Pakistan's Ideology and Identity crisis

Of this, there can be no doubt. Mr. Jinnah never opposed the British, never went to the prison, supported them in WW-2 (as against Gandhi and Congress) and reaped the rewards in the form of Pakistan.

Moreover his insistence on Urdu turned out to be disastrous for Pakistan.

x posted

The Guns of August

By Ahmad Faruqui (courtesy DAWN)

SOME of the writing about the Indo-Pakistan war of September 1965 borders on mythology. It is no surprise that generations of Pakistanis continue to believe that India was the aggressor and that one Pakistani soldier was equal to 10 Indian soldiers.

A few have argued that the war began in August when Pakistan injected guerrillas into the vale of Kashmir to instigate a revolt and grab it before India achieved military dominance in the region. That was Operation Gibraltar.

When it failed to trigger a revolt and drew a sharp Indian riposte along the ceasefire line, Pakistan upped the ante and launched Operation Grand Slam on Sept 1. Infantry units of the army backed by armour overran the Indian outpost in Chamb, crossed the Tawi river and were headed towards Akhnur in order to cut off India�s line of communication with Srinagar.

In the minority view, the Indian response on Sept 6 across the international border at Lahore was a natural counter-response, not an act of aggression.

I asked Sajjad Haider, author of the new book, Flight of the Falcon, to name the aggressor. He retired as an air commodore in the Pakistan Air Force. A fighter pilot to the bone, he does not know how to mince words: �Ayub perpetrated the war.�

In April, skirmishes had taken place in the Rann of Kutch region several hundred miles south of Kashmir. In that encounter, the Pakistanis prevailed over the Indians. Haider says that the humiliation suffered by the Indians brought Prime Minister Shastri to the conclusion that the next round would be of India�s choosing.

The Indian army chief prepared for a war that would be fought in the plains of Punjab. Under �Operation Ablaze�, it would mount an attack against Lahore, Sialkot and Kasur. Of course, the trigger would have to be pulled by the Pakistanis.

On May 12, says Haider, an Indian Canberra bomber flew over the Pakistan border on a reconnaissance mission. To quote him: �The PAF scrambled interceptors which got within shooting range of the intruder. Air Marshal Asghar Khan�s permission was sought to bring down the intruder. He sought clearance from the president on the newly installed direct line but Ayub denied permission fearing Indian reprisal.� Laments Haider, �If this was not an indication of Indian intentions, what else could have been?�

Oblivious to what had just taken place in the skies above Punjab, and failing to anticipate how India was gunning to equalise the score, Ayub gave the green light to Operation Gibraltar on the advice of his foreign minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (later president and prime minister). Bhutto had sought out the opinion about Indian intentions from Chinese Foreign Minister Chen Yi during a meeting at the Karachi airport and concluded from the latter�s body language that India would not respond.

So Ayub gave the green light to send 8,000 infiltrators into Indian-held Kashmir. These, says Haider, were mostly youth from Jammu and Kashmir who had less than four weeks of training in guerrilla warfare. The entire plan was predicated on a passive Indian response, evoking Gen Von Moltke�s dictum: �No war plan survives the first 24 hours of contact with the enemy.�

It is also worth recalling what the kaiser said to the German troops that were heading off to fight the French in August 1914: �You will be home before the leaves have fallen off the trees.� The three-month war turned into the Great War which lasted for four years.

Operation Grand Slam abruptly ground to a halt. An Indian general cited by Haider says in his memoirs: �Akhnur was a ripe plum ready to be plucked, but providence came to our rescue.� The Pakistani GHQ decided to switch divisional commanders in the midst of the operation. The new commander, Maj-Gen Yahya (subsequently army chief and president), claimed later he was not tasked with taking Akhnur.

I asked Haider whether the Pakistani military was prepared for an all-out war with India, a much bigger country with a much bigger military. He said it was the army�s war, since the other services had been kept in the dark. The army was clearly not prepared for an all-out war since a quarter of the soldiers were on leave. They were only recalled as the Indian army crossed the border en route to Lahore, a horrific sight which Haider recalls seeing from the air as he and five of his falcons arrived on the outskirts of Lahore.

Maj-Gen Sarfraz was the general officer commanding of the No.10 Division which had primary responsibility for the defence of Lahore. Along with other divisional commanders in the region, he had been ordered by GHQ to remove all defensive landmines from the border. None had been taken into confidence about the Kashmir operation. The pleas of these generals to prepare against an Indian invasion were rejected by GHQ with a terse warning: �Do not provoke the Indians.�

Haider notes that the gateway to Lahore was defended by the 3rd Baloch contingent of 100 men under the intrepid Major Shafqat Baluch. He says, �They fought to the last man till we (No.19 Squadron) arrived to devastate the invading division. There could have been no doubt even in the mind of a hawaldar that an Indian attack would come. But the ostriches at the pulpit had their heads dug in sand up to their necks.�

In the 1965 war, the Pakistani Army repeated the mistakes of the 1947-48 Kashmir war, but on a grander scale. No official history of the 1965 war was ever written even though President Ayub wanted one. Gen Yahya, his new army chief, just sat on the request until Ayub was hounded out of office by centrifugal forces triggered by the war.

Pakistan�s grand strategy was flawed. None of its strategic objectives were achieved. And were it not for the tactical brilliance of many mid-level commanders, the country would have been torn apart by the Indians. Ironically, in Ayub�s autobiography, one would be hard pressed to find any references to the war of 1965. One is reminded of De Gaulle�s history of the French army which makes no reference to the events that took place in Waterloo in 1815.

War, as Clemenceau put it, is too serious a business to be left to the generals.
The writer has authored Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan.

The Guns of August Pak Tea House

How Aslam Beg damaged a nation

Reality check

Friday, September 04, 2009
Shafqat Mahmood

The history of this much abused country is being churned to let the scum rise to the top. And what nuggets of filth are floating up -- military-made political parties, midnight jackals, cash for elections, Karachi operations, agency this and agency that. Is this the Pakistani version of a truth and reconciliation commission?

The 'truth' being dished out has more slants than a right-angle triangle and it is certainly not leading to any reconciliation. The million-dollar question is where all these worms crawled out of? Have they rolled down the presidency, as the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) alleges or have they emerged from the irritable bowel of an over-active nine zero?

Whoever has unleashed them has no care for the ascetic discipline of the holy month because they make for a juicy and spicy fare. It is easy to choke on Brigadier Billa because he is truly unsavoury. But let us admit to a secret vice; he has stories to tell. And stories are interesting even if they come from the mouth of someone you would ideally like to see begging for mercy, hanging upside down a pole

The question of the month though is -- and it has been asked often enough -- let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't see a mad rush for the quarries and the reason is simple. The elite of this country has much to seek forgiveness for. We are all sinners literally and metaphorically.

The politicians top the list because they flaunt their sins publicly or maybe we scrutinise them more fearlessly. They are vulnerable because their passion for fame and fortune makes them impatient. It is not a pleasure they want to defer and end up becoming easy targets for manipulators. The Hameed Guls and the Billas of this world thrive in this milieu. They have guns and cash.

While the politicians are more visible, their sins in the larger scheme of things are relatively innocent. They make money and are unprincipled but their impact on the nation is more through happenstance than design. The sins of some people in the military have been more sinister, more egregious and more damaging to the nation. It is they who need to be exposed.

In my reading of post-Zia history, there is no greater sinner than Aslam Beg. By his actions after Zia's death and indeed throughout his tenure of office, he caused great harm to this nation. He did not let democracy settle, manipulated parties and politicians and corrupted them, brought governments down, indeed did everything he possibly could to create circumstances for his ascent to power. He failed but in the process, he hurt us badly.

It is easy to blame Ghulam Ishaq Khan (GIK) because he had his share of sins but without Aslam Beg goading him on, much of what GIK did would not have happened. It was Beg who asked Hameed Gul to form the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) and stop Benazir and the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) from coming to power. When he could not stop it, it was he who led the media and dirty-tricks campaign to undermine it and bring it down.

Let us keep our biases aside for a minute, ladies and gentlemen. Whether we like Benazir Bhutto is not the issue here and more importantly, let us suspend our knowledge of what she did later. However, in 1988 she was not only the most popular leader in Pakistan but an international celebrity. She was an Aung San Suu Kyi like figure whose father had been murdered and who had suffered much hardship. There was not a hint of the taints that later followed her.

If Beg and his cohorts had been patriots, they would not have formed the IJI to stop her. Afterwards when she still made it to power, they would have seen her as an asset to Pakistan. They should have gone to her and said "Madam, you are inexperienced but we will help you run the government. Your international image is a great plus for the country and we want you to repair the damage to our global reputation after Zia's draconian dictatorship."

They did nothing of the sort. They started to sully her image and taint her reputation from day one. She indeed had her faults and made their task easier but she should have been guided. Instead, they launched operation midnight jackal, engineered a no-confidence move against her, got the MQM to take on the PPP in the streets of Karachi, thwarted the Pucca Qilla operation, which was leading to the capture of a huge cache arms stored by terrorists in Hyderabad, and then prevailed upon GIK to dismiss her government.

This not only hurt Pakistan but derailed democracy. Had a single civilian government completed its tenure and transfer of power taken place through constitutionally scheduled elections, we would have been on our way. But Beg would not allow this. It was not without purpose. His plan was to first destroy the reputation of Benazir, bring her government down, and then do the same to Nawaz Sharif. Once all politicians had been damaged, he thought, his ascent to power would become easy.

Consider this. After the Benazir government had been dismissed in 1990, he distributed money and did everything to make an IJI government come into power. Yet no sooner had Nawaz Sharif taken over, he was conspiring against him. I know this personally because I saw it happen before my eyes. Nawaz Sharif had taken over in perhaps October or November and by December, officers of military intelligence were making contact with the PPP to instigate it against the government.

Not only that, Beg deliberately started to undermine Nawaz by taking a position different from that of the government during the First Gulf War. His agents, largely serving military officers but also some of his friends, principally one Lahore-based businessman, started to goad the PPP to take on the Nawaz Sharif government through street power. The purpose was to create enough trouble to make it possible for Beg to take over.

Fortunately, for us, his time ran out and Ghulam Ishaq Khan trumped him by appointing a new army chief, two months before his term of office was to end. This was unprecedented and the only reason it was done was to make him a lame duck and thwart his ambition for power.

Beg left with much regret but a legacy of bitterness was created that tainted the entire decade of the 90s. Democracy could not settle after that. Benazir and the PPP eventually managed to bring Nawaz Sharif down through Ghulam Ishaq Khan and PML N paid the compliment back by launching various movements during Benazir's second term in office. It then supported Farooq Leghari in the sacking of the second PPP government. This merry-go-round continued until Musharraf threw the whole lot out in 1999.

End of democracy phase one. A new phase has started. What will this bring?



Email: [email protected]

Transformation?

By Dr Farrukh Saleem
February 6, 2009: Senator Kerry, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: "In my conversations with Admiral Mullen… there is a sense of some transformation -- of a willingness to engage in some transformation. I also find that both General Pasha and General Kayani are likewise committed."

April 17: Within 71 days of Kerry's statement, Friends of Democratic Pakistan, upon US prodding, pledged $5.28 billion.

June 11: Within 125 days of Kerry's statement, the US House of Representatives passed The Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement Act authorising $1.5 billion per fiscal year for non-military assistance to Pakistan plus $300 million for FY2010 and such funds as may be necessary for 'Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capabilities Fund' plus $300 million in Foreign Military Financing.

June 24: With 138 days of Kerry's statement, the US Senate passed The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act authorising $1.5 billion per fiscal year for non-military assistance to Pakistan.

June 2009: Congressional conferees authorised $1 billion for coalition support fund reimbursements (Pakistan receives around 80 per cent of the total) plus $896 million for embassy expansion plus $539 million in Economic Support Funds.

July 24: Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times Online's bureau chief in Islamabad, one of Pakistan's most perceptive journalists, wrote: "The seamless friendship between… Admiral Mullen and General Kayani has cemented the relationship between the military establishments of the two countries to levels not seen since the 1950s… The result is that Islamabad and Washington are in a position to implement coordinated, long-term policies in the region, which include action against militants, moves to improve ties between Pakistan and India, especially their dispute over divided Kashmir…"

July 30: Syed Saleem Shahzad wrote: "Intense US efforts and assurances have put Pakistan and India on track to renew their dialogue process over key contentious issues, such as divided Kashmir. An important upshot of this is that Islamabad has begun a crackdown on jihadi assets…"

August 5: Within 169 days of Kerry's statement and within 45 days of Saleem Shahzad's article, a US unmanned aerial vehicle fired two air-to-surface Hellfire missiles that killed Baitullah.

August 7: Within 171 days of Kerry's statement, the IMF increased its financial support to $11.3 billion.

August 10: Within 10 days of Saleem Shahzad's article, India's Ministry of Home Affairs began withdrawing four battalions of the Central Reserve Police Force from the border.

August 12: Within 180 days of Kerry's statement, the Ministry of Defence told The News that "32 officers have been retired and others will be fired within the next few months in government efforts to streamline the ISI."

August 18: Lieutenant-General Nadeem told Reuters, "The Pakistan army was short of equipment…" The same day, Holbrooke assured that the US shall "expedite delivery of equipment requested by the Pakistani army."

For the record, within days of Kerry's February 6 statement, US drones shifted focus to the anti-Pakistan Taliban in South Waziristan. Since February 6, with an average of one strike a week, South Waziristan has been hit 23 times; areas controlled by Baitullah have been hit 15 times. For the record, Mian Habib-ur-Rehman of Harkat died in police custody and Shah Abdul Aziz of Jaish was sent to Adiala. Qari Saifullah was arrested on August 17 and Maulvi Omar the following day.

Our strategic thinkers have long considered home-grown terrorists as tourists with guns. Are they now shifting their sail with the wind? Or, are they actually turning on their jihadi assets? Kerry seems convinced that a 'transformation' is underway. And, Kerry may only be older than I am by a day but he is wiser than I am by a year.



The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS). Email: farrukh [email protected]

India-Pakistan rivalry

By Dr Farrukh Saleem
India and Pakistan are in a state of active hostility — if not war or at least two proxy wars. At least six of the Pakistan army’s nine corps are on the border with India. Of the six, I Corps and II Corps are heavy armour strike corps. At least seven of the Indian army’s 13 corps are on the border with Pakistan. Of the seven, X Corps and II Corps are powerful strike corps (strike corps is an offensive formation). Additionally, all of India’s holding crops that are directly facing Pakistan also have significant offensive capabilities. In effect, 66 per cent of the Pakistan army’s holding and strike formations are directly facing India. In effect, more than 53 per cent of the Indian army’s holding and strike formations are directly facing Pakistan.

Pakistan maintains — and sustains — critical assets in the northeast that have managed to pin down India’s XV Corps, IX Corps, XVI Corps, XIV Corps, XI Corps, X Corps and II Corps. India’s 4 Armoured Brigade, 340 Mechanised Brigade, 11 and 12 Infantry Divisions, Jaisalmer Air Force Base, Utarlai Air Force Base and Bhuj Air Force Base maintain a threatening-offensive posture. India is actively supporting anti-Pakistan Baloch elements as well as anti-Pakistan Taliban factions. India is bent upon projecting power into Afghanistan thus encircling Pakistan. And, India – post-Operation Parakram — has been investing into a "Cold Start War Doctrine" involving joint operations by the Indian army, air force and navy; eight integrated battle groups with armour, artillery, infantry and combat air support.

For FY 2009, India’s defence spending will rise by close to 50 per cent to a colossal $32.7 billion (according to Jane’s Information Group). India is planning its biggest-ever arms purchases; $11 billion fighter jets, T-90S tanks, Scorpion submarines, Phalcon airborne warning and control system, multi-barrel rocket-launchers and an aircraft carrier. At $32.7 billion India’s defence spending translates into 2.7 per cent of GDP.

For FY 2009, Pakistan’s official defence spending is set at $4.3 billion while unofficial estimates go as high as $7.8 billion. If Pakistan were to match India’s rise we would have to spend more than five per cent of our GDP on defence. For the record, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan spend an overwhelmingly large percentage of their GDP on defence. Iraq, Somalia and Sudan are all — or have been — in a state of civil war. For the record, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia use to spend an overwhelmingly large percentage of their GDP on defence. Soviet Union is no more. Czechoslovakia is no more.

The US and the Soviet Union fought a 50-year Cold War during which the Soviet Union stockpiled some 13,000 active nuclear warheads. In 1991, the US won without even firing a shot. The Soviet Union raced a race that it couldn’t win. The Soviet Union split into 15.

Over the past century, economic development has been all about intense trading. Pakistan has two population centres; central Punjab and Karachi. Central Punjab is a thousand kilometres from the nearest port. Between Karachi and central Punjab is a desert in the east and on west is an area that does not — and cannot — support population concentrations. To develop economically, we must trade. Trade we must. And, the only population concentration to trade with is on our east.

Time — and money — is on India’s side. Composite dialogue among civilians means little — if anything at all. What is needed is a strategic dialogue. How can India be persuaded to pull back its offensive formations? In return for what? How can we use our America leverage in our longer-term interest? We cannot win an arms’ race with India. We ought to race a race that we can win. We can continue to race a race that we are bound to lose. Or, begin a new race that we may be able to win — or at least not lose.



The writer is the executive director of the Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS). Email: [email protected]

Are Muslims Europe's new Jews?

By Shireen M Mazari
In Europe the fa�ade of tolerance and secular "liberalism" is so well maintained it is easy to be fooled into believing this is the reality. In fact there is an insidious social compact between the media, ruling elites and the white Christian majority to sustain this fa�ade at all times. That is why the murder of Marwa el-Sherbini, the Egyptian Muslim lady in Dresden, Germany – simply because she wore a hijab – barely found a mention in the European press and the US media saw no reason to create a fuss. Of course had it been the murder of a Jewish lady specifically for displaying her cultural/religious Jewishness, the western media would have gone to town crying foul and the German government would have been put fairly and squarely in the dock.

The murder came shortly after French President Sarkozy gave his "secular" fatwa against the burqa and it seems that now there is open season on hijab-wearing Muslims in some parts of Europe – those parts that ironically see themselves as being more tolerant and "liberal". In fact European secular "liberalism" is being defined increasingly in terms of non-acceptance of the new multi-religious and multi-ethnic Europeans by the old white Christian Europeans. When European leaders display this characteristic in public statements, it gives leeway to the racist bigotry that still pervades in Europe – only now the Muslims have replaced the Jews as the b�te noirs.

In fact the case of Marwa el-Sherbini is frightening because her only "crime" was that she wore the hijab. A year before her murder, a 28 year old man of Russian origin had insulted her by calling her a "terrorist" and "Islamist whore" for wearing a hijab when she asked him to let her son sit on a swing. At the time the man had been found guilty of abusing and insulting Marwa and had been fined 780 Euros. But he had appealed which is why the parties were all present in a Dresden court room when the gruesome murder took place in full view of Marwa's husband and her three-year old son Mustafa. As Marwa, pregnant, was in the dock recalling the incident, the accused walked across the courtroom and plunged a knife into her 18 times. What is even more horrific is that as her husband, Elvi Ali Okaz, ran to save her he, too, was brought down, shot by a police officer who declared that he mistook him for the attacker. Can anything be more ridiculous? Two serious issues arise: One, why was a man known to be violently disposed towards Ms Marwa Sherbini allowed to walk into the courtroom with a lethal knife? Two, how could the policeman have mistaken her husband for the attacker when he moved much later and separately – or was the attacker not taken into custody when he had begun his attacks? Why was he allowed to stab Marwa 18 times? Where was the same policeman and why did he not shoot at the accused when he was stabbing the lady?

Whichever way one looks at it, the acceptable racism cannot be denied – both at the official and unofficial levels. The German government's only reaction was to sweep it all under the carpet. There was a shameful silence on the part of all the "liberals" and human rights activists who are so ready to condemn the misdeeds of Muslim extremists anywhere in the world. Ironically, apart from the Central Council of Muslims' leadership, it was the Central Council of Jews General Secretary, Stephan Kramer who decried the "inexplicably sparse" reaction of the media and German politicians. After all, the Jews of Europe know only too well that it begins with one incidence after another and, if one remains silent, the victimisation becomes collective.

Does that not make one wonder if Muslim women in hijab are now going to be targeted with impunity by extremists, racists and others of the lunatic fringe in Europe? Why has the EU leadership not condemned this act of religious hatred? Is Marwa el Sherbini going to be the first of many headscarf martyrs – as her native Egyptian media is calling her – of Europe, especially in the wake of the Sarkozy statement? It would be a pity if the grand tradition of French freedom and equality is reduced to a superficiality covering an underlying intolerance towards cultural and religious diversity.

Perhaps the most shameful has been the reaction of the Muslim World including Pakistan. Why have we seen no official condemnation when we see the EU leaders and their media waste no time in issuing condemnatory statements whenever any incident of a crime against women or religious minorities occurs in Pakistan? It is good that they seek to act as our conscience on these occasions, but there has to be reciprocity and we should not shy away from acting as their conscience when they lose their way or shy away from exposing such crimes! Interestingly, there was a very high-powered electronic media delegation that had gone on the German government's invitation to Berlin around this time. So why was this issue not raised? In fact, as a protest the delegation should have given up this summer freebie or at least have given the case due publicity at home. When we can – and rightly so – take strong issue with the flogging of women by the Taliban, can we not also condemn the equally vile act of murder committed by a secular or Christian extremist? Or does a crime against a woman in hijab or against the "Taliban" not move our public in quite the same way – especially our elite?

After all look at our silence on the mass murder of Taliban prisoners by that murderous warlord Rashid Dostum – and ally of the US after 9/11. Even President Obama is hesitant to take too strong a stand in this issue and we seem to be least bothered to raise it widely in our media. Why? Are we now accepting the double standards and hypocrisy of the west in terms of human rights – so that the killing of certain types of Muslims is more acceptable outside of the bounds of law?

As long as we remain selective about condemning violence and crimes against women, whomsoever they are and wherever they are, we will have little credibility to our protest. After all, the crimes of the Baloch sardars in burying women alive, or the Tumandars of southern Punjab cutting off the noses of women or the Sindhi feudals setting dogs on women to kill them are as horrific as the Taliban crimes against women – and they happen with as regular a frequency. And now this new wave of crimes against our Muslim sisters in Europe simply because they choose to wear hijab is no less despicable. So where are our voices now?

Of course, in terms of our leadership, one has no expectations given the bizarre statements coming from that quarter whether it is relating to the US in Afghanistan – "what the US does in Afghanistan is its own business, it is a sovereign state", implying that the US can continue to wreak havoc on Pakistan through Afghanistan – or the rise of the Taliban. Apart from being hazy on the facts, no leader makes admissions of past covert policies whatever they may have been – especially when his Party was so deeply involved in these policies, as General Babar had once admitted! If nothing else, the many Yanks he deals with should at least tell him how the US to date has never even admitted to any CIA killings, let alone so many other covert deeds of horror at the level of the Presidency!

This is not to say that we should not recognise our mistakes and learn from them rather than repeating them over and over again. But our leaders do not have to make it a habit to go through a full confessional especially when being interviewed by the foreign media. One can alter direction without yelling and screaming just to prove one's loyalty to, at best, a dubious foreign ally.

But looking beyond our hapless leadership and before we become the next victims of European history, the nation should ask why it continues to be part of an apathetic Muslim Ummah?

writer is a defence analyst. Email: [email protected]

America's nuclear games

By Shireen M Mazari

Obama is certainly stretching his global goodwill to its limits. After critiquing the US invasion of Iraq when out of power, he has upped the military ante with the surge in Afghanistan; refocused on the military centric approach in Pakistan with a massive increase in drone attacks against Pakistani civilians (just so much "collateral damage" for the US of course) on the one hand, and with the successful goading of the Pakistan military through the Zardari nexus into FATA where the quagmire is already unfolding in the terrible deaths of our soldiers and innocent civilians while the terrorism issue shows no signs of abating. Pakistan has come out the worst in Obama's policies especially in terms of the growing intrusiveness the US is acquiring in our daily lives with US inspectors now promising to hover in all our bureaucracies to see that the "aid" they are giving is spent as they see fit – not to mention the $.9 billion that will immediately go back to the US for the rebuilding of its embassy in a more imperial design.

However, it is not just Pakistan that is suffering from what is effectively a right-wing Obama agenda. Now Obama has teamed up with Russia to fool the world in terms of nuclear disarmament. The US and Russian leaders declared in a grand fashion that they have agreed to reduce their existing nuclear stockpiles but failed to tell the world that most of these reductions would be of redundant weapons which will create space for the new ones. After all, neither side avowed to stop adding to their arsenals!

An even more dangerous development has been the gradual taking over of critical international institutions by the US and its preferred personnel. We first saw the UN effectively become a tool in US hands with the Secretary-Generalship going to South Korea's Ban Ki Moon – a look at the UN record post the Moon takeover will be self-explanatory. Now we have seen the IAEA once again coming under the US and its allies' control with the election of Japan's Ambassador Yukiya Amano by the IAEA BoG followed by his formal appointment by the BoG. Now the General Conference will confirm this appointment later in September. This election of Amano is unfortunate since the strong positions taken by the present DG, El Baradei stand threatened as the Japanese have always gone along with US positions – something Baradei did not do and therefore fell afoul of this super power. Competing with Amano was South Africa's Abdul Samad Minty – a respected and strong diplomat, which is why the US had nightmares. Till the last ballot, the stalemate persisted but in the end one vote changed it all and the Indian media has been agog with how their last minute reversal to an abstention allowed Amano to win. No one will ever know but having seen Minty in action two years ago, he would have been the more desirable strong man to follow Baradei and maintain IAEA's independent positioning on issues like Iran.

So now the US has won back control of the UN and IAEA. Apparently, the US is already using the Japanese to wield pressure where it cannot do so itself too overtly. In this connection, recently a Japanese team visited Pakistan demanding access to Dr Khan but were not successful. Now with Amano at the helm at the IAEA, what sort of Japanese pressure will we see vis a vis Pakistan? Perhaps it is time we drew more attention to Japan's massive civil nuclear programme and its controversial reprocessing agenda.

Nor is this all in terms of US seeking to implement its nuclear agenda globally. It has got things moving again at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on the Fissile Material Cut off Treaty (FMCT). Perhaps after what happened at the IAEA on the Indian safeguards agreement, we should not be surprised to find that our highly competent head diplomat in Geneva also buckled under (or was made to) and accepted the US-pushed programme of work for the CD. This does not specifically include the issue of existing nuclear stockpiles in relation to the FMCT so has Pakistan shifted its position to its permanent disadvantage under US pressure once again? Also, while the programme of work has identified four issues – FMCT, Nuclear Disarmament, PAROS (Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space) and Negative Security Guarantees – by delinking these issues the attempt is clearly to move on the FMCT without conditionalities relating to the other three issues. This is again a major shift because many states including China wanted linkages between the FMCT and PAROS for instance. Now it would appear that the US will again move on the FMCT as it did on the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the UN in the sixties. When states like Pakistan had raised issues of negative and positive security guarantees to be linked to the NPT, the US insisted that first the NPT should be approved and then the security guarantee issues could be dealt with. The result was that the Conference on the security guarantees followed the passage of the NPT and the US was not prepared to even provide negative security assurances in any form whatsoever to non-nuclear weapons states. For Pakistan all these issues, and none more so than the issue of reduction of existing stockpiles of fissile material, are very crucial in the context of the FMCT and even if we have to go it alone we should, because otherwise we will be at a permanent disadvantage. But the way things are unfolding it appears we may have made some fatal compromises already in this regard.

It is in this overall context of the US pushing its nuclear agenda globally that we must raise our voices of concern over what seems to have become a covert official US policy – to allow Israel to deal with Iran's nuclear facilities. Most recently Biden (New York Times) stated that the US would not "stand in Israel's way" if it sought to take action against Iran's nuclear facilities. It was amusing to hear Biden talk of Israel being a "sovereign" state taking its own decisions! Now when did the US ever respect any state's sovereignty – as we in Pakistan have continuously experienced and still do so! Be that as it may, the Biden statement was threatening because it came alongside a 5th July 2009 Sunday Times story that Israel's Mossad chief had informed his prime minister of Saudi Arabia's assurance to him that it would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over Saudi air space to conduct attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities. Early this year it had also been reported that the Mossad Chief, Dagan, had met Saudi officials.

So a new and threatening pattern is emerging even as Obama seeks to woo the world with what is now becoming his glibness rather than a serious intent to alter the course of US policies on security issues. Is it a mere coincidence that we are now seeing unprecedented violence breaking out in the Xinjiang capital of Urumqi? We know that the East Turkmenistan Movement still has its offices in New York. So what is the US intent? To send a hostile message to China? What exactly is the Obama administration up to? Is it all a matter of old wine in new bottles rather than any major shift away from a neoimperialist mindset that has been the hallmark of US global policies for some time now?

Too bad. So many had expected so much from Obama – the thinking, intelligent and more world-sensitive US president. But what we are seeing around our part of the world is more of the same – with the new veneer eroding fast. More force; more aggression; more dictation. Just as our leaders crumble once again before the US demands, the US leadership offers little that will compel us to alter our perception of a neoimperial power set on a military-centric course for this part of the world. As before, this course will bring them to ruin but must we go down the same suicidal path?



The writer is a defence analyst. Email: [email protected]

India’s Arihant — upping the psychological ante By Shireen M Mazari

While Pakistan’s decision makers squabble over whether to go ahead and implement the 2008 decision of buying German submarines or alter course and seek more French subs instead, India has put its prototype nuclear powered submarine, INS Arihant, into the waters. Incidentally, those in Pakistan who have been ranting for years over the use of Islamic warrior names for our missiles seem absurdly mute in commenting on India’s aggressive usage of Hindu mythology warrior names not only for its missiles but now also for its nuclear-powered submarine. Of course, the reality is that the nuclear reactor of this submarine will not go critical till 2012, so at the moment Arihant is more of a symbolic reflection of where India is headed in terms of its nuclear arsenal. Nevertheless, the development has signalled the nuclearisation of the Indian Ocean by a littoral state – since nuclear weapons have been present in this Ocean through the military presence of the external nuclear powers, especially the US.

That is one major reason why the US, France and UK always opposed the UN General Assembly’s efforts to make the Indian Ocean a weapon-free “zone of peace” – as reflected in the first UN GA Resolution of 16 December 1971(2832:XXVI). Ironically, along with the Soviet Union, India was a major force behind this Non-Aligned Movement-supported UN resolution. But then this has been the hallmark of Indian security policy: seeking time through multilateral diplomatic moves while it builds its military capability. In contrast to the Indian position on the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace resolution, the US, France and the UK always voted against this idea and in 1989 they chose to withdraw from the 44 member UN committee on this issue that had been set up in 1972. The US in fact demanded that the committee be eliminated so as to reduce UN spending and we know how this whole issue simply died for lack of visible progress. Now that India has also moved towards nuclear militarisation of the Indian Ocean, it will be difficult to see any revival of the zone of peace proposal for this region in the future. With the launching of the Arihant, India has moved still further away from being a proponent of nuclear disarmament to being a projector of nuclear force. Strategic rationality makes it incumbent on Pakistan to seek to restore the nuclear balance for the future.

However, this should not be a major issue for us even in financial terms, as long as the lure of commissions does not distort or destroy our strategic interests. We already have conventional submarines including the Agosta-type which are not only capable of carrying nuclear warheads, but can be upgraded to being fitted with air-independent propulsion technology (AIP) specifically designed to allow conventional subs to remain submerged for longer periods. That is the main advantage of nuclear-powered submarines, along with the speed element – they do not need to surface like conventional subs that need to surface after short periods of being submerged and therefore become vulnerable. AIP technology is specifically designed for conventional subs and the Germans have been in the forefront of this technological development, although the Agostas can also be upgraded.

It is unfortunate that Pakistan’s purchase of subs has been delayed apparently over the commissions lure, because now the international community will make it harder for this country to acquire these subs. Have we learnt no lessons from what happened to Pakistan in 1974 after the Indian nuclear test? India tested and Pakistan was penalised! The Canadians withdrew from KANUPP despite IAEA safeguards and a legal agreement. There is nothing to suggest that things will be different this time round – given how Hillary Clinton practically blessed Indian militarisation with a new defence pact. Besides Pakistan’s pathetic record of asserting legal agreements with its allies makes us easy victims of foreign pressure and diktat – remember the replacement of F-16s with wheat and soya beans? Not only did we lose our money, but before the US finally retracted on the deal, we were made to pay parking charges for these F-16s also! But we always forget US abuse and present ourselves for more of the same whenever the occasion arises!

Coming back to the Indian nuclear powered submarine – it should be pointed out that we do not yet know how it will perform once its reactor goes critical. Will it actually have the speed and capability – given that it has been built with Soviet/Russian technology and the fate of many Soviet/Russian subs lies at the bottom of the seas – taking a heavy toll of human life and reflecting the limitations of Soviet weapon systems? A major disadvantage of nuclear-powered subs is that they are noisier because they have to keep the reactor powered on all the time so if conventional subs can acquire longer submergeable capability through AIP technology – although it will still not be the same as a nuclear-driven sub – the imbalance can be offset to some extent.

Sea-launched nuclear missiles are central to second strike capability which acts as a stabiliser in the context of nuclear strategy since it reduces the imperatives for first strike. In this context, although Pakistan has not officially made any declarations regarding the development of this capability, it is now fairly well-established that we are already on the way to ensuring this second strike capability. It is also now recognised that we have had more success with missile development than India – probably because we have kept our missile ranges and types limited and focused more on developing solid fuelled delivery systems (which, again, are more stable) and reducing circular error probabilities. India, on the other hand, chose to have a wide-ranging missile programme including seeking the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). While we have stabilised our cruise missile as well as moved towards the beginnings of sea-launched ballistic missiles, from all accounts, India has not been too successful in both these fields – especially with the Sagarika (which is to be its sea-launched missile) in surface tests. So if India is to gain any advantage from its nuclear-powered submarine, assuming it will perform as expected once its reactor goes critical, it will have to work more on its delivery systems.

For Pakistan while there is no need to go into panic mode, we will have to stop sacrificing good deals simply because of the greed over commissions. The fact that a French inquiry has hinted at commissions lying at the root of the death of the French engineers in Karachi should be a sobering moment for any leadership. But the brazenness with which our successive decision-makers have been proceeding, with scant regard for propriety and wastage of limited national resources, shows that no lessons have been learnt – nor is there any desire to learn from even recent history.

Worse still, our rulers are full of bombast but are unwilling to take proactive concrete actions. Take the case of Balochistan. Political leaders of all shades have been repeating ad nauseum the need for political healing and economic investment in that province but why have the first steps in that direction not been taken beyond publication of reports and statements? Why is the leadership so hesitant to declare a general amnesty for all Baloch political figures and the release of all political prisoners? When we can talk to militants (and we should if they are our own people prepared to accept the writ of the state) and be allied to the Americans who continue to kill our people through drone attacks, why are we so unwilling to begin the healing process with the Baloch people and their leaders? Why are we allowing our detractors to provide support for the dissidents instead of taking the punch out of their dissidence by granting them a one-time amnesty if they accept the writ of the state? How can we rise to external military challenges posed by countries like India and the US when we are unable to deal with our own people? Our weakness lies within ourselves reflecting a psychological confidence deficit which makes the rulers aggressive and non-accommodative with the nation and timorous before external players. The Indians and Americans are exploiting this well which is why the Indian’s are making grandiose statements about a submarine that has yet to show how it performs!



The writer is a defence analyst. Email: [email protected]

Destroying ourselves with a little help from the US

By Shireen M Mazari

The chaos that is spreading within the country is frightening and a result of bad or lack of governance on the one hand and US intrusions and questionable activities in Pakistan on the other. In the first instance, there is no civilian governance infrastructure to take over and govern the "cleared" areas in Malakand – but then there is no governance even in more central parts of the country. That is why we have had the despicable attack on the poor and marginalised Christians in Gojra – once again under the shameful and protective guise of the Blasphemy Law. Never has a Law been so abused to wreak violence on our minorities' whom the Founder of the Nation, Quaid-i-Azam, declared as equal citizens in the state of Pakistan. Clearly, there is so much hatred, intolerance and violence endemic within us that we do not need any Taliban to kill and harm our less fortunate fellow citizens. And where were the government and the law and order institutions when all this barbarism was being carried out?

As Pakistanis we must hang our heads once again in shame; but the main concern for us should not be simply our image internationally but what we are becoming within our own society. That is what should be of primary concern for the leadership. That is why in many previous columns I have been pointing to the dangers of bringing our marginalised population within the mainstream and delivering justice to the people so that they all have a stake in the system and the state – be they the marginalised Madrassah students or the marginalised minorities'. Otherwise extremism and violence will fester – Taliban or no Taliban – and as a desperate measure sending in the military will only aggravate not resolve the problem. And one has yet to talk of Balochistan where targeted killings continue while politicians continue to talk rather than act despite a seeming political consensus on what needs to be done. Why a beginning towards reconciliation cannot be made by declaring a general amnesty for all political prisoners and exiles only our bizarre ruling elites' mindsets can understand but we are on a precipice here.

However, the other cause for chaos can be resolved more readily – that of the growing intrusiveness and questionable role of the US within Pakistan. For some time now one has been raising questions about the strange US presence in areas around Tarbela and in Peshawar. Then there was the news of the assassination squads controlled by the US Department of Defence rather than the CIA, of which the new US commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal was a central actor. This information helped to link up differing pieces of a growing puzzle about the increasing US personnel in Pakistan. A cause for concern, given these developments, is the US plan to spend $1 billion to expand its presence in Islamabad – especially, since central to this plan is the importation of almost 400 Marines with hundreds of APCs. There is absolutely no logic to this, but who will tell our rulers who seem hell-bent on kowtowing before Washington? Incidentally already the US contingent in Pakistan is way over the sanctioned strength of 350 but does anyone in the corridors of power in Pakistan care?

Nor is the US Marines presence restricted to Islamabad. As some of us had been writing much earlier, they had been spotted in and around Tarbela also – where our military's Special Operation Task Force is located. It now transpires that there are already 300 plus US military personnel in this area – the so-called "trainers". Of course, given the poor counter insurgency record of the US, heaven knows what training they will impart to our much better trained army! Also, if they were only "trainers" why would the US buy a large plot of land around Tarbela and send twenty large containers there according to an investigative Asia Times Online report (3August 2009).

As if all these US military and undercover officials crawling all over the sensitive parts of the country were not enough, it appears that the US is also using private covert setups to further a dubious and threatening agenda within Pakistan. The centre of these suspicious covert operations is Peshawar, and the central organisation is Creative Associates International Inc. (CAII – as opposed to CIA), which refers to itself as an NGO on its website but on further investigation it transpires that the organisation is registered as a private incorporated company in Washington D.C – not an NGO! A 27 July 2009 report by Sarwar and Yousafzai for Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA) reveals that CAII has been terrifying the residents of University Town Peshawar because of its US security guards – ostensibly from that notorious US security contractor Blackwater (now renamed Xe Worldwide) whose employees already face charges of murder, arms smuggling and child prostitution in Iraq.

What is very suspicious is that CAII's website shows no identification of its owners although its staff is identified. Also, although it is supposed to be a private corporation, all its work around the world is totally funded by USAid and the US government and the projects are all in sensitive areas only – Sri Lanka, Gaza, Angola, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. CAII is working supposedly on a strange-sounding project in FATA – FATA Development Programme Government to Community. In reality, its staff goes around escorted by the killer Blackwater guards, meeting militants and other suspect people being sought by the Pakistani authorities in FATA and the Peshawar environs. Of the 30 job openings listed on its website presently, at least half are for Pakistan.

During the latter half of July, a US citizen, Craig Davis, was arrested from the CAII house in Peshawar, his visa cancelled and deported. Interestingly, when a journalist sought to verify this information from the US embassy, its spokesperson first declared that Davis had nothing to do with the US embassy but then stated that the embassy knew nothing about this man. So if they knew nothing of the man's existence, how was it known that he did not work for the US embassy?

The point is, clearly there is a threatening US agenda including seeking out our nuclear sites and assassinating people thereby adding to our chaos and violence. But the question is: who has allowed us to be confronted with such a dubious and large US covert and overt presence in Pakistan? Some believe that during the previous regime, certain segments of certain institutions had orders from the top to allow this dangerous US infiltration into Pakistan but no one else was informed. However, now who is responsible for the continuing presence of these people in sensitive areas where they are also terrorising the local populations?

When we as a society are facing our own problems of violence and terrorism, we can hardly afford to have such a volatile US presence here which will only aggravate our problems of violence and law and order. It is also sad to learn that Blackwater has been able to recruit dozens of retired commandos from the Pakistan army and elite police force through its local subcontractors according to the DPA report. Are Pakistanis so willing to knowingly act against their nation for dollars?

With increasing information about the dangerous US presence in Pakistan, it is not difficult to connect the dots also – with our nuclear assets, the institution of the military and the remaining strands of stability being the targets. Unless someone can stop the rot, it is only a matter of time before the US forces cross over physically on the ground from across Afghanistan. They may not get the triggers they plan on seizing but they can trigger a push towards total anarchy. Our rulers are certainly in self-destruct mode aided and abetted by the US.

The writer is a defence analyst. Email: [email protected]

This is really strange! Pakistani army commandos being hired by Blackwater!

Any independent confirmation of this?

Is she implicating only the democratic government here or the whole establishment?

Is everyone of them a traitor?

Chaos and neglect -- national drift

By Shireen M Mazari

As another 14th August approaches, there is so much disarray and violence across the land and amid it all there is a qualitative increase in the dangerous trend of giving over sovereign space – both in terms of physical land as well as people – that one barely knows where to begin commenting. However, since the prevailing Baitullah Mehsud issue has shrouded equally if not more threatening developments, one cannot avoid some comment on this issue – although there is already a glut of discussion and analyses going on.

While the controversy over whether or not Baitullah Mehsud has finally been taken out continues to gather momentum, but the US is already seeking its pound of flesh for having finally lent "technical" support to the Pakistani state – if indeed that is what really happened. After all, one has witnessed the earlier and continuous reluctance of the US to target the leader of the TTP, adding to suspicions that the sophisticated arms and monetary largesse may have been flowing from the Afghan side courtesy the US and India. But then it is also a historic reality that when the time comes, the US not only abandons its earlier "allies" but can dispose of them permanently so no one lives to tell the tale! But if this has worked to Pakistan's advantage for once, why complain!

For Pakistan what is important now is to exploit the confusion and the clearly visible signs of dissent within the TTP, so that a costly and uncertain military operation in FATA can be avoided and the terrorists denied space through clever political and economic manoeuvring. After all, if the Brits can suddenly distinguish between "good" and "bad" Taliban – with Miliband's three pragmatic categories – surely our state can cause dissensions in the rank by separating those weary members of the TTP who would be prepared to avoid the impending in-fighting and lay down their arms from the diehard terrorists. But this cannot be done if we continue the old British colonial policy of inflicting collective punishment on the whole Mehsud tribe – which is being done at the moment. It is unfortunate that the initiative taken by the Mehsud jirga to visit Islamabad was not reciprocated by our prime minister who refused to see them during their seven-day stay in the capital. Apparently, he was unwilling to see the 40-plus delegation on grounds of security, being unable to comprehend the criticality of this meeting with no one prepared to point this out to him. Incidentally, it is a sorry reflection on our democracy if our prime minister is fearful of meeting 40-plus Pakistani citizens even after the security checks that are in place! Let us hope that better sense prevails within our decision makers – be they uniformed or in civvies – so that repressive policies like collective punishment are abandoned for more viable and attractive policies that give the people of FATA a sense that they have a stake in the system and promise of a better life if they go with the state.

Unfortunately at the moment the state seems to be offering little to anyone beyond the politically privileged. Karachi is descending into chaos with targeted and custodial killings, and the continuing dearth of electricity. Balochistan continues to be ignored despite the horrific targeted killings along ethnic lines, which the government also seems to be ignoring. Are they deliberately waiting for Baloch dissidents to declare their independence from Pakistan before resorting to military action similar to what happened in FATA? Threats of declaring an independent Balochistan from dissidents abroad are gaining momentum given how such activities are being supported by not only our so-called allies but our traditional detractors also.

The irony is that when there is a general political consensus on what needs to be done in Balochistan, why is no one moving on that count – neither Parliament nor the rulers? Where is there movement on declaring a general amnesty for all political prisoners and dissidents? Where is there movement on producing the missing persons, or information on them at least – not just those from Balochistan but from across Pakistan? Where is the decision to remove the FC from the settled areas of Balochistan, especially the pickets that are seen as a source of harassment by the ordinary Baloch? Why is there no move to implement the last Senate's consensus recommendations on Balochistan – given that the present ruling party's Raza Rabbani was also an author of the recommendations? Equally critical, why are US marines all over Balochistan?

But then US personnel are all over Pakistan and gradually defying all the laws of the land. The incident of the SHO being abused and threatened by a US embassy guard (or diplomat since he seemed to have that status) is jut one incident. Imagine what will happen in Islamabad and across Pakistan with 1000 plus US marines running loose all armed and oblivious to Pakistani law! Once again Holbrooke is arriving, no doubt to claim his pound of flesh for the drone attack against Baitullah! Already the US seems to think that the Pakistani public will now cheer on the drone attacks regardless of the issues of sovereignty and collateral damage! Also, he is bound to pressure the army into beginning a full-scale conventional operation in FATA – which will be a disaster for us. Is he also going to pressure us further into accepting Blackwater and CIA front groups across the NWFP? Is he going to press us into allowing the 1000 plus marines into Islamabad and providing them immunity from the law of the land?

But then it is not just US citizens that are defying our laws and regulations. There was a major security issue the other day in Islamabad when a Danish embassy security man chose to "test" our security system by faking a bomb on his car. Too bad the security personnel did not shoot first and ask questions later but the man needs to be deported for conducting such a move without any prior approval let alone authorisation from the Pakistani authorities. Could our embassy security personnel in Denmark ever get away with such reckless behaviour? No.

Nor is it just defiance of the security laws that are now common place amongst certain foreign nationals and diplomats. Even normal civic laws are being flouted daily – especially in the Capital. The Swedes, following the Italians, have sought to take over part of Margalla Road (a major capital artery) in addition to their cement blockades by throwing cement across the street thereby compelling motorists to use the wrong side of the road. This is not to mention the horrific cement blocks that impede driving and also pose a threat to the unwary driver. Surely all those diplomats who feel insecure should move forthwith to the diplomatic enclave so that the citizens of Pakistan can once again regain freedom of access in their own country. Of course in the diplomatic enclave, it is apartheid all over, with Pakistanis denied access now even to some of the restaurants in that area of Pakistan.

But then it is our rulers who are to blame. After all, which other country so willingly hands over its citizens to other states to torture and kill? We have been doing this since 9/11 – and if one delved deeply enough I am sure our state was doing this much before also. It is not just on the terrorism pretext either. For instance our rulers have decided to hand over a Pakistani travel agent and his wife to Saudi Arabia where they will face the death penalty. Yes, we do have an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia but it seems to work only one way and are we sure our citizens would get justice in that country?

But then the white and green that symbolises Pakistan is fading all around us. Our present rulers have sought to replace the Pakistani flag with their own party flag despite the fact that less than half the country voted them into power. Our presidency has become a party headquarters; personalised rule is the hallmark of the day; institutional norms and procedures lie dead; and we better get used to a new flag and disappearing pictures of the Quaid from official buildings. This is the new democratic feudal fiefdom of Pakistan.

The writer is a defence analyst. Email: [email protected]

She does have a litany of complaints against anyone and everyone.

Also not the least bit of credit to the USA for killing Baitulllah, just the worry that they will extract their "pound of flesh"!

I pray that I don't get such a nagging wife.

After you see her picture, you wouldn't want such women in life :wink:.

Our leaders' voluntary submission to colonisation
By Shireen M Mazari

First there has been the threat to the ordinary citizen of an effective occupation of Pakistan by the US, especially for those living in what is becoming a threateningly close proximity to the droves of Americans arriving in form or another. Before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was given orders to the contrary, press reports of August 6 show that its spokesman, Mr Basit, on August 5, at the Karachi Press Club, had already given out the fact of the 1,000 marines coming for the protection of the new, imperial US embassy in Islamabad.

Now we are seeing houses being barricaded for US personnel all across the capital and we know of the 300 plus 'military trainers' already ensconced in Tarbela. In addition we have the notorious Blackwater (now hiding under a new label, Xe Worldwide) and the rather obvious CIA front-company, Creative Associates International Inc (CAII), operating not only in Peshawar but now in Islamabad also it transpires – and a recent reflection of this was the sealing off of the road in Super Market last week right in front of a school! Whatever the US embassy gives out or the terrified Pakistani leadership echoes, the reality is that there is a questionable and increasingly threatening US armed presence in Pakistan and this may be augmented soon with an ISAF/NATO presence. Incidentally, to add to the suspicions of the US presence, reports are coming in of around 3,000 Hummer vehicles, fully loaded, awaiting transportation from Port Qasim.

Will some of these go to the Pentagon's assassination squads, who may take up residence in some off the barricaded Islamabad houses and with whom the present US commander in Afghanistan was directly associated? Ordinary officials at Pakistani airports have also been muttering their concerns over chartered flights flying in Americans whose entry is not recorded – even the flight crews are not checked for visas and so there is now no record-keeping of exactly how many Americans are coning into or going out of Pakistan. Incidentally the CAII's Craig Davis who was deported has now returned to Peshawar! And let us not be fooled by the cry that numbers reflect friendship since we know what numbers meant to Soviet satellites.

Now another threat, in the making for some time, is becoming more overt. Pakistan's precious and fertile agricultural land is up for grabs to the highest foreign bidder. Pakistan is not alone in being targeted thus by rich countries with little or no food resources. The UN has already condemned this purchase of agricultural land as a form of neo-colonialism. Over the past five years in a hardly-noticed wave of investment, rich agricultural land and forests in poor countries are being snapped up by buyers from cash-rich countries. Leading this grab of poor country resources are the rapidly industrialising states and the oil-rich countries who have, between 2006-2009, either directly through governments or through sovereign wealth funds and companies, already grabbed or are in the process of grabbing between 37 to 49 million acres of developing countries' farmland (a July 2009 report by Robert Schubert of Food and Water Watch).

Wealthy countries like Japan and South Korea are acquiring farmlands abroad for food security while oil-rich countries are seeking cheap water and cultivated crops to be shipped home. The land buyers from the oil-rich arid countries are seeking water as much as land because by buying or leasing land with sufficient water, they can divert their own domestic irrigation water to municipal water supplies.

The foreign land purchases destabilise food security since land given to foreign investors cannot be used to produce food for local communities – the foreign investors' intent being to take the food back to their own food-scarce countries. Many of the land purchases comprise tens of thousands of acres which are then turned into single-crop farms – and these dwarf the small-scale farms common in the developing world, where nearly nine out of ten farms (85 per cent) are less than five acres. Such land grabs have now been recognised as harming the local communities by dislodging smallholder farmers, aggravating rural poverty and food insecurity.

With Gulf countries importing 60 per cent of their food on average, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are leading the investments into Asia and Africa to secure supplies of cereals, meat and vegetables. The rise in demand for food imports for the GCC comes at a time when exportable agricultural surplus worldwide has declined.

How does all this impact Pakistan? Pakistan has rich agricultural land and adequate water although the latter's distribution has been subject to political machinations. There has also been a seemingly deliberate effort by successive ruling elites to undermine the country's agricultural potential and nowhere is this more brazenly evident than at present with power outages preventing crucial water supply through tubewells; and many rich lands being converted into housing colonies! Then we have had artificially created sugar and wheat shortages – 'artificial' because for the last few years our wheat and sugarcane crops have been bountiful. As for the wonderful local fruit, that is also being diverted to feed external populations through exports that are not only depriving the locals of their land's bounty but also raising local prices so only the rich elite can consume what is left.

Now it has come out that we are selling land to the Gulf states, thereby undermining our local agriculture further. Abraaj Capital and other UAE entities have acquired 800,000 acres of farmland in Pakistan (we have learnt no lessons from the sale of the KESC and the PTCL). Qatar Livestock is investing $1 billion in corporate farms in Pakistan. But all this produce will be taken out, so the argument that this foreign investment will bring in new technologies into our agricultural sector does not hold. In any case, one does not have to sell one's land to foreign forces to acquire new technology which is available in the open market and the government can help local farmers acquire it.

Not surprisingly, the Gulf countries are pleased with Pakistan's rulers bending over backwards to accommodate their needs at the expense of the ordinary Pakistani – for none of the food produced on these lands will be available cheaply for Pakistanis; it will go to feed the Gulf populations. Gulf countries are happy because their imported food bill will cost 20-25 per cent less, positively impacting on their present high inflation rate. We may import this food from them for a price, just as our government has now decided to import sugar from the UAE. Of course the UAE itself imports sugar so the absurdity should be abundantly clear to all, including our profiteers!

In the visibly servile mindset of our leaders, instead of offering incentives on a similar scale to local farmers, Islamabad is offering legal and tax concessions, with legislative cover, to foreign investors in the form of specialised agricultural and livestock 'free zones' and may also introduce legislation to exempt such investors from government-imposed tax bans. The most worrisome aspect of such wheeling-dealing is the government's decision to develop a new security force of 100,000 men spread across the four provinces to ensure stability of the Arab investments. This will cost the Pakistani state around $2 billion in terms of training and salaries and the real fear is that this force will be used to forcibly eject local small farmers from their lands. Concerns have been further heightened because no labour laws will be applicable to corporate agricultural companies and there will be no sales tax or customs duties on import of agricultural machinery by these investors. Nor will their dividends be taxed and 100 per cent remittances of capital and profits will be permitted. So where is there even an iota of advantage for the ordinary Pakistani as opposed to the rulers?

With the US increasingly occupying Pakistan with their covert and overt armed presence, and the Gulf states taking over our rich agricultural lands our rulers are voluntarily making us a colony again – as we were under the British who used our men to fight their wars and our cheap labour to ship the finished produce back to Britain! Have we come full circle after 62 years of our creation?

The writer is a defence analyst. Email: [email protected]