http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009/04/10/story_10-4-2009_pg3_5
VIEW: Getting real on terrorism —Ismail Khan
It is high time that we wake up to reality:
militancy has to be dealt with as a whole; a piecemeal approach cannot deliver and in fact will allow this cancer to spread further in our society
There is increasing sternness in the voices emanating from our
neighbouring countries about the presence of militant Islamist elements with our borders. These elements,
it is argued, receive training and sanctuary in Pakistan and strike its neighbours at a time and place of their choosing. Some even continue to contend a direct state role in these episodes of terrorism.
While the Pakistani state has acknowledged the presence of militants with transnational objectives — indeed this is no longer a hidden secret — Pakistani society at large continues to remain in denial about the repercussions their ambivalence to the militant threat may have for the country.
Pakistan risks nothing short of total isolation in due course should it remain unable to tame the militancy. And by ‘militancy’, one does not mean selective groups;
there has to be a philosophical commitment against militancy of any kind to win this war.
The post-1980 security paradigm that saw jihadis as a state asset still lingers in the minds of our intelligentsia. Just as the world exaggerates the extent to which Pakistan is responsible for the woes in Afghanistan, Islamabad turns a blind eye to instances where Pakistani soil may have been used to hatch terrorist plots executed in Afghanistan. Similarly, the
“pulp patriotism” that flourished after the Mumbai attacks in the Pakistani media –though this was in response to Indian brinkmanship — still resonates with the people of Pakistan.
Further, one of the premises for this inherently flawed framework was that all regional states excluding the targets, i.e. the Soviet Union and (later) India, would favour or be indifferent to the Pakistani strategy. While that may have worked till 2001, the post-9/11 transformation has led even our staunchest allies to feel the heat, call upon us to reverse our outlook and dismantle the terrorists’ physical presence.
Two such examples are noteworthy.
First, recently Iran approached Pakistan regarding the activities of Jundullah, a Sunni militant organisation that has been involved in several attacks in Iran’s Sistan-va-Baluchestan province. The city of Saravan has been targeted repeatedly, including through a “rare” suicide bombing last year.
Pakistan has drawn a line between state support to Jundullah and the group’s presence within its borders. In reply to Iran’s charges, Pakistan’s foreign ministry has stated that it would ensure that Pakistan’s soil is not used for attacks inside Iran. This assurance presumes that while Jundullah may be present in Pakistan, the state is in no way involved in such activities. This is much the same plea we were forced to make on Mumbai.
While today the Iranians may be convinced of a lack of institutional support to Jundullah, our defence is based on very shaky rationale. Ultimately, the argument from Iran (and India on Mumbai) is sure to be that Pakistan, even if not involved as a state, has become entirely incapable of dealing with these groups. This then could become grounds for a future UN resolution to justify some sort of breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty.
Then there is China, whose
friendship with Pakistan ran “greater than Himalayas and deeper than the Arabian Sea”. Parallel to the emerging Sino-Soviet split during the Cold War, China’s friendly relations with Pakistan were seen as a balance to Indian presence in the region.
Today, things are much different. With Sino-Indian rapprochement, both countries are beginning to see eye-to-eye on a number of issues. Interestingly, China on the one hand seems to be playing more of a balancing act between Pakistan and India, and on the other, is growing increasingly wary of a connection between Pakistani terrorism and unrest in its restive Xinjiang province.
The prime concern at this point is the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), an anti-China group, whose presence in Pakistan has been confirmed. So far, Pakistan has been receptive to China’s concerns. The leader of EITM, Hasan Mahsum, was killed in an operation conducted by Pakistan Army in South Waziristan in October 2003. Additionally, the
Red Mosque vigilantes’ attacks on Chinese ‘massage parlours’ is also what triggered the controversial operation at Lal Masjid. Moreover, post-Mumbai, Pakistan was hesitant to take action against the Jama’at-ud Dawa until China distanced itself from vetoing the move in the Security Council to ban JuD.
Notwithstanding, Pakistan’s positive response to China (and for that matter its reassurance to Iran) is at best a fire fighting measure.
The Pakistani state and citizens must remain cognisant of two facts.
First, no neighbour or global power is happy with terrorist organisations operating with relative immunity in Pakistan.
Second, the world is increasingly becoming wary of Pakistan’s tactics to separate ‘good’ and ‘bad’ militants. Pakistan is seen to be acting against the militants threatening it or the states it considers allies, but not against countries like India, the US and Afghanistan. Global patience is running out on such antics.
It is high time that we wake up to reality: militancy has to be dealt with as a whole; a piecemeal approach cannot deliver and in fact will allow this cancer to spread further in our society.
The moment when the world declares Pakistan incapable and unwilling to deal with terrorism is not far. Make no mistake, even the staunchest of our allies will be on board at that time in forcing the issue to prevent militancy and terrorism from spreading across South Asia and beyond.
Terrorism threatens everyone; there are no longer any takers for Pakistan’s ‘nuanced’ outlook on the issue.
The writer is a graduate student at Boston University
