‘Lessons have been learnt’ written by Mian Abrar

Non-state actors are of no use in the present scenario








Mian Abrar
The writer heads Pakistan Today's
 Islamabad Bureau. He has a special
 focus on counter-terrorism and
 inter-state relations in Asia, Asia 
Pacific and South East Asia regions.
                                                          
                                                           Pakistan’s security environment has just become much more complex. It’s no longer just the Afghans or Americans who are demanding more clarity about the country’s fight against terrorists, especially its relationship with certain specific individuals and outfits. Local voices too, including newspaper editorials, are suddenly asking for a lot more transparency regarding the national security blueprint.

A lot more will, therefore, have to be explained. For example, if we
have really jettisoned the proxies that everybody still accuses us of harbouring, what better time to come clean and really explain why it is in our own larger interest to do so. At the very least it will soothe nerves where some of our most important cheques are signed, besides bringing a degree of comfort to ordinary Pakistanis, who have suffered among the most in this mad war or terror.

To make sense of the situation, DNA talked exclusively to Brig (R) Mehmood Shah, former Secretary FATA, and a renowned expert on affairs related to the Afghan war, terrorism, and security affairs

Question: Considering that the debate about non-state actors has once again been triggered, do you feel it is time that the establishment come clean about the status of Haqqani Network, Hafiz Saeed, etc?

Mehmood Shah: Let me tell you frankly, the matter of non-state actors is not an issue of the establishment. Yes, it might be the case in the past but times have changed and so has the thinking of the military establishment. Lessons have been learnt as far as the army is concerned its interests have changed.

The problem is with the political leadership which lacks the will to act against these powerful groups. Whether it is about the militant wing in the MQM, or sectarian outfits (gangs) in the Punjab, the political leadership is reluctant to act — perhaps due to the potential fallout of any such operation. The same goes for Hafiz Saeed or Jaish-e-Mohammad as both have certain pockets where they have strong presence and the politicians, due to the fear of losing vote bank or the possibility of fallout or an issue of law and order, are reluctant to act.

Just take the case of Red Mosque cleric — the federal government is reluctant to act despite pressure from the military — due to the apprehension of a political fallout. If you go by the account of the negative story published by Dawn, which also blamed the military for supporting or shielding the non-state actors, the ISI director-general told the civilians to move against these individuals and he even offered to go in each province to help the respective chief minister in taking action.

Just take the example of Sindh where a so-called doctor, who is a close confidant of a political party head, was arrested and he confessed to supporting so many terrorists from financing to getting them treated in his hospital and providing arms. So you just arrest a powerful (minister) in Punjab and things would happen there just as in Sindh.

The army however understands the shortcomings of the political regime and that is why it is pressuring them to help initiate action against non-state actors. So the lack of action against the non-state actors is due to political ambiguities and political expediency. But the civilians should not shift the blame to the army for their own failure to act.

Just take another case. Who is not taking action against the religious seminary in Akora Khattak whose cleric claims to be the grandfather of the Taliban? Rather than taking action against the seminary chief, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government released Rs300 million for the seminary. So it is the lack of political will rather than the support from military establishment against the non-state actors.

Q: Why has this issue been shrouded in ambiguity for so long? After all, this war has been going on for a long time. What, in your opinion, is the reason that even our own operation has been vague, at best, about such people and outfits?

MS: Do not let such arguments wash away all the good work done by the army against terrorists. The North Waziristan operation is unmatched in the country’s history and even US Congressman and Senators have not only praised the military’s performance for clearing the tribal belt, they have spoken out loud about it. The Senator John McCain-led delegation of US lawmakers not only visited North Waziristan but McCain wrote an article lauding the performance of the Pakistan army there.

The action against terrorists was across the board and whosoever who challenged the forces was confronted and dealt with irrespective of nationality, caste or creed. Now there are no remnants of the terrorists in the area.

As far as the Haqqani Network is concerned, all have either fled into Afghanistan or they were already there. Yes, there are claims about new Taliban chief Haibatullah Akhundzada that he was teaching in some seminary in Kuchlaak. This report might be correct but since there were thousands of Afghan refugees in Kuchlaak, it is hard to ascertain Taliban-specific loyalties in every case. But with the repatriation policy of Afghan refugees, there would be no possibility of the presence of any insurgent in Pakistan. Pakistan’s policy of effective border management would be, however, the key to success so as neither any insurgent may crossover into Pakistan nor anyone may go from Pakistan into Afghanistan for terrorism.

The Afghan government should cooperate with Pakistan to ensure no cross border terrorism takes place through effective border monitoring and improved border management.

We have realised in the present perspective that all militant groups should be disarmed as they have no relevance now.

As far as Hafiz Saeed is concerned, the Punjab government should immediately take action and such elements should be engaged. Either they should be disarmed and provided jobs in order to bring them into the mainstream or they should be taken care of. One thing is clear that these non-state actors are of no use in the present scenario. So they need to be taken care of.

The military firmly believes that all issues with India need to be resolved through peaceful means and dialogue and insurgency is of no use to Pakistan. The world knows better that the Kashmiri freedom struggle is indigenous — thanks to the prudent policy of non-interference by Pakistan. We have realised that the ragtag militant organisations are not productive in the present perspective. So we have left the Kashmir struggle to be decided by the Kashmiri people and Pakistan only extends political, diplomatic and moral support to them.

Indian atrocities against the innocent Kashmiris have been exposed to the world despite media gags and the international community has seen how the Indian army is killing, maiming and dumping the Kashmiris; old, young and children.

Q: With the American Congress recently debating whether Pakistan is a friend or foe, some analysts are saying there is also the threat of sanctions if Pakistan does not make its position clear immediately. What, in your opinion, is the opportunity cost of maintaining proxies in the present environment?

MS: First of all, let me make it clear that Pakistan knows well that there is no use of proxies in this age of information and communication. We also have learnt lessons from past experiences of proxies in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

So we are not using proxies against any state. We don’t even need to do so as we have such a capable and strong army. With nukes as a solid and effective deterrent, we don’t need proxies anymore.

As far as Afghan war is concerned, we have decided to stay away from the Afghan inferno, leaving Afghanistan to the Afghan people and their rulers. We need to take care of Pakistan now which deserves our attention more. We should not even engage Afghan Taliban and rather let’s leave the Afghan peace process to the world’s superpower and the Afghan government.

Even when the Afghan Taliban were in the government they did not listen to Pakistan. So there is no need to even help the peace process. Let the Afghans decide their own fate.

As far as US sanctions are concerned, they won’t harm us too much. Pakistan’s case is much different from others. We have a huge black market which is double the size our economy. Moreover, we are a self-sufficient country in terms of food as we grow wheat, rice, fruit and vegetables.

Iran’s major problem was that oil export was its major revenue generation source. Pakistan neither relies on heavy exports nor major imports. We have faced worst US sanctions in early 2000 after the nuclear blasts in year 1998-99. So even if the US goes for sanctions, we can survive but the US would be the major loser.

With changes taking place in Asia, the US can’t even think of putting sanctions on Pakistan. With its geostrategic location, Pakistan is bracing new partners while the US is siding with India.

After China’s strategic alliance with Pakistan, Russia is also tilting towards us. The same is the case with Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other regional allies who are shifting their focus from India to Pakistan and a new regional alliance is being formed.

In such a scenario, the US can’t afford to ignore Pakistan as by doing so it would lose its leverage here. So don’t even pay any attention to such hollow warnings, rather just keep your focus on the new allies Islamabad is attracting.

Q: The government has long been criticised for ceding decision-making space in security and foreign policy to the military. Do you agree?

MS: Yes, I agree that the civilian leadership has ceded space for military and it is the military which frames foreign policy of Pakistan. But who is responsible for this too? You know the political leadership has no vision or commitment to frame the foreign policy of the country.

After Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who himself had a vision on foreign policy, no other civilian leader has ever provided direction to the ministry of foreign affairs.

Just take example of a recent meeting when the army chief invited the advisor to PM on foreign affairs along with Senator Ishaq Dar to the GHQ and asked for a briefing on the country’s plan to counter Indian efforts to get membership of the NSG? They did not have any idea about it. So the army shared their own plan with the civilian government and asked them to launch efforts to convince the international community to treat India and Pakistan at par as both had conducted nuclear tests in the same year.

This is enough to reflect the sincerity and commitment of the civilians to the national cause. The civilian leadership is only interested in development projects as there are kickbacks and commissions involved. While in foreign policy affairs there is no such interest. Moreover, unfortunately the foreign office officials are also interested in better postings and getting their kids nationality of European countries.

There are some rare diplomats who are brilliant and capable but as a whole the diplomatic officials are not interested and committed. This lack of will and commitment from civilians compels the military to plan and strategise for safeguarding the state interests.

Moreover, the foreign policy needs gradual, sustained and continuous process of engagement with other countries. The political instability in Pakistan has badly harmed our foreign policy framework.

Q: Do you believe Pakistan was able to highlight India’s latest atrocities in Kashmir adequately before the international community? Or was India, with its vicious PR wing, once again able to sell its story better?

MS: Unfortunately, let me admit that despite some late efforts, Pakistan has not had much success in exposing Indian atrocities against innocent, freedom loving Kashmiris. Though after a slow start, Pakistan valiantly made efforts to expose India but since the efforts started too late, they largely failed to expose India.

There are suspicions and claims that the Uri attack was a fabricated move by India to counter the UNGA speech of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, however, Pakistan was not even able to prove this fact to the world.

Moreover, the timing of the attack itself suggested that it was a false flag operation but we failed to raise it as such. We even failed to tell the world how people the Indian army killed in Kashmir. It was a virtual massacre but we failed to project it. Initially, Kashmiri media played a key role in highlighting the plight of Kashmiri people but later, once India gagged its own media, the matter was hushed up.