a Saudi diplomat to offer a concessional oil facility to Pakistan could be a carrot from the US in their efforts to isolate Iran.

Traditionally, Russia has claimed Central Asia and Afghanistan to be an area of its strategic interest. The rise of extremism in the Muslim majority Central Asian countries is a concern for Russia as it could be supportive of the separatist movement in Chechnya. Russia would prefer the continued presence of the US forces in Afghanistan but one that depends on its support. Pakistan’s insistence that only non-lethal supplies will be allowed to pass through should be viewed together with Putin’s announcement that the US can use the northern route for supplies.

Afghanistan, the country most affected by the war, seeks a reduction of the US footprint on its soil. President Karzai’s announcement to hold presidential elections a year early is intended to extend his government beyond 2014. He has been able to gain support from regional powers as the most viable moderate option. An ‘Afghan-led’ and ‘Afghan-owned’ resolution of the crisis is Pakistan’s carrot to Karzai to provide him the diplomatic cards to use to his advantage. But this could hurt Pakistan’s interests as we have given our diplomatic leverage into their hands. The PCNS insistence on prevention of infiltration of terrorists from across the border will help reduce the influence of TTP.

The US policy makers are aware of all these scenarios. Pakistan’s adoption of these recommendations does not make it contingent upon the US to accept them as well. They have already made announcements that they do not intend to abstain from using drones if they have credible intelligence of a terrorist presence. It is hard to imagine that they will reduce their intelligence assets on the ground but they may lay low for some time until emotions cool down. On the other hand, US Aid recently announced that it would reduce the number of projects in Pakistan. These developments could be public posturing for better negotiations. For some time the diplomatic mistrust will prevail unless both sides refrain from issuing negative statements. President Zardari’s participation in the Chicago Afghan conference will be a good opportunity to remove some of the hurdles.

It is a good development that a consensus was reached in the formulation of a foreign policy framework. There are certain inherent risks in the policy. Now it is the ability of Pakistan’s diplomatic corps to sell it to our friends, partners and allies.

The writer is the former President of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce-USA and member of Pakistan Tehreek e Insaaf (PTI). Views expressed are personal and do not represent official party position. He can be reached at abdul.kundi@gmail.com

One antidote for these armchair warriors should be a compulsory viewing of a documentary aired last week on BBC Four. We in the subcontinent have been fortunate that all our pointless wars have been of relatively short duration. But to fully grasp the horrors of all-out war, World War II: 1941 and The Man of Steel, is essential viewing.

The 90-minute documentary, based on archived newsreels as well as visits to battlefields by the presenter, Professor David Reynolds, focuses on Stalin’s role in the early setbacks and the final Soviet victory. The dictator’s Russian name means ‘man of steel’ and should not be confused with our own Nawaz Sharif who was sarcastically bestowed this title because of his long and profitable association with the steel industry.

Just to put Operation Barbarossa, the code name for the German invasion of Russia, in perspective, it needs to be mentioned that it was launched with a combined force of nearly four million Axis troops. 600,000 motorised vehicles were involved, as were 750,000 horses. 95 per cent of all German casualties in the war were on the Russian front. One of the points Professor Reynolds makes is that the war was won and lost not on the beaches of Normandy following D-Day, but on the vast stretches of Russian soil.

Compared to the savagery of the battles fought in Russia, Indo-Pak wars have been almost gentlemanly affairs by comparison.

For example, three million Russian prisoners of war were captured; most of them did not return alive as they were deliberately starved to death. The idea was to reduce the population of East Europeans.

When reports began reaching Stalin that an attack was imminent, he refused to believe the evidence that was rapidly piling up.

He was convinced that Hitler would adhere to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that divided much of East Europe between the two regional powers. He also thought it would take time for the Nazis to invade and occupy France and the rest of West Europe.

In the event, Germany’s lightening blitzkrieg sliced through French defences in a matter of weeks. Hitler also saw an opportunity in the massive purge of the Red Army’s officer corps carried out by a paranoid Stalin in 1936-1938. Pivoting quickly and using the vast rail network Germany had built up, vast numbers of German troops deployed to the east in three army groups: North, Central and South.

When the storm broke on 22 June 1941, Russian defences offered virtually no resistance. Partly, they were paralysed by conflicting orders as Stalin, still convinced that there was some border misunderstanding, did not permit his troops to fire on the invaders. But the ferocity of the onslaught would have brushed aside stiffer defence. Due to the lack of Russian preparedness, around 3,000 air force planes were destroyed, lined up in large clusters on forward air bases, in the first three days. Only 35 German planes were lost in this period.

As the three German army groups broke through, Stalin’s response became more erratic. But if Stalin was constantly interfering with his generals, so was Hitler. As the Army Group North approached Leningrad (now St Petersburg), Hitler halted the panzers for a week so the infantry could catch up. This gave the Russians time to strengthen the city’s defences, leading to the epic Siege of Leningrad that lasted 847 days, and resulted in tens of thousands of civilian and military casualties.

When Ayub Khan visited Leningrad a couple of years after the 1965 war, he compared the city’s ordeal with what he termed the Siege of Sialkot in the brief war with India. I remember squirming with embarrassment at the comparison.

Army Group Centre rolled on towards Moscow, brushing aside the first line of defence. But its advance was increasingly hindered by extended supply lines and worsening weather conditions. German officers began recalling the fate of Napoleon’s armies in 1812, especially as their troops had not been issued with winter uniforms since Hitler had arrogantly assumed the campaign would end before the cold weather set in.

Meanwhile, the Soviets had moved dozens of factories from around Moscow to the east, and were preparing to evacuate the capital. A special train had been made ready for Stalin, but faced with the string of military disasters, he went to his dacha on the outskirts of Moscow and refused to answer his telephone as a frantic Politburo asked for decisions. Such was the fear he had instilled into his officials that none of them dared take decisions on their own.

Finally, a group of senior Politburo members mustered up the courage to travel to Stalin’s dacha. There they found a cowed, suspicious man who thought they had come to inform him that he had been deposed. But when they begged him to return and take control, his confidence returned. After hours of reflection while Muscovites fled their city, he declared that Moscow would not be evacuated and the German advance would be resisted to the last man.

This was the turning point of the war. Although the Germans advanced to within 15 miles of Moscow in December, the tide was turning. The cold weather was making German planes, tanks and trucks very difficult to operate. Rain made roads impassable.

Troops began suffering from frostbite. And as the German advance slowed, fresh Soviet troops and the powerful new T-34 tanks began arriving from the east.

Stalin had learned important lessons, and stopped interfering with Marshal Zhukov, and removed the political commissars from fighting units where they had meddled constantly with commanders. Communist ideology was replaced by nationalism, and the Russian people’s sense of pride in the motherland was invoked. As war production in the east geared up, more and better weapons began reaching the frontline.

Hitler, meanwhile, continued issuing direct commands instead of letting the highly professional high command to conduct the campaign. The rest, as we know, is history.

Courtesy: Dawn.com

Leaders are responsible to inform and educate the masses about an important policy decision to create a national consensus. Various security analysts, ex-servicemen and politicians have been projecting a view that America has lost the war in Afghanistan and are in a rush to leave. It is far from reality. A look at the US policy discussions and facts on the ground make it abundantly clear that NATO forces will remain in Afghanistan in the foreseeable future. To illustrate this point further, in Vietnam War US had over 58000 (approximately 10.5% of total force) dead and 303000 wounded as compared to Afghan war claiming lives of 1827 (approximately 1.4% of total force) soldiers and 15400 wounded which is much smaller damage although it is the longest war in US history.

Going forward the only change will be in the make up of American forces from conventional army to special operations, estimated around 25000 to 30000, including an intelligence apparatus. These forces will most probably be moved to bases near Iran-Afghanistan border away from major towns and cities. It is imperative that Pakistani policy makers take this probability into account and built it in their strategic options.

The other serious concern is the lack of unity in formulation of our foreign policy. Opposition leaders were part of the deliberation process of the draft but are now crying foul about it. If they disagreed with the recommendations then they should have raised their objections during the committee meetings and ascertained that it is not released until a consensus is reached. Two of the PML (N) leaders are signatory of the draft but still the leader of opposition in national assembly is objecting as if they had nothing got to do with it. Similarly, Maulana Fazlur Rehman of JUI F was member of the PCNS committee but did not use that appropriate forum to provide his insight and wisdom in formulating the terms. He is now using it to further his party’s political interest.

A country bordering with a neighbor engaged in an active war experiences serious deterioration to its macro-economic outlook. Some of these affects are loss of export markets due to supply uncertainty; increased cost of insurance; social disruption affecting domestic markets; reduced foreign direct investment; increased cost of maintaining law and order; emergence of an undocumented economy producing inflation and higher frequency of terrorist attacks on the society. It is understood that recouping these macro-economic costs will be part of any strategic options prepared by the affected nation. On the other hand micro-economic benefits are discussed and negotiated at the time of signing of subsequent agreements.

In other words fees, compensation and economic advantages are a by-product of a strategic review. To give an example, US invasion of Iraq in the first Gulf war was a strategic position but the cost of war was borne by Saudi Arabia. Former US secretary of State James Baker has written in his autobiography that while planning for operation Desert Storm to expel Iraq from Kuwait they inflated their cost of operations three times with a snap of finger that was accepted by Saudi Arabia without negotiation. In the same book he states that Turkey was compensated for the macro-economic loss arising from the war in return for its support of US operations. Similarly US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to depose Saddam Hussain will be billed to the Iraqi nation in the form of oil concessions and other advantages. Cost of NATO operations in Libya will be deducted from 130 billion dollars of Libyan money deposited in Western banks. It is understood that economic benefit is sought from a situation but it does not dictate the strategic position. The PCNS draft focuses too much on micro-economic compensation presenting Pakistan as a renter state that is willing to sell itself for a right fee. The correct approach should have been to include macro-economic gains in the form of fast track approval of free trade agreement; social sector development by allowing write off of existing loans, access to foreign direct investment and no interest loans for infrastructure development. This is apart from any fees and taxes negotiated for transit rights agreements.

The PCNS draft links Pakistan’s access to civil nuclear technology with its availability to India. We must understand that our energy independence is not contingent upon relations between other nations. As a sovereign state Pakistan should have access to all civilian technologies and should not accept any conditionality on that. Ensuring access to affordable energy is a national security issue and can not be left out to consent from other nations.

The draft recommendation promotes “Afghan-led” and “Afghan-owned” resolution of the conflict. This raises many questions. First which Afghan are we talking about the one sitting in Kabul and represented by President Karzai or the one that controls vast geographic area represented by Afghan Taliban engaged in negotiation with America. Technically it should be Kabul which means that we have given control of our foreign policy position in the hands of Afghanistan. If Afghan government blames Pakistan to be the source of its internal conflict, as they have done it on numerous occasions in the past, then we have to accept it. Afghan government is protected by US forces which means that they have influence on the approach adopted by Kabul including providing legitimacy to Indian role in Afghanistan. The correct approach would have been that Pakistan desires peace and stability in the region. As a country with a long border and historic ties with Afghan people it is important that a regional frame work is developed in which Pakistan plays its justified role as a country most affected by the continuation of conflict. Any platform that leaves out Pakistan should not be acceptable in the interest of regional stability.

The PCNS was mandated to perform a strategic review of bilateral relations with US. But the draft goes beyond this mandate and includes relationship with other important countries like China, Russia and Iran. Each bilateral relationship has to be developed based on unique cultural, economic, social and security conditions prevailing between the countries. Subjecting these relations to terms of engagement with USA is subjugating it to their indirect influence on it. Articles of PCNS recommendations pertaining to other countries should be taken out of it.

Many analysts in Pakistan are predicting that US influence is waning in the world which may be true but not evident for next two decades. US does feel pressure from a bad economy, high budget deficit, reduction in defense budget and declining morale of its armed forces resulting from long exposure to war. US policy makers realize the extent of these pressures and are actively seeking remedies. There is united front between Republican and Democratic parties that budget deficit has to be reduced their only difference is in the approach. It is only a matter of time before they find a common ground which will be sooner than later as many expect. Economic crisis in Europe has been a blessing for dollar as more money is poured in to the US economy helping it recover from a recession and reducing unemployment. American pull out from Iraq and draw down from Afghanistan will reduce pressure on armed forces as well as curtail the war expense. America is pressuring NATO countries UK, France and Germany to assume security responsibilities in Europe. This will enable her to redeploy some of these forces in Pacific, Middle East and South Asia without creating additional strain on its military strength.

US-Pakistan is an important relationship but it is stuck at transactional level because of short sightedness of our planners. We have to develop multifaceted and wide ranging relations with US that not only include security consideration but cultural and social interaction between the people. Unless we work towards it, we will have accelerated widening of gap between these old time friends.

The author is former President of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce-USA and member of Pakistan Tehrike Insaaf. The views expressed are personal and not official party position. The author can be reached at abdul.kundi@gmail.com

Thus, following the uproar after the American attack at the Afghan border in November that accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, the government kicked the ball into the long grass. The intervening four months have allowed tempers to cool while a parliamentary committee took its time to come up with a long list of recommendations.

On the face of it, there’s nothing wrong with parliament deliberating over US-Pakistan relations. In many countries, governments set domestic and foreign policies in accordance with their political agendas as well as the prevailing circumstances. While agreements with foreign powers and institutions require parliamentary ratification, day-to-day relations are not normally subject to the approval of elected representatives.

In its eagerness to avoid confrontations with the military, the media and the courts, this government has allowed its authority and prerogatives to seep away. Desperate to complete its term, it has rolled over whenever anybody has said “Boo!” The only exception is the Prime Minister’s refusal to send a letter to the Swiss authorities regarding corruption allegations against the president. This tough stand is again linked to the PPP’s desire to stay in power at any cost.

And the cost can be very high. In this particular case, by allowing a vital element of our foreign policy to be subject to the uncertainty of a parliamentary vote, this government has surrendered its right to shape the future of its relationship with the United States.

For instance, how many politicians will have the courage to vote for a continuation of the American drone programme? Saying ‘no’ would clearly be the easy and popular move. And yet, the US ambassador to Pakistan has already said his government will continue these selective attacks. Will we then shoot the drones down, incurring the very real possibility of American retaliation?One reality our media pundits refuse to face is that drones are the only effective tool to target militants that are killings coalition and Afghan forces and civilians across the border. Given our army’s unwillingness or inability to attack these sanctuaries on Pakistani soil, and our refusal to allow foreign troops to operate in the tribal areas, what options are left?

Those who clamour loudest about national honour should remember that to claim sovereignty over a territory, we must first exercise control over it. And clearly, the Pakistani state has never enjoyed full control over large swathes of the border areas with Afghanistan. Currently, Pakistani and foreign militants are the ones who call the shots there, making life hell for the locals.

So while parliamentarians might wish to score points over this deeply controversial policy, their vote will effectively pit the government and the military against the world’s sole superpower. And those gung-ho armchair warriors urging exactly this confrontation would do well to reflect on the fate of the Iraqi armed forces in both the Gulf wars.

Our talking heads on TV chat shows and our generals are both convinced that the Pakistani overland routes for coalition supplies gives us enormous leverage in Washington. This is a dangerous error. As we have seen, Nato forces have got along fine despite our blocking hundreds of trucks headed for Afghanistan following the Salala incident last November.

Currently, around 30 per cent of coalition supplies cross Pakistan by land. Pentagon has been diversifying routes ever since we began applying pressure by denying access to protest various incidents. And while it would cost a lot more to completely re-route supplies, this extra expense is minor compared to the overall cost of the war.

Again, by seeking parliamentary approval for re-opening these routes, the government risks allowing this agreement to become hostage to popular street sentiment. And if we increase transit cost, it will seem that this entire exercise was conducted to extort more money from the Americans.

Another problem with getting parliamentary approval for normal, day-to-day relations is that once it is given, policies become set in stone. Any changes will again require a debate before a joint session of Parliament. In effect, the government’s hands will be tied if it has to react quickly to changed circumstances.

In an increasingly anti-American environment, it is clear this government is seeking to guard its flanks from attacks from GHQ, the media and the mullahs. Already, the Difai-e-Pakistan has announced that it will not permit the re-opening of supply routes; Imran Khan fulminates daily against drone attacks. This government hopes to neutralise both by getting a parliamentary seal of approval.

All too often, states enter into secret understandings for mutual benefit. For example, many governments share intelligence with friends and allies, and only a handful of people are privy to these agreements. In an ideal world, these would be open and transparent, but in reality, this classified information is on a ‘need to know’ basis.

Raza Rabbani’s parliamentary committee has, among other things, proposed that the US be asked to sign a civilian nuclear deal similar to the one it has signed with India. The good senator must be joking. Washington has already rejected a Pakistani request along these lines because of our terrible record on proliferation.

Apart from Pakistan’s relations with the US, the committee has also made proposals about our links with other countries, many of them innocuous. But as we have noted, if the joint session of parliament approves this wish list, it will be difficult to step out of this self-created cage.

As citizens, we would all like to see transparency and parliamentary oversight in policy-making. But in the real world, governments need flexibility and room to manoeuvre. By outsourcing the process to parliament, this administration has further enfeebled itself.

With the advent of the industrial revolution in the mid-18th century, started the migration of rural masses to the cities to provide manpower to run factories. As increased economic activity produced a better quality of life, more and more people started shifting to the city, creating large urban centres. Later, introduction of railways, airlines, telephone and internet increased intercity commerce between these centres, which ultimately led to the creation of nation states, managed through secular democratic institutions, capital markets and an equitable system of justice. This development directly hit the viability and existence of tribes. In the 21st century tribes are almost non-existent in the highly industrialised countries of Europe and the US. But on the other hand, in the less developed countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa, there still exist tribes that compete for dominance, and that has produced some violent clashes in Africa. The war in Afghanistan is largely a tribal war, where the Pashtun tribes, under the umbrella of the Taliban, are unwilling to accept the presence of foreign forces in their land.

Pakistan is a relatively less industrialised, agricultural country with a broken system of justice, elite control of resources and business controlled by oligarchs and the patriarchal system of incentives. In this environment, Pakistan is experiencing a unique situation. It is home to the re-emergence of new kinds of tribes, defined in sectarian and ethnic terms, in its cities and villages. Each tribe has its own unique ideology and symbolism to differentiate it from others. Some wear green turbans, some checkered ones, some a unique cap, and others have a uniform. Since most political parties are controlled by certain families, they are also run like tribal interest groups. Yet others are promoting narrowly focused causes for Saraikis, Sindhis, Baloch, Pashtun, Hazara, etc. It seems with each passing day that more and more of these tribes are being added to the list.

All these tribes have their own flags, which are then hoisted on a particular territory to claim it as their own. If you travel around the country, you will see that various regions are demarcated by these interest groups. In these marked territories, competitors are slowly pushed out, either through conversion to become their members or pressured to move out.

These tribes have shortsighted agendas that they promote for the benefit of their members. Initially they start with peaceful promotion of their interests, but once they have sufficient strength in members and resources, they are willing to go to any length to protect their members without regard for justice or law. Members are so indoctrinated in their own ideologies that they become intolerant to the presence of other ideologies among themselves. The allegiance of these tribe members are not with the nation but with their own tribal interests. In many instances these tribal members refuse to accept the validity of the national flag or anthem. These groups are also amenable to foreign interference and influences that further complicates the situation. This is a dangerous development and directly hits at national unity and integrity.

The question arises as to how we can reverse this trend? There is no short term solution to solve this; a long term approach is needed to arrest this trend. First, there should be introduction of a unified curriculum for education implemented across the board in private, public and madrassah schools. Second is the implementation of a fair, expedient and trustworthy judicial system that can deliver justice regardless of caste, creed or other associations. Third, creation of political parties that appreciate democratic practices to promote their next cadre of leaders picked from the grassroots, enjoying public support. Fourth, ban on hoisting political party flags on public property, regardless of their position in government. Fifth, all civic organizations that engage in mass appeal, movements and politics should be regulated to submit their accounts, charters and membership details. Sixth, the national flag should be promoted in all public rallies rather than party flags as our allegiance should primarily be with the state rather than the narrow interest of a party or association.

A nation is as strong as its weakest member. Dividing allegiances along sectarian and ethnic lines weakens all of us. If we want to survive as a strong state in a volatile South Asian region, we have to give up our narrow interests and join hands to become one nation. A Pakistani nation gathered in the shadow of a green flag decorated by the crescent and the star.

The writer is the former President of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce-USA and a member of Pakistan Tehrike Insaaf. He can be reached at abdul.kudi@gmail.com

With the UN Security Council deadlocked by Chinese and Russian refusal to accept any resolution aimed at stopping the Syrian dictator, there are many urging unilateral action by Western states, along the lines of the Nato campaign that toppled Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi. However, that effort had the UN’s authority behind it. There is currently little stomach for mounting an open-ended aerial campaign against a much bigger and better-armed Syrian adversary.

Another grassroots model of interventionism came to us in the shape of the Internet video film Kony 2012. This 30-minute documentary went viral, with over 80 million people viewing it within a week. The movie is named after Joseph Kony, the Ugandan leader of Lord’s Army, a mob of crazed killers that was formed in Uganda 25 years ago.

Kidnapping children and turning them into soldiers and sex slaves, Kony’s gang once ruled over large swathes of Uganda. Now much diminished, Lord’s Army has lost much of its terror and its ability to do harm. The ongoing campaign to capture and try Kony is being propelled by a group calling itself Invisible Children that is demanding that the Ugandan warlord be arrested by the end of 2012.

A few months ago, the United States despatched a small force of a hundred Special Forces soldiers to Uganda to help the government in its efforts to track down Kony. Campaigners take credit for this, having lobbied Washington tirelessly to persuade the Obama administration.

Invisible Children is raising funds through Kony 2012, but has been accused of not being entirely transparent, and for ignoring the fact that Joseph Kony is now largely a spent force. Nevertheless, the highly effective campaign raises questions about the direction of online activism. Indeed, critics assert that by simply clicking their computer keys to register their protests, civil society members feel they have done their bit. Called ‘slacktivism’, this form of virtual protest removes the need to actually do something in the real world, while salving our conscience.

States often claim sovereignty when defending human rights violations against their citizens. According to this doctrine, governments are free to act within their boundaries without interference from foreign powers. For centuries, this has been the bedrock of the relations between nations. Indeed, the last century has witnessed frightful atrocities committed by governments against their own people while the rest of the world looked on.

But this concept is undergoing a sea change, largely due to the increasing awareness of what goes on in other countries, thanks to the growing power and influence of the media. After the slaughter amounting to genocide that occurred in Bosnia, Congo, Rwanda and Uganda – to name only a few countries – in the last couple of decades, the world has moved away from the concept of absolute sovereignty.

To put things in perspective, we need to recall the events of 1971 when the Pakistan army killed thousands of Bengalis in an effort to suppress the nationalist movement in erstwhile East Pakistan. Due to its ability to control access to information, and by sheltering behind the doctrine of state sovereignty, the government managed to stave off outside interference until the Indian army acted in December 1971. Such a situation could not have arisen today, thanks to the electronic media that would have exposed the army’s actions to the whole world.

The relatively new concept of Right to Protect (R2P) is gaining ground rapidly, bringing it into conflict with the notion of national sovereignty. R2P postulates that the community of nations has the right to intervene to protect the oppressed people of a country whose rulers are slaughtering them, as is the case in Syria today.

In Pakistan, the level of anti-Americanism has reached such toxic levels that anything Washington proposes is automatically suspect. Thus, I have heard many here say that what is happening in Syria is not the business of the United States. But when asked what they suggest to protect the Syrian people, they have no reply.

Mercifully, the Arab League is clear for once that it will no longer accept unending killings by the government of a member country, and has unequivocally called for Assad to step down. The Russians have gone into diplomatic contortions to shield the Syrian government, and are becoming increasingly isolated.

Even though the Syrian government has banned the entry of foreign journalists, several have sneaked in at great personal risk to report on the terrible events in Homs, Hama and other Syrian towns. At least two have died in the process. But it is the handheld digital cameras wielded by ordinary Syrians that have provided some of the most gripping footage, and it is these video clips that are feeding universal concern and condemnation.

In this age of instant communication and social media, it is unlikely that states will ever again have a completely free hand to openly slaughter their people with impunity. Many of the events of the Arab Spring have been driven in part by Twitter and Facebook, as well as by text messaging.

As we have seen, mass online movements like the one launched by Invisible Children are going to be more and more effective in shaping public opinion. Avaaz is another online community that registers protest, and has been highly effective in mobilising public opinion.

Small wonder, then, that the Pakistan government is seeking sophisticated tools to monitor and control online traffic. On the pretext of blocking pornographic and blasphemous websites, the government has called international tenders for technology that would permit it to read and intercept emails, as well as to block sites at will.

But there is clearly a desire for a more open society where people are informed and connected. This permits them to engage in ways they could not before the Internet came into being. States rightly fear this online community, and with good reason.

There is a pattern emerging from the Arab spring. A disgruntled population, unwilling to accept continuation of an unjust and autocratic ruler, is covertly supported by foreign elements to rise up against the state. In the process of the uprising the community is divided along ethnic and sectarian lines so that cleavages are created. These divisions are then used to maintain control of the government as long as it serves the strategic purpose. If not then a country is carved out into smaller pieces. This scenario has played in the past after First and Second World Wars and is now playing again as the world moves towards a multipolar arrangement. The question to ask is who is next in line after Syria? Which country has the strategic interest for the powers?

Pakistan, luckily or unluckily, lies at a strategically important geopolitical location. It is the historical gateway for the landlocked Central Asian States and their mineral wealth to be exported via the warm water ports of Indian Ocean. It is on the eastern side of Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of the oil is shipped out to the world. Strait of Hormuz was the location of recent military tension between Iran and United States. This geostrategic position can be a blessing if the nation state is strong or a worst nightmare when there are internal divisions and weaknesses. To fully exploit its geopolitical asset Pakistan required a strong cadre of leaders that has good grasp of the history of our region; a deep understanding of the founding values of our state; and the appreciation of the diversity of our cultural heritage. In the absence of these skills short sighted and narrow minded approaches would weaken the state from inside and make it vulnerable to exploitation by the foreign powers.

Unfortunately it is the later scenario that has played out in Pakistan in last 63 years of its existence. Today the ethnic divisions are wide, sectarianism is rampant, corruption is widespread and injustices happens everyday. To add to the risk is the proliferation of sectarian militancy which is controlled by a narrow minded intolerant leadership. These sectarian organizations are armed by the illegal weapons that infiltrate from the war torn Afghanistan or probably shipped in the 1000s of Afghan transit containers that disappeared within Pakistan in last few years. Add to the mix the presence of foreign intelligence officers whose presence was reported by the international media. It is now a known fact that intelligence officers from Belgium, Germany, USA and Israel are operating in Pakistan. It will hardly be a surprise if agents from other countries are also present. What these foreign elements are doing is any body’s guess but they are certainly not dreaming about a united Pakistan as their top priority.

In this environment we may be fooling ourselves to think that the unity of Pakistan is in our hands. The fact is that it is more contingent on the strategic interest of outside forces. It is fortunate that the masses of Pakistan understand the dangers and share the desire to live together. But they will be helpless in front of the violent forces that could be unleashed. In these dire times, it is the responsibility of the politicians and establishment to understand the dangers lurking around us and work together to put our house in order.

It is in our national interest to contain our ethnic identities and work progressively towards building a community where merit, justice and equal rights are granted to all citizens. We have to share more with the down trodden and bring them to par with others in terms of economic opportunities, social services and quality of life. It defies all logic that our planners ignored citizens of Sui to have natural gas at subsidized prices when it was made available to far off places in other provinces. It would be a natural consequence that fertilizer plants that use natural gas as feed would be built in Sui. So that jobs could be created for locals as well as others. But in reality fertilizer plants were built where gas was piped not found.

Sui is not a lone example there are many examples around Pakistan when natural resources were not shared with local communities. It is these kinds of policy and planning mistakes that has weakened our nation and has created a national security issue. We have many assets that could generate billions of dollars revenue for the country. Lahore and Peshawar can attract millions of foreign tourists as they are no less significant, than Greek and Egyptian cities, for their historical importance. But instead of preserving our cultural assets we are throwing garbage around it. Karachi can be a financial and trading hub for the region but instead it is a venue of targeted killings everyday and land mafias operating without any apprehension of the law. Fertile lands of Punjab and Sindh can feed half the world but are devoid of capital infusion. Large deposits of key mineral of Balochistan and Sindh are untapped because of local grievances. These are just some examples of our treasures, not to forget our human capital that expresses its talent around the world as immigrants.

Nation building requires hard work. It is always easy to divide than uniting people. Brotherhood is developed when people are willing to share the bounty and ready to die for each other. We have everything that a progressive nation need, what we lack is a true sense of brotherhood.

This article is dedicated to Sardar Akhtar Mengal for his passionate struggle for the rights of people of Balochistan while maintaining his belief in the federation of Pakistan.

As we develop our political culture we must remember that in an Islamic Republic, the Quran provides the constitution and the life of the Prophet (PBUH) is a living tradition and manifestation of this constitution. We can also learn from western democracies, which have nurtured these political traditions in the last three centuries. For instance, in England there is no written constitution but a deep sense of adhering to the traditions. It was the pressure of these customs that forced Vice President Al Gore, during the 2000 presidential elections, to abandon his constitutional right to seek re-counting of the votes in the state of Florida. He could have done that by submitting a petition to the US Supreme Court. In hindsight he would have been elected president if he had chosen that path but by doing so he would have weakened not only the legitimacy of his own presidency but also that of President Bush if the vote turned out not to be in his favour.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan is the right forum to define the constitutional articles in letter and spirit. But while it exercises this right it should consider the impact of its decisions on the development of democratic traditions. For instance, the Supreme Court’s adoption of the ‘doctrine of necessity’ has legitimised the unlawful rule of military dictators. Similarly, taking oath under a Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) has raised questions about the impartiality of the judges. Seeking written guarantee to ensure the continuity of service of government officials is another example of a tradition that could damage the balance of powers between the constitutional pillars.

In the recent political crisis, some prominent lawyers have rightfully come forward to present the case of the elected government in contempt charges while another group of lawyers have criticised this action. Ironically, some of these criticising lawyers, on the other hand, have considered it their moral obligation to defend the actions of a US citizen responsible for a mysterious memo sent to Admiral Mike Mullen. These contradictory actions from prominent members of the legal fraternity strike at the heart of developing a political culture based on principles and ethics.

The media plays a critical role in developing a tradition of politics by allowing the politicians of all stripes to debate their respective ideologies and educate people to make an informed choice. Unfortunately, one of the compulsions of the commercial media is to attract larger audiences, and hence more advertising dollars, by dramatising important political debates and turning them into personality feuds. It is the similar compulsion of being the first to break a news story that pressurises editors to make public announcements without carefully collecting and analysing the facts. A cordial meeting between high stake players presented wrongly can create disagreements and create wrong perceptions without any chances of repair. The media has to come up with a code of conduct that helps in building an environment of trust, fairness and mutual respect among political stakeholders.

Politicians have the highest and direct responsibility in building a political culture that is a guiding light for the future generations. In their personal conduct, they have to set the highest standards of adherence to the law, constitution and social values. If their car is towed for wrong parking then instead of cursing the policemen they should apologise and pay the necessary penalties. In their debates on policy matters, they have to remember that it is not a personality clash but two sides of a coin. They have to remember that their constituents understand that they have to balance the competing interests of their constituency, political party and national interest. It is not expected from them that they will always be right but that they will try their best to fully understand the issue and come up with the best solution. Personal attacks and name-calling produces a bad taste and hinders the chances of a compromise that is usually the outcome in politics.

As voters, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the politicians and assume that they have honourable intentions in presenting their policy position. If we are sure of the mal-intention of a politician, then we should not vote for that person or party in the elections as by electing them we become part of the conspiracy.

We are a four-year-old infant democracy so it is not unusual for us to make childish mistakes. But as a nation we should try to nurture this child to grow and become an adult rather than kill it at infancy.