Anti-terrorism is Pakistan’s job

It’s ten years since the symbols of American economic and military might were hit. The attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Virginia claimed nearly three thousand lives and impacted enormously on the world’s largest economy. It was arguably the most dramatic happening of the last half-a-century.

9/11 also reshaped US foreign policy. Counter-terrorism became the principal criterion for the definition of American allies and enemies. This also forced the US to redefine its relationship with Pakistan. Osama bin Laden, whom Washington regarded as the prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks, was believed to be operating in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The Taliban were the creation of Pakistan and until then had enjoyed friendly relations with Islamabad. In fact, Pakistan was one of three countries which recognised the Taliban regime.

American policymakers knew well that without Pakistan’s support it would not be possible for their country to crush the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. That is why, immediately after the 9/11 strikes, the US confronted Pakistan with the stark choice of “either you are with us or against us”. It was a defining movement in Pakistan’s relations with the USA. Either they would help the US crush the Taliban and Al-Qaeda – for whom there was a lot of support in religious circles and the border areas and at least some measure of support in the top brass of the military itself – or be dubbed its opponents. There was not to be a middle course. Pakistan decided, whether rightly or wrongly is debatable, to side with the Americans.

As acknowledgement of Pakistan’s vital role, President George Bush announced a $3 billion aid package for Pakistan over five years, in addition to debt relief of $1.5 billion, and lifted sanctions clamped on the country in the wake of its nuclear explosions and the coup staged by Gen Musharraf. For the next seven years the US provided around $12 billion aid to Pakistan, the bulk of which was security related. The grant of the status of a major non-Nato ally was also an acknowledgement of Pakistan’s contribution to the anti-terrorism efforts.

The US administration put its full weight behind Pervez Musharraf’s military regime and saw to it that the general remained in the saddle until, of course, the White House was convinced that it could safely bet on the new horses in Pakistan.

For Pakistan the consequences of being the epicentre of the war on terror have been disastrous – physically, psychologically and economically.

Citing the National Crisis Management Cell, The Economic Survey of Pakistan (2009-10), reports that between 2002 and April 2010, a total number of 8,141 incidents of terrorism took place in the country in which 8,875 people perished and another 20,675 were left injured.

The latest issue of the Survey puts the cumulative economic cost of the war for Pakistan during the last decade at $67.93 billion. The cost includes the destruction of physical infrastructure, compensation paid to the victims of acts of terrorism, the rise in security-related expenditure at the expense of developmental spending, the fall in economic output, revenue, investment and exports, the loss of jobs and shutdown of businesses and the increased cost of doing business. These figures are a few months old. Hence, the total human and economic loss must be even higher.

On the psychological plane, the cost is incomparably devastating. Apart from the countless women rendered widows and children left orphans, there is an acute sense of insecurity, with the war being waged in mosques and shrines, markets and streets, campuses and offices, apart from our mountains and plains.

Who bears the responsibility for this state of affairs? Al-Qaeda, which masterminded 9/11? The Americans, against whose policies Al-Qaeda reacted and who have been relentlessly pursuing their antagonists on Pakistani soil? The ruling establishment of Pakistan, which first played the role of fronstline state against communism in the 1980s and have been playing the same role against the militants for last ten years? The clergy which has always maintained that Pakistan was meant to be a citadel of Islam and that it’s the responsibility of the government and people of Pakistan to be at the beck and call of Muslim resistance movements wherever they spring up? The Taliban, who have turned this country into inferno in the name of Islamisation of society, and their mentors and apologists? The present rotten, unjust socio-political system, which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, the mighty mightier and the weak weaker? Or society itself, which is still in a state of denial and is not prepared to own the war on terror despite facing its enormous repercussions?

While people will answer the question differently and point the finger at one element or another, a few points need to be taken into account. One, whatever the reason, it’s Pakistan which is the epicentre of terrorism. Was it mere coincidence that, of all the places in the world, Osama bin Laden found refuge in this country for a good many years? Two, the militaristic view of Islam is still exceedingly popular in our part of the world and we labour under the delusion that the forces of kufr want to crush us for being the only Muslim nuclear power. Is it surprising then that the jihadis trained on our soil have made their way into India, China, Chechnya and elsewhere, and in turn we have received militants from different parts of the world? The jihadis’ infiltration into China is the main reason that Beijing no longer supports Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.

Three, blaming America for the instability and violence in Pakistan will not solve the problem. Nor should we expect Washington to change its strategy for the sake of Pakistan. No country will do that. The US counter-terrorism policy is dictated by what it perceives to be its national interest. The basic responsibility for defeating the militants remains our own, because it is our society which is bearing the brunt of their activities.

Finally, militancy needs to be fought on both the ideological and socio-economic fronts. There has to be a real fight against poverty and injustices, so that people do not become tools in the hands of terrorist outfits out of desperation and frustration. That said, it’s important to highlight the fact that there is no necessary connection between terrorism and poverty. People poorer than us inhabit this planet without taking to militancy. Hence, the diabolical ideology that underlies terrorism needs to be condemned with full force.

EFFECTS ON PAKISTAN:

Afghan refugees US military strikes the NWFP influences. Taliban are increasing. Taliban elements and their mentors Al—Qaeda, moved into the major cities.

It has forced the state to station many divisions of army for law and order at the cost of earning the opprobrium of “use of force” against terroists in SWAT and FATA. The loss of foreign direct investment and tourism. Visa and job opportunities for Pakistan is from these areas to the Middle East are being increasingly curtailed.

The rugged border terrain of nearly 1,500 Km at the height of 10,000 to 15,000 feet, with no communication infrastructure, has enabled the foreign elements to fully exploit the situation. Pakistan has dispatched almost 70-80,000 of troops to the tribal regions.

This preparation has to be dispelled that fight against terrorism is a now form of warfare where the attackers are insidious, elusive and yet create sense of create sense of intimidation and terror.

On the political side, Pakistan’s international political isolation ceased immediately and it assumed the role of frontline state yet again. Despite the AQ Khan nuclear proliferation crisis, the US gave Pakistan the status of ‘Major Non-Nato Ally’, offered Kerry-Lugar Bill.


Debate in Pakistan either war against terror is ours or of US.

Acute economic crisis. Pakistan has adversely affected by terrorism than any other country of the world. Although, Pakistan is a victim of terrorism is being labeled as a state sponsoring terrorism.

Lot of time and energy of Pakistan is being consumed to make world understand that Pakistan is not the sponsor of terrorism but it is a victim, and while doing so it is being forced to make compromises on vital interests. Even the friendly countries like China, Iran, and Indonesia started looking towards Pakistan with suspicion.

As far as NATO operations in Afghanistan are concerned, they are limited by inadequate number of troops, and with difficulties of terrain primitive tribal culture, weapon stocks and drug money. The Taliban are resurgent. In fact it is a cumulative effect of many factors: due to divisions of resources to Iraq war, NATO’s insufficient level of troops, rise in opium trade, limited control of Karzai government around Kabul, poor governance, high level of corruption and unemployment, lack of reconstruction, rise in violence and rampant warlordism. A nagging perception in some quarters in the West, especially the US, that Pakistan is not “doing enough”.

Solutions:

In fact, no military solution from the air or ground will ever be found to solve the deplorable conditions – grinding poverty and benign neglect – that breed violence, hatred and rebellion.

Obama should avoid Bush’s Policies of use of force to avoid further military and financial losses.

Involving UNSC & OIC would be in the interest of US to minimize anti US sentiments in the Muslim world.

Interfaith dialogue can clear the misconceptions against each other.

Solution of issues like Kashmir and Palestine The Muslims should discourage extremist groups in their social life. Madressa reforms Positive role of world media

“There is no silver bullet that can address global terrorism in all its complexity,” writs

Maleeha Lodhi in “The Threats of all Threats”.

Every continent has seen acts of terrorism. Perpetrators belong to diverse backgrounds, ethnicities and faiths.

She proposed a broad-gauge counter-terrorism strategy based on nine ‘Cs’.

1) Comprehensiveness: A comprehensive, multifaceted strategy is needed that encompasses law enforcement, political, social, cultural, financial and diplomatic measures.

2) Consensus at the global level is required on a strategy incorporating both short-and long-terms

3) Causes and conditions that breed, encourage and contribute to terrorism must be objectively identified and addressed.

4) Confusion about the definition of terrorism and mixing every Muslim with terror is discouraging.

5) Capabilities must be improved and national capacities strengthened across he spectrum to pursue terrorists and prevent terrorist activities.

6) Cooperative rather than coercive national and international strategies should be pursued so that the reaction to counter-terrorism measures does not compound the problem.

7) Civil liberties and principles of good governance must be upheld in the fight against terror, because real security can only be achieved through respect for human rights.

8) Civilization and cultural: dialogue and understanding including engaging at the battle for the hearts and minds, must become an integral part of global consensus-building to evolve a joint strategy. Such a dialogue must be premised on the understanding that the root cause of friction between civilization are not primarily religious differences, but mainly issues of power, competing political and economic interests, policies and misunderstandings.

9) Conference at the summit level must be called to craft and coordinate an approach based on these elements.

10) There are two dimensions to the problem in Afghanistan- strategic depth and nation building.

11) Militarism was dominant in George Bush’s policy and it was not a comprehensive approach.

12) President Obama’s policy talks about a regional approach and China is important part of this regional concept.


13) The primary reason for the unpopularity of the government in Afghanistan is lack of social development activities.


14) Afghanistan needs to have a force which is sustainable in its own budget.


15) Afghanistan problem cannot be solved in isolation and there is need for comprehensive engagement with getting confidence of Pakistan by stopping Indian interfernce in Afghanistan.


16) The role of SCO in the context of Afghanistan should also be considered while studying this problem.

CONCLUDING REMARKS:

Today terrorism is complex in scope, even across the continents non-state actors. Countering this multi-headed phenomenon require multi-pronged and sustained policy by the governments across the globe. Deprivation and an unjust political and socioeconomic dispensation rapidly give rise to frustration. The remedy lies in a tolerant and democratic society. However to enable the United Nations to evolve an effective strategy for this purpose it I imperative to define terrorism that may be acceptable globally. Also make a distinction between terrorism and legitimate struggle for freedom and right of self-determination, the denial of which can breed terrorism and a threat to “peaceful co-existence”. But Dr. Martin Luther King logically said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Source: TOPPERS

Terror attack on Karachi naval station, 10 killed

Click to Expand & Play

Karachi:  Suspected militants stormed a naval base in Karachi late on Sunday night, rocking one of the nation's heavily guarded military installations with fiery explosions. The attack, which comes just three weeks after the death of Osama bin Laden, has left at least 10 people dead.

According to the reports, the Pakistan Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack. An emergency has been declared in all hospitals across the city.

The unilateral American raid that killed bin Laden had triggered a strong backlash against Washington, as well as rare domestic criticism against the armed forces for failing to detect or prevent the operation.

The terrorists used rocket propelled grenades to damage and destroy several warplanes including the Pakistan navy's premier anti-submarine attack jet - the US made P-3C Orion.

"The nation should support our forces and condemn Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are against Pakistan and they're a threat to Pakistan and today nobody should have any doubt that this attack is actually an attack on Pakistan. I believe that this is an attack on Pakistan. And this is now a responsibility of every citizen of Pakistan to condemn this act and also condemn those who are supporting Al Qaeda and the Taliban and issuing statements in their favour, and praying for them. I believe that they are not Muslim and neither are they well- wishers of Pakistan." (Watch)

Malik also said that heavy contingents of special naval and military commandos and other security forces have been rushed to the base to control the situation.

A Pakistan Navy spokesman, meanwhile, confirmed that two naval officers were injured in the attack.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani reportedly spoke to the heads of all three armed forces asking them to take immediate action to control the situation.

Gilani also condemned the attack, saying such a "cowardly act of terror could not deter the commitment of the government and people of Pakistan to fight terrorism."

The terrorists, numbering between 12 and 15, targeted PNS Mehran where some Chinese engineers were reportedly engaged in work within the Faisal airbase, at about 10.40 pm, sources said.

Reports suggest there is a hostage situation and the terrorists have taken over a building in the military complex.

The armed men lobbed several grenades and exchanged heavy fire with security forces. The firing died out at about 11.30 pm but erupted again at midnight.

The militants apparently entered the Naval base and hangers through the Pakistan Air Force museum, a source said.

"They took advantage of the fact that people at that time were leaving for home from the PAF museum inside the Faisal base," the source said.

Dawn News channel quoted witnesses as saying that they had heard up to five blasts. Heavy firing continued for over 20 minutes after the first blast occurred, following which there were reports of intermittent firing.

Hundreds of paramilitary personnel surrounded the airbase while commandos from the army's elite Special Services Group were sent in to sweep the area.

Footage on television showed ambulances rushing to the airbase.

The high-security area where the attack occurred also houses the Pakistan Air Force's (PAF) Southern Air Command, Air War College and museum as well as PNS Mehran.

The fact that militants were able to enter one of the country's largest military bases is another embarrassing blow to the army and will raise questions over whether the attackers had inside information. That they targeted a US supplied aircraft draws attention to American aid to the military, something generals here do not talk about, fearing criticism from the county's fiercely anti-American population.

Sunday's raid appeared to be the most serious against the military since October 2009, when militants attacked the army headquarters close to the capital, Islamabad. They held dozens hostage in a 22-hour standoff that left 23 people dead, including nine militants.

The raid began with at least three loud explosions, which were heard by people who live around the naval air station. It was unclear what caused the explosions, but they set off raging fires that could be seen from far in the distance.

At least one media report said a team of American technicians were working on the aircraft at the time of the strike, but US Embassy spokesman Alberto Rodriguez said no Americans were on the base. Ali also stated there were no foreigners inside the base.

Pakistan critical front in war against terrorism, says US

US State Department’s latest report on terrorism, issued on Thursday evening, noted that “portions of Pakistani territory remained a safe haven for extremists, including high-level Al Qaeda leaders.” – File Photo

WASHINGTON: While drawing a list of states sponsoring terrorism, the US State Department has resisted calls to place Pakistan on the list and instead depicted it as “a critical front” in the war against terror.
Since the May 2 raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, some US lawmakers and a strong Indian lobby in Washington have been campaigning hard to place Pakistan among the states that sponsor terrorism.
But the State Department’s latest report on terrorism, issued on Thursday evening, only listed Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria among such states.
But it noted that “portions of Pakistani territory remained a safe haven for extremists, including high-level Al Qaeda leaders”.
The department also claimed that groups such as the Taliban’s Quetta Shura and the Haqqani Network “used western Pakistan to plan attacks against American interests” in Afghanistan.
Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan continued using Pakistan’s tribal belt to plan attacks against the government of Pakistan and its citizens.
TTP has also diversified its target set by seeking to attack the US directly, as demonstrated by its support for the attempted Times Square bombing in May 2010, the report added.
The State Department also described Lashkar-i-Taiba and its affiliates as “a threat to the stability of the region and beyond”.
According to the State Department, Pakistan continued to experience high levels of terrorism in 2010 and Pakistan-based terrorist organisations continued to “threaten internal, regional, and global security”.
Violence resulted from both political and sectarian conflicts throughout the country, with terrorist incidents occurring in every province. While government authorities arrested many alleged perpetrators of terrorist violence, few convictions resulted.
The Pakistani military continued to conduct operations in areas with known terrorist activity but was unable to expand its operations to all areas of concern.
Increased sectarian violence between the Sunni and Shia communities and against religious minority communities also resulted in numerous attacks with high casualties. These attacks continued the trend of employing suicide bombers and remotely detonated explosives to perpetrate violence. Attacks using similar methods were also carried out against government and police facilities.
Pakistan, particularly Fata and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, continued to be used as a base for terrorist organisations operating in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Pakistani security forces undertook substantial efforts to counter these threats.
These organisations recruited, trained, and conducted fund-raising for terrorist operations in Pakistan, and used Pakistan as a transit point for cross-border movement to Afghanistan and abroad.
Pakistan’s Frontier Corps and military initiated large-scale counter-insurgency operations in Mohmand and Orakzai, and added one battalion in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
Pakistan’s ability to continue robust operations was negatively impacted by the need to divert resources to provide relief from the 2010 floods, which caused severe, long-term damage in Pakistan.
The ability to establish and maintain security in densely populated urban areas or areas with a historically poor security presence also remained a major challenge for Pakistan.
“Pakistan’s civilian government and military departments cooperated and collaborated with US efforts to identify and counter terrorist activity in Pakistan, and the United States continued to engage Pakistan to ensure it had the will and capacity to confront all extremist elements within its borders,” the report concluded.

Terrorism in Pakistan

On the evening of 4th September 2008 Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Associate Professor of International Relations at the Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad was invited to the SPO national centre to speak on Terrorism in Pakistan, an issue that is presently agitating the minds of many in the country. Among the audience were students and members of Islamabad based rights based NGOs.

Tracing terrorism’s historical roots, Dr. Ishtiaq said that in the case of Pakistan the mushrooming of religious extremists began with the decision of western powers to launch a ‘jihad’ in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. Several groups were armed to fight against the Soviets and pro Soviet Afghan forces. Seven of these factions were supported by Pakistan and eight by Iran. They were used by international powers to fight against the Soviet Union, and later by Pakistan to fight in Kashmir. Typically, after the war was over, these groups became independent and, as has happened throughout history, turned on their erstwhile supporters. They invited Al Qaeda to Afghanistan, engaged in cruelties and excesses and, despite pleadings by the Pakistan government, destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas. Madrasas were set up with foreign funding to prepare fighters for the jihad, but the talibanisation of Pakistan began in earnest when the Taliban seized control of Kabul. Sufi Mohammad launched his Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi in Swat, which was financed by criminals who had cases against them in courts of law for murder, rape, kidnapping and other heinous crimes, and sought to escape punishment by subverting the criminal justice system. ‘If Pakistan is seen as an ideological state there will always be people who will demand Shariah’, Dr. Ishtiaq pointed out. He believed that though the Partition had taken place because the Muslims as a group were economically subservient, the Muslim League had raised the slogan of Islam in order to mobilise support. Realising that this could lead to problems, Mr. Jinnah in his famous 11th August 1947 speech emphasised that tolerance and respect for diversity, not religion, would be the guiding principles for the country. To overcome terrorism Dr. Ishtiaq recommended that: Firstly, basic concepts needed to be debated so that a national consensus on the raison’etre of Pakistan could be arrived at. The nation has to decide if Pakistan was an Islamic state or a secular state guided by the 11th August speech of the Quaid-e-Azam, in which he declared that religion had nothing to do with the business of the state, and that citizens of different religions were equal. Secondly, the ambiguous attitude towards suicide bombers and terrorists had to be discarded. It must be clearly understood that religion does not permit the killing of unarmed civilians. The concept that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ is basically wrong. He emphasised that violence against unarmed people could never be justified, and that terrorism and violence could not succeed, only peaceful means lead to success. He cited the examples of Ireland and South Africa, where freedom was achieved when violent means were discontinued and peaceful means adopted. And thirdly, civil society should persuade religious political parties and scholars to oppose suicide bombings and violence. He reminded the audience of the golden age of Islam, and said that fundamentalists ignored the science and culture of this period when Muslims were not afraid of learning from others, and sought their inspiration from the tribal age before enlightenment. Defining terrorism, he said that terrorism was violence, which was politically motivated, deliberate and planned, against unarmed civilians, with the purpose of creating fear in a wider audience, by an individual or group of people. Should states also be called terrorist if they killed and inflicted violence? And if people killed by the terrorist were military or armed soldiers or police, would it count as terrorism? Answering these questions Dr. Ishtiaq reminded participants that international law permitted only states to use force. However, the state had to abide by the Geneva Conventions. During the discussion some thought provoking points were raised. For instance, what relationship did the arms industry have to militancy? And what part did poverty play in provoking people to adopt violence? It was pointed out that exploitation by capitalism could not be ignored. All Muslim countries, with the exception of Turkey, had undergone colonisation. Global injustice too molded societies to support radical movements. And international law cannot be applied equally because of great inequalities between nations. In response Dr. Ishtiaq gave the example of Africa, which too was poor and had undergone colonisation, but had not turned to terrorism to achieve justice. Perhaps there was a problem with the Muslim psyche? On this provocative note the discussion came to a close, as it was Ramzan and time to break the fast.

Terrorism in Pakistan

Terrorism in Pakistan has become a major and highly destructive phenomenon in recent years. President Asif Ali Zardari, along with former President ex-Pakistan Army head Pervez Musharraf, have admitted that terrorist outfits were "deliberately created and nurtured" by past governments "as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives".^[1][2] The trend began with Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies of the 1980s, under which a jihad or guerilla holy war was started against non-muslim countries. Zia's tenure as president saw Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which led to a greater influx of ideologically driven Afghan Arabs to the tribal areas and increased availability of guns such as the AK-47 and drugs from the Golden Crescent. The state and its Inter-Services Intelligence, in alliance with the CIA, encouraged the "mujahideen" to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union. Most of the mujahideen were never disarmed after the war and some of these groups were later activated at the behest of the state in the form of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and others like the Taliban who were all encouraged to achieve Pakistan's agenda in the Kashmir conflict^[3] and Afghanistan^[4] respectively. The same groups are now taking on the state itself, making the biggest threat to it and the citizens of Pakistan through the politically motivated killing of civilians and police officials, by what Pakistan calls misguided holy warriors (mujahideen) and the rest of the world calls terrorists.^{[citation needed]}
From the summer of 2007 until late 2009, more than 5,500 people were killed in suicide and other attacks on civilians^[5] for reasons attributed to a number of causes – sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims; easy availability of guns and explosives; the existence of a "Kalishnikov culture"; an influx of ideologically driven Afghan Arabs based in or near Pakistan, who originate from any country with a Muslim population and the subsequent war against the Afghan communists in the 1980s which blew back into Pakistan; the presence of Islamist insurgent groups and forces such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba; Pakistan's thousands of fundamentalist madrassas (Islamic schools) which are thought by some to provide training for little other than jihad.^[who?] and secessionists movements – the most significant being the Balochistan liberation movement – blamed on regionalism, which is problematic in a country with Pakistan's diverse cultures, languages,