Taking President Obama’s prediction as a challenge

President Obama's foresight regarding the continued instability in Pakistan must not be taken lightly

During his recent State of the Union speech, President Barack Obama made a significant remark that “even without ISIL, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world”. Apart from naming other regions and countries, he specifically included Afghanistan and Pakistan. The negative comments invited a strong response from Sartaj Aziz, who blamed the present instability on US faulty policies in the region and also forcefully maintained that Pakistan is set on the right course, and hoped to prove the US president wrong. This was not merely a politically-motivated response, but could be substantiated by any measure, including hard statistics that Pakistan’s security situation has improved relatively. Pakistan has made appreciable strides in pushing back the insurgents in North Waziristan and cleared most sanctuaries in the tribal agencies. In addition, progress has been made in eliminating terrorist cells in Karachi and there is relative calm in Balochistan. Clearly, under these criteria, Aziz’s optimism is justified.

But what President Obama is foreseeing regarding the continued instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he felt would last for decades, should also not be taken lightly. A hard, dispassionate assessment of Pakistan’s weaknesses and gigantic problems spans a huge canvass that roughly includes the poor state of governance, weak institutions, a dynastic and corrupt political leadership, an imbalance in the civil-military power structure, proliferation of radical thinking in both madrassas and public and private schools and colleges, a high level of illiteracy, patronage of militant organisations by state institutions, ethnic and sectarian prejudices, a population explosion, the weak state of the economy and a turbulent and anarchic neighbourhood. Efforts to improve in any of these areas are either non-existent or minimal.

The over-publicised claim by both the civilian and military leaderships that all militant groups are being targeted without distinction is not entirely correct. We see Jaish-e-Mohammed’s Masood Azhar and Jamatud Dawa’s Hafiz Saeed continue to preach jihad in broad daylight and the Lal Masjid cleric Abdul Aziz proudly claiming support for the IS. The government’s weakness is further demonstrated by its inability to muster courage to implement the Supreme Court’s decision against Mumtaz Qadri, the killer of Governor Salmaan Taseer. Militant organisations and many of their leaders, who have been proscribed under the UNSC Resolution 1267, operate freely. In addition, the government’s effort at blocking terrorist funding has been only partially successful. There has been a half-hearted attempt to reform madrassas and review textbooks and curriculum. The US and Afghan governments continue to complain that our government has failed to act firmly against the activities of the Haqqani network and the Taliban leadership.

The National Action Plan (NAP) was supposed to be a comprehensive strategy to counter terrorism and violent extremism. Sadly, only the controversial military courts have been established by amending the Constitution and the Karachi operation has been partially successful. The rest of the agenda has received scant attention. Besides, it is troubling to find the heavy reliance on the military and the use of force to counter terrorism. It was expected that there would be equal emphasis on improved governance, and strengthening of the justice system and civilian institutions. The civilian leadership, due to its poor performance and disinterest in these areas, has yielded additional space to the military, which continues to expand its influence.

Shifting most of the responsibility of combating terrorism and violent extremism primarily to the military has its downside. The role of the police needs to be expanded in counterterrorism. Indeed, the police is not properly trained, poorly motivated and under-resourced. But this state of affairs cannot continue and its shortcomings have to be addressed. Paramilitary forces, however well-trained and dedicated, cannot be substitutes for an effective police force. They should, at best, be used as an interim arrangement for a year or two to cover the gap while the police force is being trained, modernised and equipped to undertake their responsibilities.

There is little progress on measures to protect judges, lawyers and witnesses, a prerequisite for civilian courts to try cases of terrorism. Instead, the government has taken the easy course of handing over the responsibility to military courts and there are genuine apprehensions that it will not be able to dispense with them after the lapse of the three-year period and seek an extension of the constitutional amendment.

The failure to manage the Afghan-Pakistan border properly is another major source of instability. Unless Pakistan is able to regulate and control the western border, it will not be able to insulate itself from the chaotic conditions of Afghanistan and cross-border infiltration of militant and terrorist groups.

The role of the interior minister is critical in combating terrorism. It is disquieting that the present relationship of Chaudhry Nisar with his cabinet colleagues is worrisome to say the least. We only hope the prime minister, in the larger interest of the country, will not continue to overlook this dysfunctional aspect of the cabinet.

The ISPR tweet regarding General Raheel Sharif’s categorical statement that “Pakistan Army is a great institution. I don’t believe in extension” is a welcome development. Knowing General Raheel’s background and the values he stands for, this announcement was not surprising. His contribution in the fight against insurgency and raising the professional competence of the army has been significant and will always be remembered. It is heartening he realises that it is in his institution’s and country’s interest that he does not seek or accept an extension in service. He also did well to make an early announcement as this would squash rumours that would have kept mounting as the date of his retirement approached. However, from now on speculation about who the next army chief would be, will become a favourite pastime for our chattering classes. Hopefully, in the transition of military command, the prime minister would make a serious effort to regain the democratic space he has yielded to the military during General Raheel’s tenure.

Proving President Obama wrong would be a huge challenge but by strengthening institutions and pursuing the right national policies, there is no reason why we as a nation cannot succeed.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 27^th, 2016.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.