The Perils of Coercion

By Amir Zia
Monthly Hilal
January 2018

Pakistan is the world’s only country that defeated terrorists without any foreign assistance, establishing the state writ even in those remote parts of the country where it never existed before. Pakistan Armed Forces successfully cleared terrorist safe havens including from places like North Waziristan in successive operations at huge sacrifices. 

U.S. President Donald Trump’s unapologetically brash, reckless and undiplomatic tweets are sending “virtual” tremors across the globe, or at least a part of it. In just the first three days of 2018, Mr. Trump used his private Twitter account to call Pakistan – once seen as the key U.S. ally in the war against terrorism – “a liar and a cheat,” threaten North Korea that he has “a much bigger” nuclear button and to take his animosity towards the American press to a new level by announcing “the most dishonest and corrupt media awards of the year.”

As a business tycoon and television personality, Mr. Trump could certainly afford to thrive on controversies. He could bulldoze rivals in political, business, media and social circles, using and abusing the social media without the worry of any wider consequences. But exercising similar tactics as president of the world’s most powerful nation is tantamount to upsetting the applecart and introducing an element of dangerous unpredictability and uncertainty in the international politics.

Yes, before Mr. Trump, it was unimaginable that a U.S. president would be taking to Twitter in a rash and impulsive manner to insult, abuse and threaten other states instead of opting for considered, careful, calculated and responsible diplomacy. Not anymore. And ironically, his blunt, unconventional and confrontationist style is defining and leading the U.S. foreign policy now.

Twitter Tirade

Mr. Trump’s New Year’s Twitter tirade against Pakistan, in which he accused Islamabad of playing a double game with Washington, remains unwarranted, thoughtless and damaging in the overall fight against extremism and terrorism. It marks a new low in the often rocky relationship of these two uneasy allies who have a history of working closely together as well as witnessing prolonged periods of estrangement.

Yet, at least on part of Pakistan, both its civil and military leaders have been consistent in efforts to maintain friendly ties with Washington. To date, this desire of working with the United States has not changed.

Director General Inter Services Public Relations Maj General Asif Ghafoor asserted in his various media interactions that Pakistan considers the United States as a friend and an ally and wants it to succeed in Afghanistan. But “a third force” has been trying to create misunderstanding between the two countries, he said referring towards the negative role played by the hostile neighbor i.e. India. The military spokesman, however, said that in case of any U.S. action against Pakistan, the armed forces would respond according to the aspirations of the people. This position underlines the fact that Pakistan’s desire of peace and friendly relation should not be taken as its weakness or lack of will to protect its national interests.

Pakistan’s civil and military leaders have reacted in a measured and mature manner to the recent provocation by Mr. Trump and other top U.S. officials in recent weeks and months.

The flawed and inconsistent U.S. approach in its dealings with Pakistan was highlighted by former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton way back in April 2009 in these words; “(we) have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan.”

Clinton explained how the militancy in Pakistan was linked to the U.S.-backed proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. “… we then left Pakistan [after the collapse of Soviet Union]... We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country... you deal with the mines that are along the border and... by the way we don't want to have anything to do with you... in fact we're sanctioning you... So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time,” she told a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, while discussing the Obama administration’s foreign policy at that time.

Stating the Obvious
Mr. Trump’s administration is committing the same mistake of blaming, abandoning and victimizing Pakistan as pointed out by Hillary Clinton in 2009. This has been the continual flaw of U.S. policymakers, who time and again ditched their time-tested and dependable ally, creating more problems than solutions.

However, even before the Trump juggernaut came into motion, at various levels a sustained propaganda campaign had already been launched against Pakistan in Washington and other Western capitals, which accused Islamabad of not doing enough to help the U.S.-led NATO forces achieve victory in the war-ravaged Afghanistan.

These allegations mainly stem from the fact that despite spending trillions of dollars in its longest ever war, the United States and its allies failed to achieve their goals in the land-locked Central Asian state. Pakistan was made a scapegoat to divert attention from the policy and military failures of the U.S.-led NATO forces.

Washington’s growing strategic relations with India that included the controversial nuclear cooperation treaty of 2008 – which fundamentally reversed more than 50 years of U.S. non-proliferation efforts – also played a role in the gradual widening of trust deficit between Pakistan and the United States. The preferential treatment given to India by the United States, which also gave New Delhi a freehand in Afghanistan allowing it to use the Afghan soil to fan terrorism in Pakistan, also became one of the main bones of contention.

Changing U.S. Priorities
However, while blaming Pakistan for the Afghan mess, the U.S. decision-makers seem to deliberately overlook the way their successive governments kept changing goalposts in Afghanistan.

President George W. Bush vowed in 2002 to make Afghanistan a modern democratic state – invoking the memories of Marshall Plan – but then going full steam into Iraq, neglecting the Afghan mission. President Barrack Obama in 2009 promised to focus on narrower goals that included defeating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban by a military surge and then pull out and leave “a good enough” Afghanistan. The cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s strategy was to work with Pakistan and it’s military to defeat the Al-Qaeda and its likes. But when Mr. Trump announced his Afghan policy on August 21, 2017, he ruled out pulling troops out of Afghanistan, announcing more boots on the ground and insisting that Pakistan must “do more” or face possible sanctions. Mr. Trump’s decision to stay and “fight to win” is another major policy shift in which the U.S. administration has decided to use coercive approach against Pakistan not just to put the blame of its failure on Islamabad but to directly suck it in the Afghan conflict – which successive Pakistani leaders have successfully been resisting so far.

Myth of $33 Billion
The U.S. administration, however, is building pressure on Pakistan to do its bidding, underlining its rash approach and failure to understand – by design or default – the complexities of Afghanistan.

Mr. Trump in his provocative New Year’s Tweet claimed that the United States “foolishly” gave “Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools.” This statement itself exposes either the deliberate twisting of facts by the U.S. president or his lack of understanding.

Out of this much touted figure of USD 33 billion, which Mr. Trump claims that the U.S. gave to Pakistan, USD 14.6 billion were on account of the Coalition Support Fund (CSF). The fact is that Pakistan spends more under this head than what it receives from Washington. The remaining USD18.8 billion comprised around USD 8.0 billion in security and military assistance, while the remaining USD 10 billion plus amount falls under the category of economic assistance disbursed through the USAID. Even out of this USAID amount, three-fourth goes back to the United States as consultancy and advisory fee. According to economic experts, the average annual U.S. assistance Pakistan received over the last 15 years is not more than USD 650 million an year, which remains less than one percent of the country’s budget.

Ignoring Facts
While unreasonably blaming Pakistan for its Afghan woes, the U.S. leadership completely ignores the fact that no other country assisted the United States the way Pakistan did in the war against terrorism.
Pakistan is the world’s only country that defeated terrorists without any foreign assistance, establishing the state writ even in those remote parts of the country where it never existed before. Pakistan Armed Forces successfully cleared terrorist safe havens including from North Waziristan in successive operations at huge sacrifices.

In order to address the concerns of Kabul and U.S.-led NATO forces regarding the alleged cross-border infiltration, Pakistan has started fencing its more than 2,600-kilometer long frontiers with Afghanistan, establishing new posts and introducing the border management system. But these measures are not being matched by Afghanistan, which in a bizarre manner, is opposing the fencing and the border management system. The Afghans and the U.S.-led forces also are doing little to monitor or man the international border to check the flow of terrorists from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

The Afghan Taliban have managed to gain ground in many parts of Afghanistan because the U.S. led forces failed to put boots on the ground, while the Afghan Army lacks the capacity and ability to stand on its own against this indigenous resistance movement.

Pakistan also has been urging Kabul for the repatriation of millions of Afghan refugees, which will help in curbing the narcotics trade as well as fighting terrorism. Pakistan has also offered for intelligence sharing time and again for prompt action against terrorists.

These allegations mainly stem from the fact that despite spending trillions of dollars in its longest ever war, the United States and its allies failed to achieve their goals in the land-locked Central Asian state. Pakistan was made a scapegoat to divert attention from the policy and military failures of the U.S.-led NATO forces.

In a nutshell, the blame game will lead Pakistan and the United States nowhere in the fight against terrorism. By targeting and victimizing Pakistan only the narrative of terrorists and extremists is being strengthened which remains a bad omen in this war. The U.S. belligerence will also strengthen those political and religious forces in Pakistan which firmly stand opposed to any cooperation with the United States in the war against terrorism.

Main Bulwark
Pakistan Armed Forces and state institutions serve as the main bulwark against terrorism and extremism in the region. They are not just holding together this nation of more than 200 million people but also stopping the tide of extremism from spreading across South and Central Asia.

Any attempts to weaken or damage these institutions would not just throw Pakistan into an unprecedented turmoil and aggravate an already dangerous situation in Afghanistan, but plunge the entire South Asia including India into a chaos, where religious, sectarian and ethnic fault-lines run deep and wide.

The United States’ myopic policies of blaming Pakistan, which has rendered huge sacrifices in the war against terrorism, will lead the two countries nowhere. The solution lies in cooperation, building trust, addressing Pakistan’s concerns regarding Afghanistan and helping resolve its unresolved issues, including the protracted Kashmir dispute with India.

On many fronts Pakistani and U.S. interests converge. There are more reasons to cooperate in the fight against extremism and terrorism than to confront. But it should remain clear that while Pakistan and its people desire close and friendly relations with the United States and all neighbours, it will stand up for its core national interests come what may.

Allied Against Terrorism

By Amir Zia

Monthly Hilal

December 2017

Pakistan’s decision to join the 41-nation Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC) enjoys a broad national consensus, but a handful of skeptics want Islamabad to stay away from the Saudi-led alliance as they fear that it would bring more harm to the country than good.

The anti-IMCTC arguments stem from three core apprehensions.
Firstly, the 41-member alliance is seen by some as an anti-Iran bloc, carrying sectarian overtones. They believe that it would strain Pakistan’s relations with Tehran and is likely to antagonize at least a section of the country’s Shi’ite Muslims, who comprise roughly 15-20 percent of the population.

Secondly, there are fears that Pakistan – being the alliance member – might inadvertently be sucked into some Middle Eastern conflict, resulting into disastrous domestic and regional implications.

Thirdly, some see this entire exercise as a non-starter because of rivalries among the IMCTC member states and their different requirements, challenges and priorities in the war against terrorism.

Indeed, given simmering tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Pakistan’s civil and military leaders will have to perform a delicate high-wire act to ensure that on one hand Islamabad’s time-tested strategic and economic relations with old, dependable brotherly Muslim country Saudi Arabia continues to grow and expand, and on the other they address concerns of the immediate neighbour Iran regarding this newly formed coalition.

Although staying away from the IMCTC as advocated by some fringe element and handful of politicians is no option at all, Pakistan has opted for the right strategy of playing an active role in the coalition as a major military power of the Muslim world and simultaneously soothing anxieties of Tehran.

The process of reaching out to Iran has already started. Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa in early November made a three-day visit to Tehran – the first ever by Chief of the Army Staff in more than two decades – where he announced Islamabad’s determination to expand ties with Iran in all spheres. According to Iranian media reports, General Bajwa in his meetings with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and other top leaders called for expanding military and defence ties and collaboration between the two countries for regional peace and security.

General Bajwa’s Iran visit came ahead of the IMCTC’s first meeting of Ministers of Defence in Riyadh under the slogan ‘allied against terrorism’ held on November 26. The impressive moot, inaugurated by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, pledged to boost its military capabilities to dismantle terrorist organizations.

General (retired) Raheel Sharif, commander-in-chief of the IMCTC, in his address at the conference again categorically stated that the objective of the coalition is “to fight against terrorism and it is not against any country, sect or religion.” Sharif gave a similar message in his October 16 address in Bahrain where he shared Pakistan’s experience of turning the tide of terrorism.

The repeated assertions by the top IMCTC military commander as well as Pakistan’s civil and military leaders’ commitment about taking on terrorists should put at rest all speculations about coalition being an anti-Iran bloc. The presence of Pakistan and countries like Turkey in the IMCTC would ensure that the alliance sticks to its declaration unveiled in Riyadh conference in which terrorism has been identified as a “constant and growing challenge to peace” and the member states have vowed to counter it “through education and knowledge.”

The four-point master-plan focuses on countering terrorist ideology, developing factual media content to counter terrorist narrative, halting terror financing and building anti-terrorism capabilities of military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the member countries. The declaration and statements by the IMCTC commander-in-chief focuses on the faceless violent non-state actors who challenge and threaten member states in one way or the other.

A day after the Riyadh conference, Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa arrived in Saudi Arabia with a message that Pakistan fully “endorses and supports” policies of its ally in the region. The Prime Minister Office said that Abbasi “lauded efforts of the Saudi leadership in bringing peace and stability to the region and assured the King (Salman bin Abdulaziz) of Pakistan’s full support….”

This active diplomacy by Pakistan’s military and civil leaders with Saudi Arabia and Iran underlines Islamabad’s commitment of fighting terrorism along with the other Muslim states as well as its resolve of maintaining friendly ties with neighbouring countries.

Pakistan has also more than once demonstrated determination of not getting involved in any Middle Eastern conflict, but in line with the desire of overwhelming number of Pakistanis, Islamabad has also expressed commitment of defending the holy lands in Saudi Arabia.

The third apprehension that traditional rivalries and contradictions among some IMCTC member states would prevent it from taking off does not take into account the fact that these countries have more reasons to cooperate with one another to combat terrorism than basis for non-cooperation. The dangerous phenomenon of terrorism remains the biggest challenge to peace and stability in the 21st century world, especially for Muslim countries where terrorists misuse the sacred name of Islam in an attempt to legitimize their activities.

General Raheel while highlighting the gravity of the threat posed by terrorists said at the conference that “in the last six years, approximately 70,000 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 200,000 deaths.” He added that, “over 70 percent of terrorism related deaths occurred in the Islamic World, most affected were Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan.”

Pakistan remains the only country in the world, which turned the tide of terrorism single-handedly despite active support to terrorist networks by hostile neighbours like India and an anti-Pakistan lobby within the Afghan government. Yet, Pakistan has managed to put the terrorists on the back foot.

The IMCTC member states can certainly learn from one another’s anti-terrorism experience and supplement efforts in this non-conventional war which is being described as “extremely complex and resource intense.”

The initiative taken by His Majesty, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is historic and path-breaking in a sense that it managed to bring most of the Muslim countries on one platform to counter the common threat of terrorism.

The coalition aims “to utilize the expertise and resources of member and friendly countries” and provide them support to build capabilities of military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Joint exercises and anti-terrorism training remain important pillars of the strategy in which the battle-hardened Pakistan Armed Forces – especially the army and the air force – will take the lead in providing training to the forces of IMCTC allies.

The IMCTC also plans to establish “a state-of-the-art intelligence and information sharing platform to counter terrorist networks, their facilitators, abettors, sympathizers and financiers.”

As the IMCTC is a unique and first of its kind initiative in the highly polarized and divided Muslim world, skepticism and doubts about its role and future are understandable.

But should obstacles or fears of failure stop the Muslim leadership from trying bold and imaginative new initiatives? The grand idea behind the IMCTC is to unite Muslims against the scourge of terrorism, expose the misinterpretation and abuse of Islam by terrorists and build a counter narrative while taking decisive steps to weed out terrorists.

The Muslim world has suffered the most at the hands of terrorists and it has no option but to win the war against terrorism and the extremist ideologies. The good thing is that many leaders of the Muslim world realize that wars cannot be won in the battlefields alone, and they also need to be won in the hearts and minds of the people. The IMCTC envisions to fight this war on both the fronts – which is a good beginning.

The Deepest Cut

Amir Zia

November 10, 2014

The News

Do we now stand on hopeless grounds? Is the growing tide of extremism irreversible? The answer to these questions lies on whether our prime minister will be able to match his words with actions and we as a nation are able to rise and unite to save Pakistan and its soul from extremists. The wound of the Kot Radha Kishan tragedy must force us to act.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif issued a politically correct statement that a responsible state cannot tolerate “mob rule and public lynching with impunity.” The statement came in response to the horrifying act of vigilante violence in which a Christian couple – accused of desecrating the Holy Quran – was severely tortured and then burnt to death in a brick kiln by a mob in Kot Radha Kishan, barely 60 kilometers from Lahore.

The incident has sparked the usual flurry of angry statements from rights groups, some leading Islamic scholars and clerics, political parties and official quarters, which unanimously condemned the brutal double murder and called for stern action against the perpetrators of this heinous crime. The words of Prime Minister Sharif, too, appear to assure – at least on paper – that the state has to proactively act “to protect its minorities from violence and injustice.”

But haven’t we all heard such politically correct statements scores of times in the past as well whenever such brutalities are committed on an individual or collective basis by the religious zealots? Have these statements made any difference in the 21st century Pakistan where religious intolerance and extremism appear to be on the rise? Have the state and its institutions managed to punish those responsible for such barbaric acts?

The November 4 public brutality in Kot Radha Kishan, in which the Christian couple – Shahzad, 35, and his pregnant wife Shama, 31 – lost their lives, is not the first and will certainly not be the last one in our Islamic Republic.

Given the eroding writ of the state and the growing religious bigotry, this dangerous trend is all set to continue. A mere allegation of blasphemy has now become enough to seal the fate of an accused in today’s Pakistan. There is not even any room left to hold the trial of the accused under the country’s blasphemy laws. If the person accused of blasphemy is saved from the mob, he or she can be killed in police custody or in jail.

The state has become too frail and too feeble even to properly prosecute individuals who kill and resort to violence in the name of religion – especially on unproven charges of blasphemy. 

A case in point is that of Joseph Colony, Lahore where rioters torched more than 150 houses and two churches on March 9, 2013 over allegations of blasphemy against a Christian man. The police arrested more than 100 rioters, but all of them were set free as none could be proven guilty.

One can keep counting cases of murders and vigilante violence, from the high-profile assassination of Governor Salmaan Taseer in January 2011 in Islamabad to the burning to death of a mentally disabled person in Bahawalpur in July 2012, in which the state failed to get a single conviction.

Should we expect any different results from the arrests of people accused of the Kot Radha Kishan tragedy? If the past is any witness, then there is hardly any hope.

Most of the recognised Islamic scholars have a broad consensus that vigilante violence and taking the law in one own hands stand against the tenets of Islam. Only the state can punish a person once charges of blasphemy are undisputedly proven. The country’s religious-political parties also have a similar position.

Veteran scholars like Mufti Muhammed Naeem of Jamia Binoria, Karachi and Allama Tahir Ashrafi, Chairman Ullman Board Pakistan, have expressed their angst over the burning to death of the Christian couple and demanded that the government administer swift justice to those responsible for the crime.

They have argued that the inaction of the state and its inability to punish the culprits are the main reason for the surge in such acts of mob and individual violence.

Certainly, the government needs to show zero tolerance when it comes to dealing with such cases, but more importantly and as a long-term measure it has to create an environment where religious diversity and tolerance is celebrated.

That remains a tall order and requires, as a first step, reforms in our mainstream education system as well as seminaries. 

Preventing the misuse of pulpits in many of the mosques for inciting religious or sectarian hatred and fanaticism is also easier said than done. In fact, barring the lip-service to this cause, the government has failed to take any meaningful step in this direction, including framing effective laws or implementing the ones already on the books. 

It is not just the Sharif government, but most of the past governments as well which stand guilty of apathy and paralysis when it comes to taking on the challenge of religious extremism, intolerance and lawlessness in our society.

The failure of successive governments to tackle religiously-motivated violence and extremism sends the message that one can get away even with murder by exploiting the sacred name of Islam.

This has resulted not just in an unending vicious cycle violence against ordinary Pakistanis, mostly Muslims, and sectarian killings, but has also made the religious minorities excessively vulnerable.

Religious minorities – mainly Hindus and Christians – comprise a little over three percent of Pakistan’s population according to the 1998 census. (The figures can be grossly misleading as there has not been an official census in the country for the past 16 years.) 

According to Sadiq Daniel, Bishop of Karachi and Balochistan Diocese, never in the past have Christians and Hindus living in Pakistan felt so threatened, helpless and weak.

“I am saying it for the first time that religious minorities are afraid of living in Pakistan… I never said this before, but today I am forced to say this,” he told the scribe while discussing the Kot Radha Kishan atrocity. “If there is no space for religious minorities in Pakistan, simply tell us.”

Similar sentiment is shared by many other leaders of the country’s religious minorities – perhaps in much stronger words. They say that false allegations of blasphemy are being made against members of the religious minorities to settle personal scores or over disputes on financial matters.

This was apparently the case with Shahzad and Shama who, according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan had a dispute over wages, or recovery of advance money that the kiln owner had extended to two families of Muslim labourers who had escaped. “The kiln owners had asked Shahzad to repay the amount extended to the escaped families because he had introduced them to the owners”, the HRCP said.

He levelled charges of blasphemy against them following which announcements were made through mosque loudspeakers, provoking hundreds of villagers.

Similarly, the name of religion is exploited for abducting women and even young girls belonging to minority communities and their forced conversions to the Muslim faith. Neither any Islamic scholar nor the constitution of Pakistan allow brutalities and discrimination against religious minorities, but sadly they have become a norm in today’s Pakistan.

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s dream that in this state of Pakistan, “you are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship”, stands trampled.

Reclaiming Jinnah’s Pakistan, freeing it of religious bigotry, extremism, intolerance and violence remain the biggest challenge for our generation. We appear to be losing this fight at the hands of the same mindset from which the country’s founding fathers had once liberated us to create Pakistan.

Do we now stand on hopeless grounds? Is the growing tide of extremism irreversible? The answer to these questions lies on whether our prime minister will be able to match his words with actions and we as a nation are able to rise and unite to save Pakistan and its soul from extremists. The wound of the Kot Radha Kishan tragedy must force us to act.

The Girl Who Lives

By Amir Zia
Monday, October 13, 2014
The News

Malala has shown us the way...She will remain an icon of courage, grit and resolve. But can our politicians now fulfil their responsibility please? Can they work to make Pakistan peaceful and safe so that Malala can return home?... This young life needs to be celebrated.


After a long, long time, Pakistanis have a genuine reason to celebrate an unprecedented feat of a local champion. It is after ages that Pakistan has hit the headlines in the world media for all the right reasons – thanks to Malala Yousafzai, the teenage girl who courageously stood against the dark forces opposing girls’ education in her hometown of Swat, took a bullet to the head for her defiance and fortunately lived to fight on.
The Nobel Peace Prize, which Malala shares with an Indian child rights campaigner, Kailash Satyarthi, is an acknowledgement of the way she fought for the right of girls to education despite her tender age. 
Malala “has shown by example that children and young people too can contribute to improving their own situations,” said Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, while paying tribute to her. “This she has done under the most dangerous circumstances. Through her heroic struggle she has become a leading spokesperson for girls' rights to education.”
Malala, 17, is now the youngest ever Nobel Laureate. But she was barely 12 years old when in 2009 she started her crusade against the Taliban in Swat and their attempts to close the doors of education on girls. She wrote a blog under the pen name ‘Gul Makai’ for the BBC, highlighting life under the oppressive Taliban rule. Her ‘Diary of a Pakistani schoolgirl’ made the world aware of the plight of all Malalas…and the brutal nature of conflict in one of Pakistan’s most scenic and once serene mountainous regions.
“The night was filled with the noise of artillery fire and I woke up three times. But since there was no school I got up later at 10 am. Afterwards, my friend came over and we discussed our homework. Today is 15 January, the last day before the Taliban’s edict comes into effect, and my friend was discussing homework as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened,” she wrote in one of her dispatches.
The Pakistan Army ousted the Mullah Fazlullah-led Taliban out of Swat valley, and life started getting back to an apparent normality. But the danger of Taliban sleeper cells and terrorist attacks continued to haunt the residents of the region – especially all those who stood against the militants. Malala was a marked target as she continued with her campaign.
On October 9, 2012, Malala was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman. Two of her other classmates – Kainat Riaz and Shazia Ramazan – were also wounded in the attack. It was a sheer miracle that Malala survived as the bullet did not enter her brain. Within days, she was sent to England for further treatment.
Just like the fictional wizard boy Harry Potter, who survived the assault by the dark wizard, Lord Voldemort, Malala too become the girl ‘who lived.’ Sometimes real life events are stranger than fiction and transform humble mortals into legends. 
And Malala not just lives, but continues to make waves, fighting all the demons and ghosts of intolerance, bigotry, extremism and terrorism while living abroad. Pakistan still is too unsafe a place for her to return to and live a normal life. Even before becoming the youngest ever Nobel laureate, Malala was an internationally-recognised voice for girls’ rights to education. Now she has become a more potent force.
Pakistanis do not have just this reason to celebrate Malala’s achievement; they also got a symbol to look up to. She is leading even through little actions. For instance after one of her teacher gave her the ‘big news’ that she won the Nobel Prize, she stuck with her remaining lessons. She did not rush back home to celebrate the big day with her family or jumped into the media limelight to deliver the Nobel Prize acceptance speech. She took her time. And when she spoke to the world it was yet again a powerful message given with all earnestness, but with remarkable humility. “I really believe in tolerance and patience. I used to say that I do not think I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. I still believe that”, she said while talking to the media in Birmingham. “I decided that I would speak up. Through my story I want to tell other children all around the world they should stand up for their rights… They should not wait for someone else. This award is especially for them, it gives them courage.”
All our politicians – those trying to dislodge the government and those wanting to save it – should learn from the maturity, grace and poise of young Malala how to carry themselves during an ordeal or in triumph.
Malala’s accomplishment also underscores the mind-boggling paradox of the Pakistan society which can produce 21st century men and women as well as those who are incompatible with the modern times. The polarisation between those who stand for peace, tolerance, education and progress and those fighting to impose their narrow and intolerant worldview by hook or by crook could not have been starker.
The gravest challenge for the Pakistani society is how to defeat those forces that abhor our Malalas and justify acts of terrorism and suicide bombings by exploiting the sacred name of Islam. In this day and age, Al-Qaeda, its foreign and local allies and the extremist mindset, which thrives in society in many forms, vehemently oppose initiatives like girls’ education to polio vaccination drives.
Operation Zarb-e-Azb is one way of blunting their deadly designs, but the more important aspect to this make-or-break struggle for Pakistan is defeating this mindset. Unfortunately, it cannot be done with the barrel of the gun alone. It requires winning the battle of the narrative and defeating extremist ideology. Here, the civil society and our political parties – both in the government and the opposition – need to take the lead. So far, our politicians have not shown the kind of commitment and vision needed to confront this existentialist internal threat to Pakistan. 
Many of our political and mainstream religious parties chose to remain silent or only offered lip service to the cause of the fight against extremism and terrorism. Many politicians – either because of fear for their lives or simple expediency – still want to push the policy aimed at appeasing these non-state actors.
These efforts failed in the past and only made the situation more complex. This tried, tested and failed formula won’t be able to do the trick even now. The civil leadership needs to do a lot more than offering mere statements that they support Operation Zarb-e-Azb. It needs to take ownership of this fight and work extra hard to mobilise public opinion against these forces for unity, peace and progress in Pakistan.
Young Malala has shown us the way. She is likely to carry the cross and live up to the extra burden and responsibility which the Nobel Peace prize has placed on her. She will be a symbol and inspiration for many, both young and old, not just for girls’ right to education, but also for peace and tolerance in society. She will remain an icon of courage, grit and resolve. But can our politicians now fulfil their responsibility please? Can they work to make Pakistan peaceful and safe so that Malala can return home? Can they learn something from Malala? Can you and I emulate her footsteps – even a few baby steps?
This young life needs to be celebrated. The girl ‘who lived’ is of our own modern-day folklore… another legend. But the story is not yet over. It is still in the making.

A Self-Defeating Advice

By Amir Zia
June 2, 2014
The News

The stark divergence of views between the key political stakeholders and military leaders on how to tackle the violent non-state actors – responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent civilians and security personnel – has emerged as the basic contradiction, hampering even the formulation of a holistic counter-terrorism policy


PTI chairman Imran Khan has again advised the military leadership to review its decision of an operation against Al-Qaeda-linked foreign and local militants in the troubled tribal areas. Ironically, his latest appeal was made the same day Chief of the Army Staff General Raheel Sharif was visiting troops in South Waziristan on May 27 with a message that the nation has rejected the “misplaced ideology of the terrorists.”
While the army chief’s statement reflected the clarity of thought of a soldier, Imran Khan’s views were of a sceptic and betrayed a defeatist mindset. The politician dubbed the restrained military action against the terrorists’ hideouts as the “use of naked force” and alleged that it was creating “an East-Pakistan like situation” in the tribal areas. 
This very parallel between the tribal areas and former East Pakistan is enough to show Imran Khan’s limited and flawed grasp of history, geography and politics. It is like comparing oranges with apples. The entire nature, scope and dynamics of the two conflicts are poles apart, but perhaps this is the discussion for some other time.
The important point is army chief’s mission statement that called for getting rid of the ‘menace of terrorism’. This, indeed, remains the most vital precondition if any government wants to revive the country’s economy and take it forward. General Sharif, while reiterating the mission statement, hit the bull’s eye when he told his troops and the people that the “terrorists… have clearly lost their cause” and are being “marginalised”.
However, Imran Khan, who lives in his make-believe bubble, passionately pleaded that the government should stick to the controversial peace process with the local Taliban that remains stalled since end-March.
Imran Khan is not the only politician opposed to the military operation against militants. He has his ideological allies within Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government – which is a reluctant partner in the fight against extremism and terrorism – as well as in rightwing and religious parties that fail to see the gravity of this internal challenge for the country.
The stark divergence of views between the key political stakeholders and military leaders on how to tackle the violent non-state actors – responsible for the killing of thousands of innocent civilians and security personnel – has emerged as the basic contradiction, hampering even the formulation of a holistic counter-terrorism policy. 
Rather than galvanising the nation behind the armed forces and taking the ownership of this more conflict, many of leading politicians are attempting to confuse the issue by calling it an ‘American war.’ By doing this, they are advertently or inadvertently supporting the terrorists and extremists, who want to bring down the state and see the military as their enemy number one as it is the only organised force that has the ability to foil their designs.
After being a victim of the organised bloodletting and ceaseless terror campaign unleashed since 2002, what could be more unfortunate for a country that its key politicians are unable to see the internal enemy holed in North Waziristan – the last remaining terror sanctuary on the Pakistani soil?
The pertinent question is: what do the local Taliban and their foreign allies aim to achieve through the talks? And, more importantly, whether the state is ready to concede to the Taliban demands?
To begin with, the local Taliban want a ‘peace-zone’ in South Waziristan, which has been cleared hill-by-hill by the security forces at the cost of huge sacrifices. The creation of such a zone will leave the local population again at the mercy of the Taliban and their savage ways. It will threaten the lives of those locals who sided with the armed forces. It will allow the Taliban to expand the base of their operations, run a state within the state and use the Pakistani soil to foment terrorism both within the country and abroad. No sane mind can accept this demand. The military leadership is 100 percent right in vetoing such a concession.
In international politics, peace zones are established by a third party, such as the United Nations. The creation of such zones underlines the erosion or collapse of the state. Do the advocates of peace talks realise the ramifications for the country if any such demand gets accepted?
The second sticking point is the Taliban demand for the release of hardened terrorists. Again, the military leadership’s refusal to accept this demand makes sense as these hard-core terrorists – responsible for killing countless of Pakistani soldiers and civilians – will again join the terror network. 
Hundreds of such terrorists are locked up at the 11 centres. The trials of these terrorists are moving at a proverbial snail’s pace due to absence of proper anti-terror laws and courts – issues the government and parliament have failed to address so far. 
The Taliban leadership are effectively using talks as a ploy to regroup and reorganise themselves when pressed hard by the armed forces. In return, they offer symbolic relief from terror attacks, but maintain their potential to fight another day. This makes perfect sense for non-state actors wanting to prolong the conflict. But for a state, protracted conflicts are always a bad omen.
Those politicians advocating talks and pleading with security forces not to react in the wake of terror assaults should try to go into the details of the Taliban set of demands, which aims to protect their terror sanctuaries. Should the state concede?
In Fata alone, more than 4,000 soldiers have embraced martyrdom since the start of the conflict, while more than 13,500 have been wounded. The civilian death toll exceeds 8,200 with more than 24,000 wounded. Yet, we hardly see Imran and his likes ever speaking for these victims and their families in as passionate a manner as they speak for militants. Instead, they attempt to demoralise the nation, try to insert doubts in the minds of our soldiers and belittle their sacrifices by calling the retaliatory strikes by the armed forces as use of naked force.
Let there be no confusion that it was the Al-Qaeda and its allies who brought this war to Pakistan. The conflict started when militants refused to demolish their terror network in the tribal areas despite repeated pleas by the former military-led government, forcing our troops to move in to establish the writ of the state and meet Pakistan’s international obligations.
Instead of backing our soldiers fighting this internal enemy, many timid politicians – for their narrow vested interests and safety – are preaching to the military to review its policy without realising its domestic and international implications. They choose to ignore what happened to past peace accords during the previous era. Each and every deal was broken by militants.
For any state, a protracted conflict is the worst choice to be made. No state allows the existence of a potential disruptive force that challenges its writ and makes the security forces vulnerable within its own territory.
Some rightwing analysts and politicians are celebrating the fact that the talks resulted in the decline in incidents of terrorism and created a wedge between Taliban factions. However, they forget that infighting among bands of non-state actors also undermines the state and in no way means that the potential threat has gone. Our history shows that playing one set of militants against the other is not smart statesmanship. Within its territorial boundaries, the state alone should have the sole prerogative of resorting to violence. It cannot be given to any outlawed or legal group.
The tactics of an on-off operation and retaliatory attacks itself is questionable. It demonstrates lack of a cohesive strategy. Pakistan must smash the terror network, re-establishing the writ of the state and show zero tolerance for foreign militants on our soil. North Waziristan remains the last safe haven for terrorists and it can be reclaimed by the Pakistan Army within weeks, provided it is allowed to do its job by the government and the Imran Khans of this world. But our politicians live on a totally different plane.

The General Speaks

By Amir Zia
Wednesday, March 06, 2013
The News

For the leader of a force that has sacrificed so much in the war against terror and is seen as the number one enemy by the local Taliban and their Al-Qaeda allies alike, these doubts and questions about its role and intentions should be worrying
Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Parvez Ashfaq Kayani, one of the most influential players on Pakistan’s power chessboard, may not have a ready-made answer to every challenge the country faces today, but he is indeed a politically correct and astute person. Issuing bombastic statements has never been his style. He is cautious, calculated and economical with words and likes to define himself as a general who takes into account ‘the grey area’ before deciding to act.
No wonder when a large group of senior journalists met him on a lazy Sunday afternoon in the garrison city of Rawalpindi, the general made sure that the politically correct message of constitutional supremacy, timely elections and peaceful transfer of power came across right at the start. The army chief’s talk, originally meant as an off-the-record session, eventually ended up as a widely reported, quoted and discussed event, though at first its contents hit the headlines in bits and pieces.
The credit of getting the embargo lifted should go to some persuasive journalists, who managed to get a nod from General Kayani and senior Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) officials to allow them to report part of the ‘politically correct’ message. Following the initial green signal, the media on its own expanded the scope of reporting, making a select part of General Kayani’s talk public. But even if the entire event has been reported verbatim, the army chief hardly uttered a word which could be deemed controversial. The general knows the art of speaking his mind and yet be mindful not to throw a loose delivery.
General Kayani’s widely reported strong pro-democracy stance should undoubtedly help calm the nerves of many front-line politicians, who till recently saw a grand establishment-backed conspiracy to derail the country’s fragile, but highly controversial and dysfunctional, democratic system. However, the general attempted to put at rest all the plots of a direct military intervention or installation of an army-backed technocrat setup for a longer-term in his opening remarks by saying that there would be no action outside the ambit of the constitution or the law. He also reiterated his commitment to the peaceful transfer of power to the majority party, saying that the army has no favourites.
However, Kayani’s commitment to democracy must have disappointed many of those civilians and men-in-uniform, who remain concerned about the crumbling writ of the state, growing lawlessness, challenge of extremism and terrorism, economic mismanagement, mis-governance and rampant corruption in the country. The critics of the current democratic setup advocate extraordinary measures, saying that the majority of the ruling elite members, who make it to parliament through elections, do not have the will and ability to tackle these extra-ordinary challenges.
But Kayani has resisted the temptation of acting as a saviour during both his terms as COAS. This aligns him to the politically correct ones, who see democracy – despite its high premium – as the only way forward. Whether Kayani’s belief in democracy is his vision or it stems from objective constraints remains a question that intrigues many analysts and political commentators. But if one talks of political correctness, then of course the general remains on the right side of the fence. In the last year in office as COAS before retirement, it is unlikely that he would upset the applecart despite all its rot.
While Kayani’s pro-democracy stance hit the headlines, it was the challenge of extremism and terrorism that consumed the bulk of Kayani’s time during his session with journalists. The general provoked some heated questions and debate when he said that one must differentiate between fundamentalists and extremists. “We all are fundamentalists because we believe in the principles of Islam”, he said. It is only the extremists, who need to be sorted out because they try to thrust their views using force and refuse to accept the point-of-view of the others, he said, explaining the stance that he also shares with his soldiers.
For some journalists, this definition of fundamentalism appeared too simplistic, especially in the Pakistani context where politically-motivated Islamists remain one step short of being extremists, and extremists one step short of being terrorists. Many members of the mainstream and highly organised and disciplined religious parties, including the Jamaat-e-Islami, have been found aiding and joining the Al-Qaeda-inspired militant groups responsible for targeting not just civilians, but also the nerve centres of the Pakistani armed forces.
The politicisation of religion has its cost, which the country has been paying dearly for a long time now. And ironically, the original sin of creating these monsters in the sacred name of Islam and jihad was committed by the military establishment itself during the dark days of former dictator General Ziaul Haq under the direct supervision of our American friends.
Although the military establishment has brought a sea change in its policy toward Islamist militant groups since 2002 and is trying to ensure that Pakistani territory should not be used to mastermind and launch terror attacks in other parts of the world and within the country, success has been limited. General Kayani blames this failure on the lack of political ownership of the war against terror, which prevents the army from going into top gear against militants.
The political fallout of any action against those seminaries and religious groups that directly or indirectly support extremism and terrorism seems to weigh heavy on the army chief’s mind. The same is the case for North Waziristan, where the army seems to find its hand tied despite the fact that this dangerous mountainous region remains the hub for all shades of local and foreign militants.
According to Kayani, another major obstacle in dealing with extremists and terrorists is the state’s inability to carry out an effective prosecution process.
The terror suspects, even if caught, hardly get convicted. Even if awarded death sentences in some cases, they have managed to escape execution because of the highly controversial decision of the PPP-led government to place a moratorium on the death penalty. During the last five years, one execution has been carried out in Pakistan, though more than 8,000 prisoners remain on death row. The gist of Kayani’s message remains that the armed forces are single-minded in confronting the challenge of extremism and terrorism. But at the same time, the general wants to tread this path carefully and sees the Afghan Taliban in a different context than the ones fighting Pakistani security forces and carrying out terrorist attacks across the country.
Some senior journalists, especially from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, spoke their hearts out as they gave details of the plight of their province and underlined the fast-eroding writ of the state and the establishment of a parallel power structure by militants there. The fear and dread of the local Taliban force people to corporate with them and dole out money in the name of the so-called ‘jihad funds’ even in a city like Peshawar, they said.
The political leadership wants peace talks with the Taliban because of fear and threat to their lives, a veteran from Peshawar pointed out. Politicians say that security decisions remain in the hands of the army leadership, said another senior journalist. People in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa feel that the state and security forces have left them at the mercy of the Taliban, he added.
General Kayani listened to the tirade by the journalists patiently, explaining his point of view on most questions and comments. But one may find it paradoxical that perception about the role of the army and its efforts in taking on militants are being viewed with scepticism by a strong section of the media. For the leader of a force that has sacrificed so much in the war against terror and is seen as the number one enemy by the local Taliban and their Al-Qaeda allies alike, these doubts and questions about its role and intentions should be worrying. After all, perceptions matter in today’s world. Who else but the COAS should know that better?

Now bin Laden’s ghost to haunt Pakistan economy

By Amir Zia
May 08, 2011
The News

An angry, bitter Pakistan appears more on the path of confrontation than keeping pace with the international community on the issue of terrorism. This, in itself, is a major contradiction as Pakistan has suffered the most -- both financially and in terms of human lives — at the hands of al Qaeda, the Taliban and their local allies

Pakistan is now considered amongst some of the most dangerous countries in the world, placed in the wretched company of conflict-ridden Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Congo, Somalia, Sudan and Haiti. Whatever grand, self-deluding image we might have of ourselves as defenders, torch-bearers and promoters of Islam and the world's lone Muslim nuclear power, others see us as an abnormal society and a weak state that appears all set to implode. This negative perception strengthens itself due to the state’s inability and incapacity to establish writ on its territory and resolve the simmering internal contradictions that have transformed Pakistan into the hotbed and breeding ground of violence and terrorism.

No wonder, many of the mid-level and small foreign investors and businessmen have long stopped visiting the country. Instead, Pakistani businesspeople and exporters have to go all the way to the UAE, Malaysia and other peaceful and safe places just to hold meetings with them. The giant multinationals and foreign companies also remain reluctant to send their top officials to this land of the pure because of security concerns. They mostly operate businesses from abroad or through their local representatives.

Many leading foreign apparel brands have asked their Pakistani partners to shift their production units abroad, to ensure that their supply-line remain intact in times of crisis. As a result, some top Pakistani textile manufacturers have already and some are in the process of establishing their units abroad, including countries like Bangladesh.

Under these circumstances, it should be no surprise to see the net flow of foreign investments plunging to a meager 2.08 billion dollars in financial year 2009/10 (July-June) from the highs of 8.42 in 2006/07, according to the State Bank of Pakistan figures. In the first nine months of the current fiscal, the total foreign investment stands at around 1.31 billion dollars compared with 1.32 billion dollars during the same period a year ago.

The domestic investment climate also remains bleak with many local investors and businesspeople putting plans on hold due to the country's continuing political uncertainty and the dark specter of terrorism and violence, which has been affecting every section of our society.

The signs of times, indeed, are ominous and have got only worse with the killing of the world's most wanted terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden in the garrison town of Abbottabad on May 2. Media reports that bin Laden had been living in Abbottabad for more than five years — despite all the denials by top civilian and military leaders all these years — has come as another huge blow to Pakistan’s already battered world image.

Although the focus of popular debate in Pakistan remains violation of its sovereignty by the American assault on bin Laden’s den rather than about his presence in the country, the international community is rightly asking how the al Qaeda chief managed to find a safe-haven here. Was it the sheer incompetence of our security apparatus or was there connivance at some level? Whatever the answer to this tricky question, Pakistan remains in the dock and will be under close international scrutiny for all of its sins of commission and omission in the years to come.

The distrust of Pakistan’s establishment and its institutions will grow, which is bad news for the country’s struggling economy dependent on foreign aid, trade and support. Although the world’s leading rating agency -- Moody’s Investors -- has said that Pakistan does not face an immediate risk of a withdrawal of foreign aid in the aftermath of bin Laden’s killing, analysts say that the country will remain under intense pressure in the mid- to long-run.

Yes, bin Laden, has even in his death, given a major jolt to the Pakistani economy, already caught in the cycle of low growth and double-digit inflation for the last three years. And Pakistan is not going to get rid of bin Laden’s ghost easily.

Nervous Pakistani representatives of multi-national and foreign companies have been frantically revising the risk and threat perception to their operations. “Forget now about expansion and fresh investment in Pakistan. There is a lot of talk of the curtailment or downsizing of our operations,” said an official of a western company requesting anonymity.

Understandably, even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) officials, who were supposed to hold the crucial pre-budget meetings in Islamabad from May 8, shifted this venue to Dubai. Let alone foreigners, even President Asif Ali Zardari now finds it unsafe to travel within the country. Therefore, the Karachi Stock Exchange’s top companies’ award ceremony is being held outside Karachi for the first time ever on May 23 in the President House Islamabad so that President Zardari can grace the event as the chief guest.

As the anti-US and anti-west rhetoric intensifies among the rightwing political parties, on television screens and in the vernacular media, backed by some tough talk by the armed forces of downing US drones if ordered and defending the country’s sovereignty, an angry, bitter Pakistan appears more on the path of confrontation than keeping pace with the international community on the issue of terrorism. This in itself, is a major contradiction, as Pakistan has suffered the most -- both financially and in terms of human lives — at the hands of al Qaeda, the Taliban and their local allies.

Pakistan’s civil and military leadership will have to perform a high-wire act to minimize the damage in the aftermath of bin Laden’s killing on our soil. Until Pakistan manages to beat the monster of extremism and terrorism in all its shades and manifestations, the dream of a prosperous and economically stable Pakistan will remain elusive. It is high time for the country’s ruling elite to work sincerely and honestly, to clear the mist of doubt and distrust, which the world has towards Pakistan on the issue of terrorism.

The right actions, not words, are needed to restore Pakistan’s image and pull it out of its present morass. This will serve as a first step towards the goal of economic revival and prosperity.