A post-mortem of the APC resolution
Now we know In Pakistan if you are powerful enough to kill, you will be elevated to be its stakeholder.
tariq.rahman@tribune.com.pk
I wish I could start this with ‘Le Roi et mort; vive le roi’ (the King is dead; long live the king) but such is not the fate of the defunct APC resolution of September 9, 2013. It neither rules nor reigns. Indeed, it was stillborn. Look at its text. It begins by invoking the long-forgotten names of its six predecessors which were also stillborn and laments that their recommendations were not implemented. Of course, they were not.
After this mention of the dead predecessors the resolution goes on to give two reasons for the trouble in Pakistan. I choose the word advisedly in deference to the wisdom of the writers of the resolution who avoid giving offence to the militants. To give them their due, they go so far as to say that the efforts of the decision-makers of Pakistan ‘of eliminating extremism and terrorism from our country’ have come to naught because, Lo and behold!, of drones and the blowback from the actions of Nato/ISAF forces. Now wouldn’t you call it both brave and clever that the APC has avoided naming the Taliban but has pounced upon the US forces with venom. And to rub the point home, the United States of America has been named when the resolution goes on to say that Pakistan will not be guided by it in any of its actions. Pakistan, the resolution boldly says, will be guided by its national interest, of which, we know, the military is the sole arbiter. Possibly some ‘safe’ civilians may also join the merry party but they will sit bewildered as the generals talk of deployment, weapons, deterrence and so on.
The APC is a triumph for Imran Khan who has consistently argued that drones make people so angry that they seek vengeance through terrorist attacks. One might question this logic but it would hardly be a popular course of action. After all, Saleem Shehzad, the journalist who was killed brutally, did write a book in which he said that the militants wished to create a state in which their own interpretation of Islam would be imposed. Further, this state would be a base to export ideas of the same kind of Islam to other parts of Pakistan and even to India, thus precipitating a war. In short, drones have not created terrorism in our country. They may not be a useful weapon of war because the people have been brainwashed to condemn them but they are not the cause of the rising power of the militant groups under the umbrella of the TTP.
The APC resolution then goes on to say that dialogue would be initiated with — hazard a guess — not the TTP. No. The dialogue will be with the ‘stakeholders’. So, now we know that Pakistan is a chartered company with shares and if you are powerful enough to kill a sufficient number of people you will be elevated to be its stakeholder. The other stakeholders are presumably the government itself, the opposition parties, the small parties with one or two seats in the parliament and the chief of army staff and DG ISI, who briefed the APC about security. But who will talk to the stakeholders who are armed to the teeth as there is no mention of laying down arms? This is left beautifully unclear but we get a hint that there will be go-betweens and one is sure they will be the likes of the Maulana or the Jamaat chief. But what exactly are they going to talk about? This, too, is not specified. If the whole exercise is to have peace, one assumes the government will talk about what it should do to appease the TTP in order to buy peace. Obviously, the government is talking from a position of weakness and the militants from that of strength. This means the government will concede territory in the tribal areas but this will not be enough as the TTP rules enough of it already. Perhaps, like in Swat, the militants will want a parallel judicial system which might be conceded. They will also want their companions released from jails and this, too, would have to be conceded. Would this weaken them or strengthen them further is for you to decide. And whether this is a prelude to a Swat-like operation eventually lies in the future but those of us who thought we will have peace soon, are in for disappointment and a long wait. As for the bold stance against the US, I am sure someone will tell Obama that such rhetoric is only for public consumption and that sensible people will keep conducting business as usual. But one thing need not have been said as it reinforces a wrong impression the public has about previous Pakistani governments. As it happens, right from Musharraf till Zardari, no Pakistani decision-maker attacked North Waziristan no matter how much the Americans paid, cajoled or hectored. And no leader, right from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to Ziaul Haq, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif ever came under US pressure to stop producing nuclear weapons. And even a profligate like Yahya Khan defied the US to make friends with China. Indeed, rightly or wrongly, Pakistanis have been guided by what they perceive to be their national interest and not by the US. This bit of flourish has been put in because the APC cannot defy the TTP so let it defy someone else i.e. the US. It looks good on paper and the people will be fooled.
So, does the APC have anything sensible to suggest? Yes: Its solution for Balochistan i.e. talk to the Baloch; do not mutilate their bodies; do not alienate them further. This is correct in principle but the non-existent provincial government cannot do it. And it is right about Karachi. Any surgical mopping-up must be fair and across the board, but will that ever happen? I doubt it.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 15th, 2013.
After this mention of the dead predecessors the resolution goes on to give two reasons for the trouble in Pakistan. I choose the word advisedly in deference to the wisdom of the writers of the resolution who avoid giving offence to the militants. To give them their due, they go so far as to say that the efforts of the decision-makers of Pakistan ‘of eliminating extremism and terrorism from our country’ have come to naught because, Lo and behold!, of drones and the blowback from the actions of Nato/ISAF forces. Now wouldn’t you call it both brave and clever that the APC has avoided naming the Taliban but has pounced upon the US forces with venom. And to rub the point home, the United States of America has been named when the resolution goes on to say that Pakistan will not be guided by it in any of its actions. Pakistan, the resolution boldly says, will be guided by its national interest, of which, we know, the military is the sole arbiter. Possibly some ‘safe’ civilians may also join the merry party but they will sit bewildered as the generals talk of deployment, weapons, deterrence and so on.
The APC is a triumph for Imran Khan who has consistently argued that drones make people so angry that they seek vengeance through terrorist attacks. One might question this logic but it would hardly be a popular course of action. After all, Saleem Shehzad, the journalist who was killed brutally, did write a book in which he said that the militants wished to create a state in which their own interpretation of Islam would be imposed. Further, this state would be a base to export ideas of the same kind of Islam to other parts of Pakistan and even to India, thus precipitating a war. In short, drones have not created terrorism in our country. They may not be a useful weapon of war because the people have been brainwashed to condemn them but they are not the cause of the rising power of the militant groups under the umbrella of the TTP.
The APC resolution then goes on to say that dialogue would be initiated with — hazard a guess — not the TTP. No. The dialogue will be with the ‘stakeholders’. So, now we know that Pakistan is a chartered company with shares and if you are powerful enough to kill a sufficient number of people you will be elevated to be its stakeholder. The other stakeholders are presumably the government itself, the opposition parties, the small parties with one or two seats in the parliament and the chief of army staff and DG ISI, who briefed the APC about security. But who will talk to the stakeholders who are armed to the teeth as there is no mention of laying down arms? This is left beautifully unclear but we get a hint that there will be go-betweens and one is sure they will be the likes of the Maulana or the Jamaat chief. But what exactly are they going to talk about? This, too, is not specified. If the whole exercise is to have peace, one assumes the government will talk about what it should do to appease the TTP in order to buy peace. Obviously, the government is talking from a position of weakness and the militants from that of strength. This means the government will concede territory in the tribal areas but this will not be enough as the TTP rules enough of it already. Perhaps, like in Swat, the militants will want a parallel judicial system which might be conceded. They will also want their companions released from jails and this, too, would have to be conceded. Would this weaken them or strengthen them further is for you to decide. And whether this is a prelude to a Swat-like operation eventually lies in the future but those of us who thought we will have peace soon, are in for disappointment and a long wait. As for the bold stance against the US, I am sure someone will tell Obama that such rhetoric is only for public consumption and that sensible people will keep conducting business as usual. But one thing need not have been said as it reinforces a wrong impression the public has about previous Pakistani governments. As it happens, right from Musharraf till Zardari, no Pakistani decision-maker attacked North Waziristan no matter how much the Americans paid, cajoled or hectored. And no leader, right from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to Ziaul Haq, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif ever came under US pressure to stop producing nuclear weapons. And even a profligate like Yahya Khan defied the US to make friends with China. Indeed, rightly or wrongly, Pakistanis have been guided by what they perceive to be their national interest and not by the US. This bit of flourish has been put in because the APC cannot defy the TTP so let it defy someone else i.e. the US. It looks good on paper and the people will be fooled.
So, does the APC have anything sensible to suggest? Yes: Its solution for Balochistan i.e. talk to the Baloch; do not mutilate their bodies; do not alienate them further. This is correct in principle but the non-existent provincial government cannot do it. And it is right about Karachi. Any surgical mopping-up must be fair and across the board, but will that ever happen? I doubt it.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 15th, 2013.