By Sherry Rehman

BEHIND the headlines of a presidential election, which has thrust Pakistan into a constitutional and political crisis, the country continues to suffer a deadly challenge to its very survival as a functional state. The growth and resurgence of emboldened extremists continues to form a dangerous backdrop to power jockeying in Islamabad.Afghanistan and Iraq, which were once cited as examples of anarchic implosion, now notch up terror death statistics equal to ours. Suicide bombings and jihadist rage rack up a 100 bodies a month now, while the political centre continues to lose its grip on the country.After Lal Masjid, which festered like an open sore in the heart of the capital, the reaction from the tribal badlands, as they have come to be known, is rocking the ranks of the one institution that was famous for withstanding all such shocks. Yet, very little has been said about the fact that no institution, including the steel-frame of the Pakistan Army, is secure even in their trenches, from such open attack.Even more disturbing is the absence of an institutional response from either General Musharraf or his surrogates in government to the series of abductions of the military’s soldiers and paramilitary forces, which should have sent red-alert signals to all policymakers.Nothing surfaces overnight, particularly messages signed in the language of terror. So why are these abductions or surrenders, whatever they are labelled, so critical to security strategy? What links do they have with the overall state of political instability in the country? And what is the nature of the confrontation, as well as the changing tactics employed by the militants?In order to understand it, let’s just look at the nature of this transmogrifying beast.Firstly, the army abductions are non-discriminatory in nature. They are not restricted to junior level officers. The 19 Frontier Corps militiamen abducted from South Waziristan in August this year, included a senior officer and a political tehsildar. The 280 soldiers abducted late last month included a colonel and nine other officers.Similarly, on Sept 1, another 10 FC Corps, paramilitary soldiers and a major were kidnapped in Fata’s Mohmand agency. These are clear proof of the growing confidence of the militants who now use abduction as an effective way of pressing the regime to submit to their demands.Secondly, the attacks now carry a clear political as well as violent message. The fearlessness of the militants stems from the “success” of the abduction of the FC militiamen in the second week of August. During the time that they held down the soldiers, the militants released a video titled ‘Revenge’, exposing the brutal beheading of one of the abducted soldiers at the hands of a teenaged boy.The video ran a commentary that ended on questions related to the ‘legitimacy’ of the Jamia Hafsa operation, the detention of A.Q. Khan, the Balochistan operation and the forced disappearance of civilians.Thirdly, the attacks now focus increasingly on breaking down the confidence and the resolve of the enemy. If the purpose of the video was to shock the audience, it did the job. According to media reports, it took a small group of Taliban fighters to force a surrender of 280 armed soldiers merely by blocking their convoy.Apparently, not a single bullet was fired by crack soldiers in the world’s sixth largest army. Yet while the much cited Pashtun factor is a serious one, when the pull of blood blocks action on compatriots from a largely Pashtun-Punjabi army, it can never fully account for the loss of will this signifies.Coupled with the recent abductions, the grisly September killings of 15 soldiers in North Waziristan send a deeply troubling message about the perceived morale of the army. It is demoralising in itself that by July this year, the death toll of Pakistani soldiers in the area had reportedly reached 1,000, since 2004 when the campaign to control terrorists’ movement along the Afghan border started. According to independent sources, the figure runs between 1,000 and 3,000, while thousands have been injured.The casualties on the national level are far more shocking. In the last two months alone, Pakistani security forces (military, paramilitary, Rangers and police) have lost 229 personnel in various clashes, and attacks by the militants. As the twin attacks on Rawalpindi, and later Tarbela show, high security zones no longer deter suicide attackers.Fourthly, and equally problematic, is the fact that the militants now operate with clear goals that footprint the pattern of international terrorist missions. To secure the release of 18 abducted soldiers, the militants reportedly extracted the release of 10 suspects who were in government custody. Sources said other demands of the militants included abolition of bunkers and check posts from Shin Ser, Ghut Ser and Nawaz Kot areas.In Fata, too, the demands seek to cut a wide swathe into the heart of the state’s advances and basically expect a return to the Sararogha Agreement of Feb 2005. This seeks general amnesty for Baitullah Mehsud , the removal of army check posts and patrol advances in the Mehsud-dominated area of South Waziristan.Clearly, resurgent militants now feel the state is in retreat, and they are in a position to make short- and long-term demands. It also speaks volumes about their claim on certain areas as pitted stubbornly outside state remit. Until a few years ago, such areas were still under the protection of tribal maliks, but are now infiltrated by the more reactionary Taliban.In areas like Swat, Tank, D.I. Khan, the Taliban started with clampdowns on women, music and culture, yet in all cases the nature of their demands shifted seamlessly from the social to the territorial and political.None of this of course, covers the release of our captured jawans who continue to be held hostage in remote areas by their tribal captors. The information curtain on this episode is very dense, but reports say that after releasing a group of 26, the militants have made the release of the rest conditional on several heavy demands.Here, too, the negotiations run like the demands of one state from another: the withdrawal of troops from ‘their’ areas, the removal of military check posts and the release of 20 colleagues held by law-enforcement agencies on charges of terrorism from various operations.All of the above signals the death rattle of a long, bloody struggle between a regime that is distracted by its own survival stakes, and armed challengers who have grafted a modern terrorist methodology onto a reactionary, dogmatic tribalism. The problem is compounded by the reality that the government has lost its legitimacy as either home-grown or accountable, and has therefore forfeited on the credibility battle so critical for domestic support in such a project.While an elected civilian government will also be challenged with the fallout of long institutional neglect of the issues involved, domestic support will feed the package of development and security responses both needed to deal with such a complex quagmire. Clear policies will send clear signals and elicit better outcomes.The last time the army attacked Fata in 2004, more than 700 soldiers were killed. The attack also left dozens of Pashtun soldiers and Frontier Corps men deserted. A few army helicopter pilots reportedly refused to bomb their own fellow citizens.This shows that the Musharraf regime’s strategy of dealing with tribal discontent and militant ire has not worked for a while. But neither has his strategy of co-opting the JUI, or subverting the spirit of the Constitution, to stay on forever holding all offices. What the Pakistan Army needs is a full-time professional COAS while Pakistan needs a free and fair election where the agencies stay out of the game. Everything will not neatly fall into place, but it will be a start on the right track.

The writer is a member of the National Assembly and Central Information Secretary of the Pakistan People’s
Party.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/09/29/op.htm#3

Labels: COAS, FATA, General Musharraf, Iraq, sherry

By Farhatullah Babar
General Musharraf's promise, this time before the Supreme Court in writing, to doff his uniform soon after his re-election as president from the present Assemblies is an apt occasion to review the promises made in the past and how they were kept. After taking over in October 1999 he titled himself as chief executive. At a press conference soon thereafter, a journalist asked him when he planned to enter the Presidency. Without a moment's hesitation the general retorted that he would never become president. He said that was ready to write there and then that he would not barge into the Presidency. But when on June 20, 2001, he dismissed Rafiq Tarar and assumed the title of president he described it was "one of the most difficult decisions," but completely forgot his pledge not to become president. In early 2002, when rumours of a referendum were doing the rounds, General Musharraf was asked in a press conference whether he, too, like Ayub and Zia before him, would hold a referendum to "legitimise" his rule. No, I will never adopt that route, he thundered. "I am neither Ayub, nor Yahya nor Zia," he yelled at the questioner. But despite his public disavowal, he went ahead with a referendum on April 30, 2002. People were asked if they would like to elect Musharraf for another five years "for the establishment of democracy, end to extremism and to fulfil the vision of the Quaid." If they said "yes" to the stated objectives he would be deemed to have been "elected" even without elections and without any opposition candidate to oppose him. Five years later, and with the benefit of hindsight, he came to regret it. "The whole exercise ended in near-catastrophe," he said in his memoirs. He also said that he realised "in Pakistan, unless there is an opposition candidate that can monitor the process, any opinion poll would end in fiasco." In a claim that would make his predecessors Ayub and Zia turn in their graves, he said the opposition was responsible for the catastrophic referendum. "I later found that this absolutely unwarranted support was helped along by the opposition in certain areas so as to provide supposed evidence for claims of foul play" (In the Line of Fire, page 168). How true that he was neither Ayub nor Yahya nor Zia. General Musharraf's stress on truthfulness, conscience and keeping promises has been saintly. Addressing the nation on Nov. 20, 2002, he recited verse 34 of the Sura "Bani Israil," "Always fulfil your promises. No doubt you will be questioned about them." To reinforce it, he quoted a verse from Sura "Al Maeda," "O Believers, act upon what you say." After employing to dramatic effect the diction of Holy Quran he said, "You can judge how far I have kept my promises. You have to decide whether I have ever told a lie; whether I have gone back on my promise." Then he looked straight into the camera, "Al Hamdo lillah (Thank God) I have always spoken the truth and kept my promise." He knew that people's memory is proverbially short. Who would remember his public pledges neither to become president nor to hold a referendum, he must have thought. On Dec. 24, 2003, after an agreement with the MMA, 160 million Pakistanis watched him looking into their eyes and speaking in a tone that seemed remarkably measured and reassuring: "I have decided that I will remove my uniform by December 2004 and relinquish the office of chief of the army staff." Although some people had advised him not to doff the uniform, he claimed in the speech, he had decided not to heed them because it would be against the spirit of democracy. Then I witnessed him address the joint session of Parliament on Jan. 17, 2004, the first and, unfortunately for him, the last during his eight years. As boos and jeers drowned his speech, he seemed to speak as if in soliloquy. I only recall his raising clenched fists in a show of bravado challenging the MPs before briskly walking away from the House, grimacing and in a huff. From the press reports the next day, however, one learnt that he had also quoted the Quaid-e-Azam, "I assure you that there is nothing more precious in the world than your conscience." For a fleeting moment I recalled the pledge he had made barely three weeks before to doff his uniform by December that year. Juxtaposing it with "nothing more precious than conscience," one felt somewhat reassured, despite a serpent of doubt lurking in the mind. But a year later we watched and heard him on TV on Dec. 30, 2004. "The Constitution allows me to retain both offices until 2007. And I shall never violate the Constitution." There was no value of the promise he had made to the 160 million people, General Musharraf seemed to tell the people on that day because the Constitution, in his view, had given him the right to keep the uniform. After all, the Constitution is the most sacrosanct document that cannot be violated even if it meant breaking a promise. "The uniform was a non-issue," he said in the same address. "Non-issues" must not bother one's conscience, he seemed to assert. I vainly searched the dictionaries to find if there were other meanings of "conscience" which were hitherto unknown to me. The lurking serpent of doubt had finally bitten and poisoned the soul as never before. On Sept. 8 this year, General Musharraf invited the intelligence chief of a very dear and brotherly country to his camp office in Rawalpindi to give us a lecture on the hidden meanings of "conscience" and "promise" that were not to be found in the archaic dictionaries. Waving a bunch of papers at the journalists, the visiting prince declared to stunned journalists that a promise made to a member of the royalty was more sacrosanct than the Constitution of Pakistan or the verdict of its Supreme Court. As the prince was lecturing in a ceremony conducted by the press secretary on the value of promise and conscience, the General must have been within hearing distance. The words "promise" and "conscience" acquire strange meanings in an Orwellian state. That is why people put no trust in them even when they are referred to before the most exalted forum.

The writer is a former senator belonging to the PPP. Email: drkhshan@isb.comsats.net.pk
http://www.thenews.com.pk/arc_news.asp?id=9

Labels: ayub, quaid, yahya, zia

Siliocn Valley, Sept. 23 (PTI): In order to manage the transition in a post-Musharraf setup and protect America's interest, the United States should refrain from helping Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to retain his hold on the power, a former US Ambassador has said.
"At some point the pressures in Pakistan will lead to a change in government, and the US will have someone else to work with," a former US ambassador and director of South Asia Program at the Washington- based Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), Teresita Schaffer has said.
"This may take a while, but the trends inexorably point in this direction. If we hold to our present course, the United States will be blamed for the failings of the outgoing regime, as well as for imposing an unpopular government on Pakistan," Schaffer, former US ambassador to Sri Lanka, said in an article for CSIS -- a private institution which focusses on International Public Policy issues.
"The United States needs to manage the transition to an eventual post-Musharraf setup, so as to protect America's enduring interests in this volatile part of the world."
The US, hoping to keep the army general firmly in the saddle and anchored to a moderate partner, backed Musharraf's long-running dialogue with former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, the former ambassador said.
Although some see a Musharraf-Bhutto deal as a transition to democracy but the general's temperament and the logic of his current situation both argue against this, she said.
"Musharraf speaks of 'unity of command' as hallmark of his leadership. That is hard to reconcile with real sharing of power," she said.
"After arresting the leadership of (Nawaz) Sharif's party, would Musharraf and the army allow his other rival to win a major electoral victory?"
The army general has certainly benefited by the divisions among his rival political parties, however, she pointed out that the US will not gain much from its political maneuvering.
"The 'kinder, gentler' government is gone; Musharraf will now rule by more autocratic methods," she said.
"There are ample indications that major demonstrations or a judicial decision invalidating his election in uniform may lead Musharraf to declare the state of emergency Secretary Rice talked him out of a few weeks ago."
Under the current course of the US government, the top American priorities -- Pakistan's participation in US' war against terrorism and its political support in stabilizing Afghanistan -- will become more of a US war from which a new Pakistan government will want to dissociate itself to show country's independence, she said.
The army, she said, will welcome the chance to backout of the "American" operations in the frontier, where they have lost men and prestige.
"Pakistan will be better able to pursue the policies that really matter to us if its leaders are free of the taint of being "Washington's creatures."
Saying that it's not too late for the US to focus on managing the inevitable transition, Schaffer said, "We will of course continue to work closely with Musharraf as long as he is in power. But we should make clear that we will work with anyone who can win a genuinely free election and will fight against terrorists that threaten Pakistan's society."
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200709230921.htm

Labels: america, army, csis, pakistan

Mohtarma Bhutto addresses Middle East Institute in Washington Says People do not want repeat of sham 2002 electionsDictatorship fuelling, not containing extremism.

Islamabad, 25 September 2007: “The people of Pakistan want change. Change of systems, change of programs, change from a climate of threat to one of stability and prosperity. They don’t want to see the sham of 2002 repeated again, resulting in an illegitimate government that has no mandate to govern and fails to give security of life or economic growth that can provide hope and opportunity to those unemployed or living on the margins of poverty”, former Prime Minister and Chairperson Pakistan Peoples Party, Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto said this while speaking at the Middle East Institute, in Washington today. A large number of opinion makers, intellectuals, scholars, lecturers and students attended the function. Former US ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain heads the Middle East Institute.

The former Prime Minister giving a detailed account of prevailing situation in Pakistan said, “It is a critical fork in the road between democracy and dictatorship and between moderation and extremism. In its resolution lies not only the future of Pakistan, but also its ability to contain the spread of militancy and extremism which now threatens the territorial integrity of Pakistan. Some argue that extremism can better be confronted by a military backed regime. It will not surprise you that I disagree with this view quite vigorously. I think it is a strategic miscalculation that has had a negative impact in the battle against violent fanaticism, posing grave dangers both to Pakistan and the larger world community. The attacks on the World Trade Towers, the Cole ship at Yemen, the embassies in Africa, the blasts in Bombay and in the Indian Parliament took place when I was in opposition”.

Regarding the military regime’s inability to control the spread of extremism in Pakistan, Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto said, “Large sections of Pakistan’s tribal areas have been ceded to non Pakistanis in the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militias. In fact, after defeat and demoralization following the fall of the Kabul, these violent elements have re-organized themselves under the shadow of the military regime. They attack NATO forces across the border in Afghanistan every day. They conduct suicide attacks within Pakistan killing innocent people. On September 20, 2007, Al – Qaeda declared war on the Pakistan army. Military dictatorship has fueled extremism. A democratically elected government enjoying the support of the people can bring peace to the people of Pakistan and eliminate extremism. Eliminate terrorism by taking extremism off the radar screen of the region. I was the civilian female leader of a democratic Pakistan that invested political capital in the tribal areas that a military regime has failed to control. As Prime Minister I brought the rule of law and the fruits of development to the people in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. My government broke up the international drug cartel’s militias that have now reasserted themselves under the Musharraf rule and are funding Al – Qaeda to have a narco-fiefdom. My Administration brought the authority of the government and the rule of law to FATA in the 1990s. And we can do it again. I would also add that as Prime Minister I took the necessary steps to close down political madrassas whose curriculum taught hatred and para-military terrorist techniques. I did this before they became a threat to the world community. I considered them a threat to the stability, security and progress of the people of Pakistan. It is only dictatorships which have used the Islamic card to legitimize their rule at the expense of the neglected people of Pakistan. Dictatorships, lacking a popular base, need the religious card, played in one shape or another, to justify their stranglehold on power. They need a crisis to obtain international support, both political and financial. Extremists have never been able to achieve more than 11% of the vote in a free election, and they will do worse, not better if free elections are held today. Dictatorship in Pakistan is not containing extremism, it is fueling. Each of Pakistan’s four military dictatorships has assaulted the major infrastructural building blocks of democracy -- by attempting to marginalize political parties, dismantling NGO’s and undermining civil society, by constraining labor and student unions, and allowing the intelligence agencies and government members to physically assault and intimidate the free press. Each military dictatorship has undermined the independent judiciary by sacking of judges. In the last twenty years, my government is the only one which has neither removed a Chief Justice nor attacked the premises of the Supreme Court.”

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto expressing grave concerns about the political element in Musharraf’s party that presided over the rise of extremism and said, “Dictatorships, by dismantling the infrastructure of democracy, allow the mosques to become the only outlet of political expression in Pakistan. The Musharraf regime has appointed extremists to head many of the mosques. For example the head cleric of the Red Mosque in Islamabad who led a mutiny in the summer of 2007 was appointed by the regime of General Musharraf. When he was caught smuggling weapons into Islamabad in 2004, he was released by the Minister of Religious Affairs. The same Minister has twice defended suicide attacks before a Pakistani audience while retracting them for the international community. When Pakistanis gather to pray on Friday in the mosques they are often subjected to long lectures by radical clerics appointed by the government even as the government claims publicly to be against extremism. The voices of moderation are exiled or imprisoned. The voices of extremism are protected. Moderate and centrist political parties, thriving human and political rights NGOs, the media, and progressive leadership within our security and intelligence agencies must be brought together to confront extremists who pose the greatest internal threat to Pakistan. This is a battle that can only successfully be waged in a democratic Pakistan by a legitimate government that enjoys the support of the people. This is a battle that I am prepared to wage, to lead and to win.”

Regarding dialogue with General Musharraf, she said, “The goal of my dialogue with Musharraf has never been personal. The goal was always to ensure that there be fair and free elections in Pakistan, pursuant to the Constitution, supervised by a robust team of international monitors and observers, as quickly as possible. My goal was quite literally to save democracy in Pakistan, to give democracy a chance to nurture and grow and strengthen.”

On the issue of presidential election in Pakistan, she said, “Once General Musharraf files his nomination papers, the PPP would decide whether it would resign from the present Parliament or whether it would boycott the elections. While the PPP would not vote for General Musharraf as President from this Parliament unless there is a constitutional amendment, it would not resign if he took the necessary steps to show that he was moving toward fair elections and a level-playing field. If General Musharraf will retire from the post of Army Chief by October 5 - given his pledge to retire before the year’s end; second seek national reconciliation by passing an immunity law for those parliamentarians not proven guilty in the last decade; and third repeal the ban on a twice elected prime minister seeking office — a law that he put into place contrary to the constitution; the PPP will not
resign from the Assemblies. The Pakistan People’s Party is holding a meeting with its ARD allies to decide this issue on October 3. Civil unrest is what the extremists want. Anarchy and chaos suits them. The political element in Musharraf's party that presided over the rise of
extremism has worked with every Pakistani administration since my government was destabilized in 1996.”

About the general elections in Pakistan, Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto said,
“My Party and I seek fair, free and impartial elections to be held by an independent election commission under an interim government of national consensus. We want a level playing field for all candidates and
parties. The Musharraf Election Commission has failed to give civil society and the opposition confidence.”

Regarding her return home from exile, she said, “I chose Karachi as the city to return to because it is the city where the founder of Pakistan rests. Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah campaigned to create Pakistan as a democracy where all citizens would be equal irrespective of their race, their religion or their gender. I go to Karachi to rekindle the dream of Quaid e Azam for the people of Pakistan. My father gave his life standing up for Quaid e Azam’s dream of Pakistan. And so Karachi is full of symbolism for me. I do not know what awaits me, personally or politically, once I leave the airport. I pray for the best and prepare for the worst. But in any case, I am going home to fight for the restoration of Pakistan’s place in the community of democratic nations. I do not fear the extremists for I have put my fate in the hands of the people of Pakistan, and my faith in God.”

Labels: Benazir Bhutto, FATA, NATO, pakistan

By Amir Mir

Commandos of the elite Special Security Group (SSG) had gathered as usual at the mess of the Tarbela Ghazi army camp, 100 km south of Islamabad. It was the night of September 13, 2007, and nothing was out of place: the officers sat down for their dinner, talking shop and cracking jokes. As the evening progressed, an 18-year-old boy entered the dining hall, mingling with the mess employees. The boy gingerly walked to the middle of the hall. Heads turned at the crazed cry of Allah-o-Akbar. Then came a blinding flash and a deafening bang, followed by three successive explosions as the gas cylinders in the adjoining kitchen also exploded. The pall of smoke soon lifted to reveal headless bodies, torn limbs, a chilling death toll of 22 highly trained commandos of the SSG, to which General Musharraf himself belonged, and which was specially trained by the US Special Forces for carrying out covert operations and counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations across Pakistan, especially in the trouble-ridden tribal belt of Pakistan. The suicide bomber’s sister, it was later found by the investigation agencies, was killed during the infamous ‘Operation Silence’ carried out against militants in the Lal Masjid by the Karar Company of the SSG Brigade. Two months before suffering 22 casualties in the Tarbela Ghazi suicide bombing, the elite SSG had lost 10 of its commandos, including a colonel, during an intense week-long gun battle with the fanatic clerics and students of the Lal Masjid and its adjacent Jamia Hafsa religious seminary. The incident is being described by analysts as the biggest single loss suffered by the SSG during peace and war time since the creation of Pakistan. Barring the Balochistan insurgency in the 1970s, Pakistan’s history has never witnessed such a staggering number of security officials slain in such a short span of time as in the tribal areas. After suffering such a huge loss, it is not hard to imagine the disheartening effect on the morale of the elite force commandos, who used to take pride in their association with the SSG. The catastrophe has happened at a time when the country is being ruled by the first commando president – Chief of Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf.These were not the only losses suffered by the once fearless SSG in recent times. It has suffered severe losses in the Waziristan tribal region as well. In the second week of September, at least 15 SSG commandos went missing after being airdropped in the forested Shawal valley in North Waziristan to carry out a military operation against the Islamic militants. Their bodies were eventually retrieved through a prayer-leader in North Waziristan, who urged the militants to hand over the remains of the soldiers to him.The Tarbela Ghazi deadly suicide bombing was not an isolated act of terrorism. From the time Operation Silence was launched against the Lal Masjid (July 3-10) and hailed as a success, the Pakistan Army has been racked by suicide bombings, ambushes and abductions. Glancing at the figures since July 2007, it transpires that 396 people have been killed and 886 others injured between January 1, 2007 and September 15, 2007 in 36 incidents of suicide bombings across Pakistan. Those killed since the launching of the operation include 121 military and paramilitary personnel, 102 policemen and 98 innocent civilians. Between January 1, 2007 and July 3, 2007, before the Lal Masjid operation was launched in Islamabad, 75 people were killed and 201 injured in 12 incidents of suicide bombings across Pakistan. After the launching of the Lal Masjid operation on July 4, a total of 321 people have been killed and 685 others injured in 24 incidents of suicide bombings all over Pakistan.Worryingly, the flurry of attacks on the army is no longer confined to the tribal areas on the Afghan border, where the soldiers and the militants have been battling it out since 2002, but has had its devastating echo in and around Islamabad. For instance, twin suicide attacks on September 4 killed at least 33 in the garrison city of Rawalpindi – the first on a bus belonging to the ISI, the other targeting the car of an army officer. And to think the ISI’s brief is to track and bust terror networks. The spate of attacks on the security forces has greatly demoralised the soldiers, eroded the traditional respect for the army and bolstered the resolve of the Islamic militants. The bloody suicide bombing at the Punjab Regiment’s training ground at Dargai (on November 8, 2006 that killed 42 recruits), the attack by a suicide bomber riding a car near Miranshah in North Waziristan (on July 14, 2007 that killed 26 soldiers), another suicide bomb attack inside the Kohat cantonment mosque (on July 19, 2007 that killed 15 military men), the Kharian Cantonment suicide bombing (on March 29, 2007 that killed three army soldiers), two suicide bombings targeting two military convoys at two different places in North Waziristan (on August 24, 2007 that killed seven soldiers), two more suicide attacks near the GHQ – heart of the Pakistan Army (on September 4, 2007 that killed 33 people and wounded 66, many of them staffers of the ISI), all point to the hard fact that Islamic militants carefully select their targets and do much homework to cause maximum damage to the Pakistan Army.The spate of suicide bombings is still on, with the most recent target being the Tarbela Ghazi headquarters of the quick reaction force of the SSG. That the attack occurred in one of the country’s most secured areas is shocking. Tarbela is a highly sensitive area because of the location of the country’s biggest dam, known as the Tarbela Dam or the National Dam. It was the first ever incident of its kind in Tarbela Ghazi, which is far away from the troubled tribal areas of Waziristan. Amidst all these suicide bombings against the security forces, the militant force of Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan on August 27 took hostage around 300 soldiers of the Pakistan Army in the tribal area of Momi Karam, dominated by the Mehsud tribe. The soldiers were travelling in a convoy of trucks when the militants hiding in the surrounding mountains intercepted the fleet near Wana and took them hostage. The troops did not offer resistance when challenged by Mehsud’s men, primarily because of their low morale that is coming under intense scrutiny, though Musharraf has repeatedly claimed that he is defending Pakistan’s vital national interests by battling al Qaeda and the Taliban-linked terrorists. Then there are media reports that hundreds of Pakistani soldiers deployed in the Waziristan tribal region have refused to fight against the militants in the area, saying they do not want to fight against their own people. According to well-placed military sources in Islamabad, those mediating the release of over 300 soldiers of the army, taken hostage by the Mehsud militants in South Waziristan, have said the captured soldiers had actually surrendered voluntarily as they were not ready to fight against their fellow Muslim brothers. Quoting one of the 26 surrendered soldiers from the paramilitary Frontier Corps, who were released by the militants on September 20, a military official was quoted by a foreign news agency as saying that he did not desert the force because he feared death. The report said, “He [the military official] actually did so because he was not sure whether the ongoing fighting in Waziristan was Islamic or not. The man, who refused to serve in the tribal areas, claimed that the same query was haunting many other soldiers and the confusion was stopping them from putting up a tough fight against Islamic militants in the tribal area.” Many retired Pakistani generals have already questioned the will of the soldiers to fight what they believe to be ‘someone else’s war’, chiefly because they are not convinced of fighting against and killing their own people. The morale of the army troops deployed in the tribal areas can further be gauged from the fact that many of them usually avoid wearing military uniforms nowadays in the tough areas of Swat, Tank, Dera Ismail Khan, Mohmand, Bajaur, Mir Ali, Miranshah, etc. After suffering the heaviest casualties ever sustained by the Pakistani security forces during peacetime, many security personnel in the tribal areas have gone on long leaves. With the attacks on the security forces now becoming menacing by the day, it is just a matter of time that anyone, just about anyone, wearing a military uniform will be attacked. These developments must be highly disturbing for the army as an institution, which must realise that the costs of keeping Musharraf in power evidently outweigh the benefits.The writer is the former editor of weekly Independent, currently affiliated with Gulf News and the Spanish News Agency EFE as its Pakistan incharge
http://www.thepost.com.pk/OpinionNews.aspx?dtlid=120509&catid=11

Labels: commandos, musharraf, ssg, us special

By Sherry Rehman
Despite the limited time the PPP governments had, their role in pro-actively pursuing a pro-women agenda is acknowledged even today by independent organisations that work with public sector bodies on gender mainstreaming projectsMs Rafia Zakaria wrote an article called ‘BB and Pakistani women’ (Daily Times, September 8, 2007) which raises some key questions about the prospects of improving women’s lives in case Ms Benazir Bhutto comes back to run the country. This article seeks to address her queries as well as quibbles. While speculation about the future governmental set-up continues, increased media attention coupled with an excessive information camouflage has blurred a number of realities associated with Ms Bhutto and the PPP. Ms Zakaria’s analysis of Ms Bhutto’s agenda for women seems to have fallen victim to the same trend. This view ignores a number of realities that mark Ms Bhutto’s two prime ministerial terms.Anybody who writes about the PPP’s performance in the 1990s should bear in mind three facts. First, Ms Bhutto came to power through the democratic route, and will always choose that path. A democratic system obliges the executive to work together with all other organs of the state while making and implementing decisions. Yet, despite the constraints of a coalition government, it was the PPP under the leadership of Ms Bhutto which introduced the first bill against honour killings in the Senate, only to find it defeated by its own allies.It was the PPP that initiated the process of dismantling the Hudood Ordinances bit by bit, via an executive order as well as acts of parliament in 1996, when whipping was abolished as a punishment and all women booked under the Hudood Ordinances were released and rehabilitated. Ms Bhutto’s government also instituted the National Commission on the Status of Women under Nasir Aslam Zahid, which paved the way for the Hudood Ordinances repeal debate. Second, in 1988, the country was reeling from the autocratic rule of General Zia-ul Haq, who had instituted the worst human rights regime ever experienced by Pakistan. Even in those difficult days, the PPP was at the frontlines of the struggle to reverse the draconian laws introduced by Zia, its membership on the streets swelling the ranks of the new women’s groups that had come up in resistance to the reactionary politics of the General. And, third, it was the PPP again in 2002 that, with the specific backing of Ms Bhutto, introduced the first legislation to completely repeal the Hudood Ordinances. In fact, it was the PPP’s constant pressure through private members’ bills that led to the government finally responding with a Women’s Bill, which again was steered and amended in committee by the PPP. As most will recall, the party made history by voting on issue with the government when all others voted against, while the treasury benches had 44 votes absent. Despite the limited time PPP governments had, their role in pro-actively pursuing a pro-women agenda is acknowledged even today by independent organisations that work with public sector bodies on gender mainstreaming projects. It was Ms Bhutto’s government that set up a Human Rights Ministry to watch and investigate human rights abuses, particularly those against women. In February 1996, in a move acknowledged by all women’s activists in the country, and against a cacophony of strong right-wing pressures, Pakistan ratified the United Nations’ Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This was a major achievement of the PPP government on international covenants related to the rights of women, and to this day is used as a critical benchmark by rights activists when measuring government performance in this area.Much is made today, as it should be, of the paucity of crisis centres for women in Pakistan. The first such centres were established by the PPP government under Ms Bhutto. Legal aid centres and burn units in hospitals were instituted in response to domestic violence complaints for the first time in Pakistan, and as the government was dismissed, a Domestic Violence Bill fell through.Before the government could get dismissed, however, the largest credit programme was established to facilitate easy credit for women, a full-fledged Women’s Bank and the first vocational training programme for women were set up. Targeting public health as a poor woman’s burden, the PPP government set up the largest public sector programme of Lady Health Workers, which established a vast network of 133,000 health practitioners to service rural and urban households in Pakistan, exclusively to cater to women’s health needs as well as to address reproductive health issues. These women health workers today constitute all that is left of Pakistan’s public health sector backbone, and is touted by all governments as Pakistan’s showpiece health programme. This is not all. After the institution of a job quota for women in public service, which was quietly reversed by the current government, women judges were appointed in High Courts and District Courts, and a network of women’s police stations was established.For the nay-sayers who say a female head of government is shackled with the problem of appearing too progressive and ends up with an appeasement agenda, the PPP under Ms Bhutto has never blinked when confronted with women’s issues as sold by the religious right as a private matter. The state intervened in all sectors possible for women and it will again. In Pakistan, even sports and culture are arenas fraught with reactionary discourse. Yet, under the PPP government, a Women’s Sports Board was established to promote women’s participation in sports and prepare Pakistani women athletes for international competitions. The First Islamic Women’s Games were held in Pakistan.Higher political participation for women is credited rightly to the current government, but it was the PPP government which was the first to move an amendment in the constitution for the restoration of women seats in National and Provincial Assemblies when it was dismissed in 1996. The party remains committed to a minimum 33% quota for women in all legislatures. But here is why a civilian, elected government with grassroots support is needed to bring change. The problem is that even piecemeal legal reforms can never really take root in a climate of fear, where the rule of law is every day institutionally subverted by a military dictator. Under democratic dispensations, no matter how dysfunctional they were, no journalists were killed for telling the truth, and no women rape victims were shockingly cast as “opportunists” by the head of state for seeking public sympathy in order to emigrate, as was done in the case of Dr Shazia Khalid. Under the PPP government, no churches could be burned down and no religious minorities persecuted with the kind of impunity we see today. Last but not least, Mukhtaran Mai could never be prevented from leaving the country for a women’s conference. I do hope this would satisfy Ms Zakaria, at least as a good beginning.Sherry Rehman is a Member of the National Assembly, and Central Information Secretary of the PPP

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C09%5C14%5Cstory_14-9-2007_pg3_3

Labels: bhutto, member, national, ppp, sherry