The bombing at the Chinese Consulate

Yasmeen Aftab Ali

The attack on the Chinese Consulate in Karachi that left four dead, was owned by the Baluchistan Liberation Army (BBC News 23, November, 2018). Pakistan declared BLA a terrorist organisation in 2006. Other attacks, of lesser profile have been carried out by BLA in the past as well. The important question is who is sponsoring/funding the organisation?

One belief is that India is directly involved in funding the Baluch insurgency with Afghanistan’s connivance to be able to exert pressure on Pakistan vis a vis the Kashmir dispute. Whether or not India is supporting BLA for Kashmir’s counter pressure is another matter, However there seem to be strong indications that India is financially supporting BLA. India reportedly spent Rs 7 billion to run a campaign against Pakistan in Geneva, Canada as well as Switzerland. Posters of “Free Baluchistan” appeared seemingly out of nowhere. A letter was put up to the Permanent Representative of the Swiss government by Pakistan’s Farukh Amil , envoy to Switzerland.

In December 2010, the then director general of military operations, Ahmed Shuja Pasha, in a briefing to parliamentarians had stated that India is involved in supporting the BLA. He shared information about the nine camps for training established on Afghan border set up to train Baluchistan Liberation Army members. He also claimed “India and the UAE (reportedly due to opposition to construction of the Gwadar port) were funding and arming the Baloch. Pasha also claimed that the Russian government was directly involved in funding/training/supporting the insurgency.” (Express Tribune December 2010)

According to another report, India established a forum under the name of Hind-Baloch Forum with with Pawan Sinha as the President and Swami Jitendranad Sarswati  the General Secretary. The first gathering was held at Agra. The seminar was attended with known names like former RAW director Col RSN Singh, Maj Gen (retd) G 0 Balohi, Govind Sharma, Gen Secretary, Ganga Mahasabha, and others. Topic of the seminar was  : “How Indians can play a role in the freedom struggle of  Balochistan.” The geopolitical situation with high stakes in the region compelled US to collaborate with elements anti-Pakistan living abroad. One example was the then Congressman Dana Rohrabacher meeting with MQM leader in UK. The dissident Baluch leader the Khan of Kalat met up with the Congressman for a photoshoot. The Indo-US has a joint interest to stop China rise and to scuttle CPEC. Baluchistan is strategically placed between South Asia and Middle East-making the province vulnerable to intrigues, power politics and deviousness.

Jadhav’s arrest in Pakistan offers indisputable evidence to India’s meddling in Pakistan.

One cannot but relate the developing and present scenario to the famous Kao Plan. “The Kao Plan, which is described as a three-pronged strategy by the Indian officials, had three different operations to eliminate Pakistan. The first, known as Kao‟s Bangla Plan(KBP) was chalked out to start an insurgency movement in East Pakistan and transform the Eastern part of Pakistan into a new State. The 2nd plan, known as Kao‟s Balochistan Plan (KBP-II) was architected to create a similar scenario in Pakistan‟s Balochistan province, while the 3 rd one was relating to organize a separation movement in the then North Western Frontier Province(NWFP) and now Khyber Pakhtun Khowah to establish an independent State there and this one is known as the Kao‟s Pakhtoonistan Plan (KPP).”

IF BLA is responsible for the attack on the Chinese Embassy in Karachi….. it is going to raise tensions between Pakistan and the separatist organisation supporters and/or funders.

The writer is a lawyer, academic and political analyst. She has authored a book titled ‘A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws in Pakistan.’ She can be contacted at: yasmeenali62@gmail.com and tweets at @yasmeen_9

Can there be peace in Afghanistan?

Yasmeen Aftab Ali

The Taliban evolved from the Mujahdeen whom US helped fund way back in 1979 after the Soviet invasion in 1973. It was the era of cold war. The United States with an objective to counter power of USSR, justified the move to break the Russian hold over Afghanistan. The Mujahidin were armed and supported by US to counter the Russian troops. Under Reagan’s watch, US decided to fund Pakistan with the militancy drive in Afghanistan. Russia was driven out of Afghanistan in 1989. Hillary Clinton is on record for admitting US involvement in creation and funding of the militant force.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2CE0fyz4ys

However, Najib ullah’s government backed by Russia did not fall immediately after Russian exit. It took three years for this to happen. “I feel a certain sense of personal responsibility,” [Gates] testified before the House Armed Services Committee in December 2007.

“I was deputy director of CIA and then deputy national security advisor during the period when the Soviets did withdraw from Afghanistan, and the United States essentially turned its back on Afghanistan,” Gates said. “And five years later came the first attack on the World Trade Center.  And so, you know, one of the lessons that I think we have is that if we abandon these countries, once we are in there and engaged, there is a very real possibility that we will pay a higher price in the end.” (Extract from ‘The Atlantic’, Dec 17, 2009)

Post Russian exit Pakistan was adrift, without US support to face the negative fallout of the aftermath of the war. Then came 9/11. On September 11, 2001 when reportedly, more than 3000 died in attacks on the Trade Centre. Everyone has their favorite story and why it happened. “In his influential 2005 book Dying to Win, political scientist Robert Pape examined a series of modern suicide campaigns and concluded that they are driven not by religious zeal but by foreign occupations (see review by Peter Nolan and Patrick Belton). Pape pointed out that the secular Tamil Tigers have engaged in one of the most protracted and bloody campaigns of suicide terrorism of the modern era. Pape’s theory might explain why 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, as there was a substantial US presence in the Saudi kingdom around that time, but it does not explain the other four hijackers, who were Lebanese, Egyptian and Emirati, none of those countries were occupied by the US.” (The Prospect, September 2006)

Present position in Afghanistan

After 16 years of boots on ground, it is a fact that the American led initiative in Afghanistan has failed. Major sectors of Afghanistan are controlled by the Taliban. “The overall security situation has deteriorated over the past few years, as the Taliban have been able to influence and, to some extent, control ever larger parts of the country.” (UNGA, 10 August 2017, p. 4) Increased number of armed forces to combat the Taliban by Trump has turned out to be a failed strategy. The numbers in any case were too punitive to make a difference. In fact Trump’s military strategy of more troops, counter terror operations and use of  ‘quick-fire air strike missiles’ has all back fired with more attacks by Taliban.

The efforts over years by US forces, has led to greater fragmentation of Afghanistan state. There seems to be a contradiction within the objective of bringing peace to Afghanistan. This is a combination of flawed policies by the US as well as the conflicting interests of the stake holders.

Many elements in the given landscape are what may be deemed as ‘consistent’ whereas others are variable. Yet both must balance each other to achieve the desired goal.

Stakeholders in Afghanistan

In 2013 China launched the Belt and Road initiative (BRI) a project that aims to build physical infrastructures across roughly 65 countries including Africa, Asia and Europe. Pledging $900 billion in the project, China is poised to pump in $150 billion in these projects every year. The project includes ports, bridges, railways, and a sea route aimed to link the Mediterranean and East Africa with the Chinese southern coast. The initiative has two levels: one is called the ‘21st Century Maritime Silk Road’ (the road) whereas the other is ‘Silk Road Economic Belt’ (the belt). The latter is a number of overland corridors that aimed at connecting China with Europe through the Middle East as well as via Central Asia. The project is a huge outreach by China to the world, seeking international markets for export of goods and technology to boost their economy at the same time offering benefits to linking nations as well.

The ambitious posture of China raises the fundamental question as to whether China or the United States will ultimately determine the rules for trade and investment. Economics drives politics.

George W. Bush had supported the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) and Obama had given final touches to the plan to lay out rules for doing trade and investing in the Asia-Pacific region. Unfortunately, Trump pulled out of TPP on his very first day in office. By staying in TPP, the US would have been in a position to help countries wanting to be a part of BRI while minimizing economic risks. Another advantage the US lost is the leverage to offer good terms of trade with the US market to countries where China is the main exporter. It can no longer offer a competitive investment plan to nations as opposed to BRI or TPP.

In a speech Tillerson stated that “the Indo-Pacific – including the entire Indian Ocean, the Western Pacific, and the nations that surround them – will be the most consequential part of the globe in the 21st century” and that “the greatest challenge to a stable, rules-based Indo-Pacific is a China that has taken to reworking the international system to its own benefit.” (Oct 21, 2017). If China cannot make this project a success, BRI will suffer a severe setback.

It is not in US interest to see a China challenging US world leadership.

Afghanistan today is messed up because of overlapping foreign polices of many nations. US not being the only one.

Pakistan is a major stakeholder in Afghanistan. Sharing a porous border with Afghanistan, Pakistan has most to lose and win in a scenario of turmoil and peace respectively in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s territory has been the main route used to supply goods to NATO forces in Afghanistan. Pakistan has also been accused by Afghanistan and US officials of supplying goods to Haqqani network by the same route. An accusation refuted by Pakistan. According to a report of Rand Corporation, “Pakistan has long considered India to be an aggressive state that poses a fundamental threat to its territorial integrity. Pakistan’s goals in Afghanistan are mainly India-centric and focus primarily on undermining Delhi’s influence in Afghanistan while promoting its own. Islamabad thus seeks to maximize Taliban influence in a weak Kabul government, maintain “strategic depth” against an Indian invasion, and facilitate training and operations by Pakistani-backed extremist groups. However, these are not Pakistan’s only concerns. Other important priorities include marginalizing historical Afghan claims on Pakistani territory and (just as India desires) developing trade with the CARs.”

However, the perception of Pakistan being the villain between a relationship born out of blood and hate with India in 1947 is not exactly true. It downplays the Indian interests and negative policy against Pakistan. Pakistan has valid reasons for the fear.

India has made her moves intelligently and like an excellent chess player has positioned herself in a strategically strong position in anticipation of changing geopolitical situation and regional interests by other players. Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan lie in the north of Afghanistan, Iran to the West, Pakistan to the South-East and China to the remote East. A narrow stretch of Afghan territory separates Tajikistan from Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The importance of this region for India’s security is huge. Tajikistan is in Central Asia, a gas-rich region in which India has developed growing interests. Tajikstan also happens to be extremely anti-Taliban. India, in order to gain strategic depth, focused on the Ayni Air Base, also called as ‘Gissar Air Base’ located 10km west of the capital of Tajikistan-Dushanbe. In the post 1979 era of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan it had served as the key air base for Soviet military air transportation of its troops to Afghanistan. It fell into disuse and neglect later. Between years 2002-2010, India invested approximately $70 million in renovations, installing state-of-the-art air defense navigational facilities. The runway was further extended. This access offers immediate strategic depth in the region to India.

The second place of Indian foothold is the Farkhor Air Base; a military air base located near the town of Farkhor in Tajikistan, 130 kilometers south east of the capital Dushanbe. In 1996-97, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) started negotiations with Tajikistan to use the Farkhor Airbase to transport high-altitude military supplies to the Afghan Northern Alliance, service their helicopters and gather intelligence. At that time, India operated a military hospital in the Farkhor region. Since Pakistan does not allow India overland access to Afghanistan, India has had to channel its goods to Afghanistan through Farkhor. The IAF airlifts supplies to Ayni, which are then transported to Farkhor and onward to Afghanistan by road. More important, aircrafts taking off from Farkhor could be over the Pakistani skies within minutes.

Rand Corporation report notes, “A related fear among some Indian thinkers is that once U.S. troops withdraw, Islamabad will move to dominate Afghanistan’s political landscape, which will enable Pakistan to use the country as a safe haven and training ground for anti-Indian extremists. As the editorial page of the Indian newspaper Mint observed, Once Islamabad is assured of a friendly government in Kabul, it will unleash all the terrorists at its disposal on India. This will only mean more trouble in Jammu and Kashmir, and it will embolden terrorist groups to attack our cities with greater frequency.”

Pakistan has greater relevance in Afghanistan than India has. Therefore, the observation by Washington Post that Trump’s singling out India to do more in Afghanistan can easily backfire is correct. “India does not have the strategic tools — or the geography — to alter the strategic course of Afghanistan.” (Washington Post August 24, 2017)

Russia, in spite of suffering a defeat in Afghanistan fears a regional instability in the region. Though no report has supported accusations of Russia arming Taliban in Afghanistan, Russia’s interest lies in bringing about a political settlement between Taliban and the government of Kabul. Russia has been making efforts to develop relationship with Taliban aimed at gaining clout to achieve a negotiated settlement. The conference held in Moscow to agree upon a settlement between US, Kabul and the Taliban in November 2018 was a step to achieve this end. , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov emphasized upon the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) in Afghanistan, saying that it has relied on foreign sponsors in a bid to “turn Afghanistan into a springboard for its expansion in Central Asia”. (Al Jazeera 9^th Nov. 2018)

China is another stakeholder in Afghanistan. Increased involvement of India will lead to spiking of tension in the region. China’s aid to Afghanistan had gone up since the launch of OBOR. The aid to Afghanistan has been roughly $240 million from 2001 to 2013 alone. “China’s ambitious project of regional connectivity through Central Asia is conditioned on sustained stability in Afghanistan.” (Carnegie May 17, 2017)

Pakistan’s sustained security is important for China with CPEC being a showcase project of BRI.

Iran is reported by to have used Taliban against the American forces in Afghanistan by supporting them with training, weapons and money reports New York Times. The adage, enemy of my enemy is a friend fits well here. U.S and Iran however have a history of cooperating against the Taliban in Afghanistan.  One reason is the fear of flooding of refugees. The other of increasing narcotics trade. Tehran is also working with India on Chahbahar port to counter Pakistan’s Gawadar. Afghanistan has a population with 20% being Shias over which Iran holds influence. Trump’s imposing sanctions on Tehran was not a smart move given this backdrop.

The Mid East Institute reports, “Since the 2001 US military intervention in Afghanistan, Tehran has provided measured support to Taliban groups to achieve several key objectives: to accelerate the withdrawal of US troops from its eastern border; to use its ties with the Taliban for its geopolitical agenda in South and Central Asia as well as in the Middle East; to pressure the Afghan government for political concessions; and lately to establish a buffer zone in western Afghanistan against a potential threat of Islamic State. While the IRGC may see the Taliban’s growing influence in western Afghanistan serving Tehran’s interest, the growing instability in western Afghanistan will have adverse consequences for Iran’s security in the long term.” (March 14, 2018)

 

Can there be peace in Afghanistan?

Many questions need address to achieve a negotiated political settlement with military options failing.

Withdrawal of foreign powers itself is no gurantee for peace. Brookings Institute raises a fundamental question: “As scholars such as George Washington University’s Joanna Spear have shown, disarmament is often not essential for ending internal conflicts. But the approach begs the question of how to handle possible demobilization of larger and more powerful groups of resistance fighters—something that is generally critical to resolution of such wars. The answer has to involve a combination of registering, regulating and monitoring the forces. But it must also feature a fairly rapid effort to demobilize them. Some fighters can be allowed to join the Afghan army or police, though the bulk of them should be dispersed to other locations in the country to reduce the latent threat they might pose.” The fact overlooked here is that Taliban is dealing from a position of strength and cannot be ordered to do as told.

A settlement with representatives by stakeholders taking onboard the Taliban should be a starter. Forming a Committee to help coordinate peace in Afghanistan with the Taliban post withdrawal of forces can work only if there is honesty of purpose and long term commitment by stakeholders to get Afghanistan back on her feet. Convincing Taliban the benefit of this strategy is a key.

“Two conditions are necessary for any agenda: ending the fighting and rebuilding the state, if only incrementally. Peace and governance would reinforce one another, creating space for other goals like rooting out terrorists or halting the exodus of refugees.” (New York Times: August 24, 2017)

The writer is a lawyer, academic and political analyst. She has authored a book titled ‘A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws in Pakistan.’ She can be contacted at: yasmeenali62@gmail.com and tweets at @yasmeen_9

The Chinese balloon

Yasmeen Aftab Ali

No tangible guarantees were offered to Prime Minister Imran during his first visit to China to seek funds for his cash-strapped country. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Kong Xuanyou reaffirmed more assistance to Pakistan but that “more talks are needed.”

To reduce Pakistan’s trade deficit, Pakistan seeks unilateral concessions on 313 items from China. If agreed upon, this can lead to t $ 2-3 billion worth trade by gaining access to Chinese market with the zero rate exports. However, final decision has not yet been taken and more meetings are on table.

Pakistan seeks economic assistance from China aimed at seeking lesser loan facility from the IMF and being therefore in a favorable position to enter into a deal.

However, Gareth Leather a senior economist, says, “The IMF is going to be quite tough, and I suspect … it’s going to demand a lot more transparency on these Chinese investment projects. For the moment, nobody really knows where the money is coming from … They will want a lot more transparency, and that’s going to upset the Chinese who like the fact that nobody knows exactly how much they are making from these projects.” (Courtesy Aljazeera)

After US having imposed stricter conditions on Pakistan and suspended security assistance to Pakistan roughly around $900 million also stating that it will see the stance of Pakistan in doing more in terms of curbing terrorism {particularly with Haqqani network and Afghan Taliban} to determine its support in an IMF bailout package on Pakistan, the reliance of Pakistan on China has increased.

To what extent will China help Pakistan at the cost of annoying U.S is debatable. Many corridors passing under OBOR through European countries can be influenced by U.S. With U.S presence in Afghanistan, and Central Asia States route passing through Afghanistan, this can be a major issue for China with CAS energy reservoirs.

International relations today is a complex phenomenon. Pakistan’s approach of dismissing American concerns will not pay. The world has shifted from being a bipolar world to a multipolar one. Whereas a multipolar world distributes power to different centers, it has a major drawback. The economic, security, regional and global interests are so intertwined that it is a fine art to balance these interests. On many occasions lesser nations’ interests may be compromised on the international chess board. Flexibility in decision making can be severely restrained in a multipolar world. This is a reality.

According to Kenneth Waltz（1979）“Alliances are made by states that have some but not all of their interests in common. The common interest is ordinarily a negative one, fear of other states” (p. 166) (Extract: Understanding Paradigms and Polarity in International Relations: Paul Horness)

Pakistan traditionally has never developed its policies on a broad based level. Both regional and global. First she put all her eggs in the American basket-but rather than learn a lesson from this experience post fallout with U.S recently-we have put our eggs in the Chinese basket. Though China has been a friend to Pakistan, to expect China to jeopardize her interests for Pakistan is an unreasonable expectation. China did not stand with Pakistan at FATF withdrawing her objections to the nomination. Reportedly India offered China a greater role FATF to move past the mandatory rule that needs three members to oppose the move.

What Pakistan needs to do is to take a hard look at what it needs to do. Clear out the cobwebs from the closet and get her act together.

The writer is a lawyer, academic and political analyst. She has authored a book titled ‘A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws in Pakistan.’ She can be contacted at: yasmeenali62@gmail.com and tweets at @yasmeen_9

The Banana Cart Chronicles

Yasmeen Aftab Ali

Aasia Bibi after eight years in jail, facing death penalty, was finally released by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.  

“Blasphemy is a serious offence but the insult of appellant’s religion & religious sensibilities by complainant party & then mixing truth with falsehood in name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was also not short of being blasphemous.” – Justice Khosa.

The mother of all judgments unleashed a protest across the landscape spearheaded by the new religious right, the Labbaik party headed by Khadim Hussain Rizvi. A party that catapulted in prominence in the recent elections.

In the meanwhile, as call to bring the country to a grinding halt went out, markets closed down, anger was unleashed upon public and private property, and offices were deserted as few ventured out of the security of their homes, schools and colleges closed down, exams were postponed. There were reports of dacoits breaking in closed shops and looting goods and cash.

Reports on media were blacked out. A good step that denied gossip, rumors, half-baked analysis by self-styled analysts and most anchors projecting themselves as ‘all knowing.’ Finally on the 2^nd of November, mobiles across the country were closed down. Late evening Molana Sami ul Haq of JUI was found murdered in his Rawalpindi residence. Copy of agreement between the Labbaik Party and government was floating on social media based on five points: 1) Any proceeding for review against Aasia Bibi in a court of law is a right and government will not object to it 2) Legal steps to be taken immediately to place her name on ECL 3) All evidences against Aasia Bibi to be scrutinized closely 4) All arrested after 30^th October in protests against her to be released immediately and 4) If during protests anyone’s heart if hurt, may kindly forgive them. 

In an address, they had called the Prime Minister a “Jew child”, demanded immediate removal of General Bajwa and all Qadianis from the Army further stating that the three judges delivering the verdict should be murdered.

This is not the first time Labbaik has shown street power at the cost of hurt to the economy and complete disregard to Pakistan’s standing internationally.

Former governor Punjab Salman Taseer was killed by his own body guard for visiting Aasia Bibi in jail, vowing to help pave way for presidential pardon. Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian Minister and a vociferous critic of the blasphemy law had his car sprayed with gunfire as he left his home in Islamabad, losing his life. “This law is being misused,” Bhatti told Open magazine at the time. “Many people are facing death threats and problems. They’re in prison and are being killed extra-judicially.” (The Guardian March 2, 2011)

What is the way forward? Are deals with these miscreants the answer? There is wide spread disgust among the educated class of Pakistan directed at the state that is failing to surrender the country to them. The labor class is disgusted as they have not been able to move outside homes to earn daily wages to keep their stove burning.

“It is the government’s responsibility to first evolve a political consensus against such behavior. Then separate the trash and genuine religious parties by holding parleys and ask them depict Islam in its real spirit. And then go all out for incorrigibles. If this sequence is not followed, there can be a huge blowback,” says General ® Naeem Khalid Lodhi.

The PTI government and Army must be on the same page. Allowing space to such miscreants will lead to forcing their hand for yet more space. Whereas reacting physically to a huge crowd out may not be good tactic-going after the key leaders after the sit-in fizzles out certainly is. This country cannot be held hostage to hoodlums bent on interpreting their version of Islam that overrides the decision of the Supreme Court.

A most frightening aspect of this case is when Baluchistan unanimously adopted a resolution for the Supreme Court to review their decision that led to the release of Aasia Bibi. Unanimously! The spreading mindset of not understanding the spirit of Islam and relying on the interpretation of uneducated moulvis is frightening.

The people of Pakistan demand their country back. It is the responsibility of the government and the state to deliver. This is not about the liberal and conservative divide. This is about people across board who understand that this scenario will be repeated as the viper is being fed.

The writer is a lawyer, academic and political analyst. She has authored a book titled ‘A Comparative Analysis of Media & Media Laws in Pakistan.’ She can be contacted at: yasmeenali62@gmail.com and tweets at @yasmeen_9.