The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British-based think tank recently stated that Pakistan-based Taliban pose a global risk, which came right after US intelligence sources admitted the Taliban’s spring offensive didn’t require as much attention as Al-Qaeda gaining strength near the Pak-Afghan border. It also said international terrorism remained a ‘growth industry’ and resurgent groups in Pakistan had earned the ‘dubious honour’ of making the biggest strides during the past year. This observation comes at a time when militants crawling through the vast tribal belt within the country have fearlessly challenged the writ of the state, kidnapping, and beheading security forces and demanding the enforcement of Shariah law.
11 February 2008: The News
By Razeshta Sethna
The Human Rights Watch report published recently openly accuses the Pakistan government of “arbitrary detention, lack of fair trials, torture, and enforced disappearances of terrorism suspects and political opponents; harassment, intimidation, and censorship of the media; increasing unrest amid military operations in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan; and legal discrimination and mistreatment of religious minorities.” But, interestingly, when the caretaker human rights minister was asked to comment on the HRW report on national television, he dismissed these allegations, retorting that Washington didn’t have a clue about what went on within Pakistan. Maybe partially the contention sticks, but surely when they funnel billions into the country, especially assisting the military to train and equip troops fighting militancy in the tribal belt, concerned US sources (friends or foes alike) must be aware about the ground realities. The questions to ask: has the fight to eliminate militant activity, which in recent months has threatened to take off in a big way, been effective? Why has the frontier constabulary in the past refused a fight in Waziristan, and vacated key positions to armed militants? Jihadi recruitment has levelled an all-time high, not only plummeting politicking (pre-election season) but leaving Pakistan’s ordinary masses with apprehension and uncertainty.
Much remains unanswered along these lines as Pakistanis go to the polls, with having had little opportunity to listen to, endorse or even accept political hopefuls and their manifestos. Pre-polling campaigning, say analysis, has turned into a lacklustre affair as many candidates remain confined within their offices and homes, not addressing their constituents for fear of suicide attacks. Political banners displaying national assembly seat numbers and more often than not the beaming face of a party leader are sparse reminders of election day. They juxtapose one another, portraying self-satisfied images of candidates, who many constituents claim they haven’t even met for over five years in their areas: there is nothing like a workable manifesto announced to tackle grass-root level issues (water and electricity shortages, open sewers, lack of schools and medical clinics) or even past pledges honoured by party hopefuls, so why bother to vote at all, they shrug. Voter apathy among the masses is rampant this time around.
Pre-election Pakistan is clouded in a sombre mood, unlike previous decades as one of my colleagues recalls, as a teenager he would enjoy the fervour and frenzy whilst accompanying his parents during pre-poll rallies. But shrouded in today’s insecurity lurks the unidentified indoctrinated teenager, the probable suicide bomber who knows no better than to give his life in the name of so-called religion. Future generations will never know peaceful living, sans alarm bells and warnings of yet another bomb blast. They will know only about fear, often related to unkempt promises, corrupt, money-squandering politicians and media-reported militant attacks. The media is literally stampeded by what happens moment-by-moment in Waziristan (excepting when we grudgingly switch over to report on the latest outbreak of bird flu virus), even the idyllic Swat valley robbed off its serenity has become the latest casualty in the war on terror.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British-based think tank recently stated that Pakistan-based Taliban pose a global risk, which came right after US intelligence sources admitted the Taliban’s spring offensive didn’t require as much attention as Al-Qaeda gaining strength near the Pak-Afghan border. It also said international terrorism remained a ‘growth industry’ and resurgent groups in Pakistan had earned the ‘dubious honour’ of making the biggest strides during the past year. This observation comes at a time when militants crawling through the vast tribal belt within the country have fearlessly challenged the writ of the state, kidnapping, and beheading security forces and demanding the enforcement of Shariah law.
Britain’s security and intelligence agencies say they are deeply concerned about potential links between individuals in Britain attracted to extreme Islamism and groups based in the tribal areas of South Waziristan. Of course this isn’t a novel discovery: we know Al-Qaeda finds western-based operatives because it is easier to export them globally for when they are needed. In such scenarios, there are no visa restrictions or Muslim names and identities, which have often deterred such operatives, posing as obstacles.
A peace agreement made with the government, tribal leaders, and militants closely allied with the Taliban signed in September 2006, collapsed within months. Why was this deal made in the first place? Some analysts say it was cut only to contain the Taliban and not root them out. Quoting a Pakistani official on this: “When Pakistan signed an accord with the Taliban in South Waziristan, it was agreed that all foreign militants would be confined to the country’s remote tribal areas and that they would not go to the tribal headquarter towns or Pakistan’s cities.” The army continues to engage in aggressive counterterrorism operations in the tribal areas along the Afghan border, with efforts particularly focused in South Waziristan.
And the success factor: how do we gauge that aspect, as reports confirm the US administration is supporting the present government in its hunt for militants, which is necessary, one would argue, but for how long? Who will dare ask for accountability and a result-oriented approach? As in previous years, the US continues to mute its criticism of the present government (given its track record whilst dealing with the judiciary and muzzling the press, among other key human right violations) in exchange for Pakistan’s support in counterterrorism operations.
In recent months, mounting concerns about the threat posed by Al-Qaeda have prompted senior Bush administration officials to travel to Pakistan to seek approval for more aggressive American military action against militants based in the tribal areas near the border with Afghanistan. But despite military spending aid, repeated unmanned drone attacks to flush out what are often termed high-value targets and persistent fighting on the ground, Al-Qaeda (if it is permissible to use that term to imply an umbrella-sharing ideological base) operatives indulge in cross-border militancy. Even as Hamid Karzai lauds British efforts in Afghanistan, ISAF with its forty-one thousand plus troops from 39 countries is requesting further assistance in the south which is riddled with Taliban fighters.
As Taliban militants rapidly gain ground on both sides of the border, news has filtered that Bin Laden’s sixteen-year old son, Hamza Bin Laden is being groomed to continue the violent legacy, which post 9/11 has seen no respite. With Baitullah Mehsud’s followers from the newly founded Tehrik-e-Taliban vowing to attack army personnel and even politicians as we have been made to understand, Al-Qaeda’s canopy expands. Therefore, political campaigns remains low-key or non-existent in many constituencies where the poor, uneducated voter will classically follow old patterns when he goes to the polling booth to cast a vote not for the man or woman who can make a difference or even change his life, but for the much-touted traditional candidate who enjoys the trappings of political patronage. Intricacies surrounding the formation of a new government at this stage are anyone’s guess, given the unfortunate events of December 27. But in-fighting after the polls and accusations of rigging won’t solve Pakistan’s critical issues, as bourgeoning militancy and political yo-yoing. The only hope might lie in a government of consensus that directly strives to cut the roots of militancy, without compromising and with support from the opposition. The government post-February 18, whether a coalition of sorts or not, must note that the effective tackling of Pakistan’s deteriorating security situation is vital to its survival and success as a nation state veering toward economic and political stability.
