What's new

Dialogue: the best of difficult options

Leader

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
29,159
Reaction score
9
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Dialogue: the best of difficult options


Military operations are never a solution to any problems; most countries eventually had to talk to people who have

Special to The News

By Imran Khan

The debacle of East Pakistan, which led to the breakup of our country, left me with a strong conviction that military operations are never a solution to any problem, least of all one involving one’s own people.

I stood firmly with those who opposed Musharraf’s Balochistan operation and earlier the sending of the military into Waziristan.

Today, as I remain convinced that peace cannot be restored in Pakistan through continuing military operations, the entire political leadership of the country has shown the same conviction through the APC held last month. Three previous APCs had also sought peace through dialogue.

Yet, the saboteurs of the call for peace are at work too. With each series of bomb attacks, war hysteria seems to be increasing with demands for military operations. It is therefore critical we understand how we got to this state of affairs in the first place. We have been seeing continuing military operations since 2004, beginning in South Waziristan, and they have not stopped so far, even up to the APC. According to an ISPR statement, 100 people were killed in Orakzai Agency and in Tirah, Khyber Agency also army action has taken place.

We have seen over 3000 military personnel martyred in the process and we know the suffering of their families along with the families of the injured personnel, especially those permanently handicapped. We have seen our ill-equipped police martyred in the frontlines of terror attacks, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. We have also seen our civilians suffering, not only through the illegal and inhumane drone attacks in FATA but also through the displacement of whole tribes who continue to remain homeless in their own country. The sacrifices of our people at so many levels are immeasurable.

Military operations without an overarching strategy to restore peace in the country are mere holding operations. The APC provides the legitimacy for a holistic approach, beginning with a structured dialogue. Military action and war are always the last resort option.

In the end they too, after much bloodshed, lead right back to the dialogue table, especially when a state is dealing with its own people. Most countries have eventually had to dialogue with their people who have taken up arms and conducted acts of terror against the state and innocent civilians - be it the UK with the IRA, the Sri Lankan government with the LTTE, The Philippines with the Moros, India’s Andra Pradesh Government with the Naxalites, to name just a few cases. Even the US had to hold talks with the Viet Cong and now with the Taliban.

Yet we went headlong into a one-dimensional militarist path with disastrous consequences after 9/11. Musharraf misled the nation about his commitments to the US on behalf of Pakistan. In the September 2001 APC, where all the political forces present questioned why our country was being dragged into the US-led War on Terror, he lied by saying that Pakistan was only providing the US with logistical support.

Through a series of lies, we saw an “invasion” of all manner of US personnel being given freedom of action within our country, with no control or accountability, and renditions of Pakistanis and others - some landing in Guantanamo, others simply disappearing. We slid further into an abyss of terrorism alongside drone attacks and military operations as we fell in line with the US militarist approach to the US ‘war on terror’. Drones have always been opposed on principle by PTI because not only are they a violation of international law, they do create more space for militancy. The attack on a Madrassah in Damadola in 2006 killing 80 civilians, including 60 children, is just one example of how it is civilians that have been the major victims of these illegal strikes. Damadola also directly led to a sharp spike in terror attacks in Pakistan. Simply ignoring the impact of drone strikes is an ostrich-like approach. A judgement of the Peshawar High Court earlier this year, awaiting implementation, vindicates our position on drones.

The question we need to ask is: has terrorism and violence increased or decreased in Pakistan both in terms of numbers of acts committed and the severity of these attacks? If we are honest, we will recognise that this policy has not only singularly failed but has also brought more instability, destruction and heightened extremism to the country.

So today, the nation and all the political forces stand united in giving peace a chance through dialogue, while recognising that there are no easy options available anymore. The September 2013 APC recalled previous ones calling to “give peace a chance” and reiterated its commitment to the same. In this context, the APC gave a mandate to the federal government, inter alia, “to initiate dialogue with all the stakeholders forthwith and for this purpose, authorize it to take all the necessary steps as it may deem fit, including development of an appropriate mechanism and identification of interlocutors. Needless to state the process should be as inclusive as possible, with full participation of the government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and other stakeholders.”

When some in the country, in an accusatory fashion, declare that PTI has given legitimacy to the Taliban by asking that an office be set up, they should recognize that it is the APC that used the word “stakeholder”. What I am suggesting is the initiation of a mechanism whereby we can begin to structuralise the dialogue process. We should know the nature of the enemy - there are 15 big Taliban groups and around 25 smaller ones, some of whom are funded by our enemies.

Therefore we need to identify and separate those groups willing to dialogue with the government and those not prepared to move beyond their agenda of violence, so that the latter can be isolated and dealt with. For that to happen we need to have a structured approach to dialogue rather than conducting it through the media. It is incumbent upon the federal government to inform us about the structure of the talks. As part of aiding the government in this context, we are suggesting that those groups willing to dialogue should be brought together and have a common base from which to conduct the dialogue and be held responsible for it - hence an office or “offices”. Structuring the talks prevents sabotage of the process. This will also show our sincerity to the tribal people who have the greatest stake in peace today and they can help in isolating the hard core militants.

All the political parties of Pakistan have given the federal government an unequivocal mandate to conduct talks to restore peace in the country, including for the first time in the context of FATA.

Previous attempts at dialogue and peace in FATA were attempted by the Army and they failed. The agreements reached were between the army and the militants, not the government that represents the state; and the federal head of state’s representative in FATA, the Political Agent, was opposed to these dialogues. Now it is the collective leadership of all the political parties of the country that has given a mandate to the federal government to move to dialogue and beyond.

In conclusion, I am aware of the fact that people voted for peace, especially in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. That is the PTI mandate from the people and PTI is committed to fulfilling this sacred trust. We realize our responsibility to protect the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and we remain steadfast in taking on this task, despite the province being surrounded on three porous sides by FATA over which it has no authority or control. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is deliberately being targeted by those forces who do not want to see peace and stability restored in Pakistan. But we are determined to face the challenge of giving peace a chance against all odds and against all those forces determined to keep us weak, war ravaged and divided.

Imran Khan is Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, Pakistan’s second largest political party


Dialogue: the best of difficult options - thenews.com.pk
 
Terror versus naivety
Terror versus naivety - Hussain H Zaidi

Hussain H Zaidi
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
From Print Edition




"Why do terrorist attacks occur when dialogue is on the table?" This is how Imran Khan, one of the most vehement exponents of the softer-on-the-Taliban narrative among our national political leaders, reacted in the wake of the deadly bomb blasts outside a church in Peshawar. His question reveals a lot about how he and others in his league look at the war on terror.

Khan sees the latest incident of terrorism in Peshawar as an attempt to derail the process of negotiations agreed by the APC recently. If that was the motive behind carrying out the dastardly suicide attacks, it follows that the Taliban were not behind the same. Rather the incident was masterminded by those who are opposed to holding an olive branch to the militants.

But how could Khan, or for that matter anyone else, come out with such a statement? Yes the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan has distanced itself from the Peshawar blasts and another militant organisation, which is widely regarded as a TTP offshoot, claimed responsibility. Yet the PTI boss’s reaction well preceded the Taliban denial. At any rate, it is for the agencies to dig out the truth. There’s, however, little reason to believe that if the TTP doesn’t own an incident of terrorism, it’s not behind it. Even if we assume that the TTP didn’t perpetrate the church blasts, how could Khan be that certain?

Without questioning Khan’s esoteric knowledge, one may safely say that his reaction was born of his essential outlook on the war on terror and Pakistan’s involvement in it. This outlook rests on some widespread misconceptions and a great deal of confusion: Is it our war or America’s? Is the militancy simply a reaction against Pakistan’s foreign policy or is there more to it? Should we put down the militancy or embrace the militants?

Are there any good terrorists? If yes, how can we segregate them from the bad ones? Should we continue to look upon every incident of terrorism as a conspiracy against the state-Taliban détente? Should we seek peace with the Taliban regardless of its price? If so, can we imagine a securer way to establish peace than to simply hand the country over to the TTP?

The Taliban, on the other hand, are dead clear: kill as many people as possible to weaken the state and leave its leadership confused and then force it to hold out an olive branch to the militants. And when the state decides to do so, make it even weaker so that embracing the militants on their terms appears to be the only way forward. Needless to say, the militants have been successful in their strategy.

It’s naïve to believe that the war against terrorism is not ours, that it is essentially America`s war, and that the hell that has been let loose on the people of Pakistan is the result of the country`s role as a frontline ally of Washington in the fight against terrorism.

This notion regarding the ownership of the war against terror is incorrect for at least two reasons. One, the roots of terrorism go back to Pakistan`s involvement in the US-led war against the former USSR. In fact, it was through Pakistan that the US fought its war against the USSR in Afghanistan. The war was given religious meaning by the then `Islamist` military regime of Pakistan, itself looking for legitimacy.

The people of Pakistan were made to believe that it was the religious duty of the government and the people to fight in the war on the side of the US, which was said to be fighting for Islam.

However, the Americans had no love for Islam and their interest in Afghanistan sprang from their counter-communism strategy. In the wake of Moscow`s decision to pull out from Afghanistan in the second half of the 1980s and softening of the Cold War, US involvement in the Afghan situation fizzled out leaving the various Afghan factions to fight among themselves.

For Pakistan the impact of the Afghan campaign was disastrous. Since the Afghan crisis was portrayed as a conflict between Islam and kufr, it gave birth to militants who knew only one way of living – by the sword. In order to live by the sword, one also needs an enemy – real or perceived. In the case of the jihadis, once the external enemy had gone, they turned their guns to the `enemy` within, which they found in the followers of rival creeds. The result was a sectarian bloodbath, which preceded and had nothing to do with the 9/11 incident.

To those who maintain who the terrorism in Pakistan is the gift of the country`s post-9/11 alliance with the US one may ask: were mosques and other religious places in Pakistan safe before the 9/11? Had people not been killed in the name of ridding the society of `evil` before 9/11? What 9/11 did was bring home to the extremists the usefulness of suicide blasts as a method of large-scale manslaughter. It did not sow the seeds of terrorism; they had been sown years ago.

Two, the war against terrorism is our own, simply because it is our society, not the US’, that has been turned into an inferno. It is high time Imran Khan and others like him shunned their misleading pro-militant narrative and see the war on terror in its true perspective.

The writer is a freelance contributor.Email: hussainhzaidi@**********

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/nation...s-behind-his-support-ttp-4.html#ixzz2gZUI25q7
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom