“Pakistan Objects to U.S. Plan for Afghanistan War” reads a New York Times article last month updating us on our foreign policy. The article forewarns of “fissures” in the U.S. Pakistan alliance at this critical moment when President Obama sends additional troops to the region. The article specifically outlines Pakistan’s insistence on maintaining forces along the Indian border when the United States expresses concern that the Afghan border is of greater priority. Pakistani officials, to some international dismay, contend that it is more constructive to maintain dialogue with some parts of the Taliban rather than going at the group in an all out military offensive. The piece continues to explain that, sources from the Inter Services Intelligence Agency (ISI: Pakistan’s intelligence agency, their equivalent to our CIA) briefed Special Envoy Holbrooke this morning in their strong concerns of an U.S. “surge” which would “result in more civilian casualties, further alienate local populations. Thus more local resistance to foreign troops”. And while the article continues with how these concerns contrast starkly with U.S. fears that Pakistan is not focusing enough on the Taliban in the north, it is important to revisit the consequences of, and reassess our long-term strategy in Operation Enduring Freedom. Because more of the same may not be an apt solution given that the war is escalating in terms of U.S. costs (on various levels), the region is deteriorating, and prominent experts now claim the effort is doomed to be “unwinnable”.
The fact is, this is the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and where there once was no Al Qaeda or Taliban in the sovereign state of Pakistan, now exists a terribly frightening border through which terrorists are fleeing and situating themselves in the north. Furthermore, it is important to remember that until recently, the Taliban was not considered a terrorist organization, although alarming they were not a military threat before 9/11. Al Qaeda was the main target in Afghanistan, and their presence in Pakistan was minimal, if at all. Since our invasion, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are increasingly difficult to differentiate, and rather than being obliterated, are moving in to Pakistan. And a once ideologically problematic group of Islamic extremists, the Taliban, are now dangerously aligning with far more treacherous terrorist outfits like Al Qaeda.
In a similar way, other regional militant groups are gaining ground as extremist groups evade NATO forces and subsequently weaken our anti-terrorist efforts. The Mumbai atrocities and embassy attacks in Afghanistan last year are testimony to the danger of militant groups advancing their efforts in an increasing climate of instability. This only legitimizes Pakistan’s skepticism of continuing an predominantly military means to combating terrorism. If limited surgical strikes, close intelligence sharing, and consistent provision of anti-terror training and supplies is agreed as effective amongst officials, the U.S. and Pakistan should focus on a “surge” on these fronts.
So when the news paints a clashing picture of interests between Pakistan and the United States, it is a simplistic one. Both states actually have an intense interest in securing the region against terrorists and while they might disagree on tactics, it is important that the Obama administration at least reassess the previous administration’s policies of simply implementing a military “surge”. Even if a surge in troops is potentially successful, working closely to expand on what has proven to be effective is a safer option. So a discerning look at this weeks supposed “fissure” between U.S. and Pakistani officials in discussing cooperation should prompt us to better understand Islamabad’s concerns and perhaps reassess our strategy .
U.S. Envoy Holbrooke issued a public statement this week acknowledging Pakistan’s “deep rooted” energy problem. He explained that the United States “wanted to send the message that it was concerned about people’s genuine problems”. And the energy problem is in fact among the major problems faced by everyday Pakistanis. In the sweltering summertime, rural areas are faced with prolonged hours of outages, also known as “load shedding” with main cities including the Federal capital suffering 6 to 8 hours daily. This is not only physically unbearable for everyday citizens, but has a profound stalling effect on businesses as it further cripples the already anguished economy. Holbrooke is right then, a genuine attempt to begin resolving the energy crisis would be much welcomed and could in fact help to win the “hearts and minds” of Pakistanis.
This is among the first diplomatic statements issued regarding a funding to help upgrade Pakistan’s power sector and a timeline, or specific details on how such assistance would actually come about were not yet offered. But Pakistani finance minister Shaukat Tarin described in detail how the government could “rent electricity-generating plants over the next three to five years to fill the gap until large-scale energy projects come online and Washington could help by providing financial guarantees to encourage private investment in the sector”. Given the billions of dollars in defense spending Washington has provided Islamabad since 2001, I think Finance Minister Tarin is asking for very, very little here. It would be wise long term strategy for Holbrooke and the Obama Administration to seriously considering delving into this kind of cooperation as it can yield true long term security for the masses of citizens and ultimately, the state.
In addition, Holbrooke announced he would discuss a range of other issues that directly affect the everyday lives of Pakistanis during visit to Karachi on Wednesday. In unison with most diplomatic statements from the United States pertinent to Pakistan these days, Holbrooke’s remarks were overall positive as he expressed confidence in the current democratic regime completing its term and cited a “visible improvement in the political atmosphere” when compared to his past visit.
Amplified cooperation between Washington and Islamabad in combating terrorists is painting a rosy picture of relations these days. News of possible cooperation on funding energy projects is hopeful and on the Pakistani side, Prime Minister Gilani “sought to assuage concerns among western countries about governance and mismanagement issues in Pakistan saying that accountability had been institutionalized”. Many countries are hesitant to allocate funding in fear of a lack of transparency and corruption. But Pakistan has finally addressed this through the first ever independent oversight body: a parliamentary watchdog – Public Accounts Committee of the National Assembly who is appointed from the opposition party. This truly is unprecedented and viable move toward democratic processes. It should actually assuage fears to invest in helping Pakistan at this time. An interesting side note here is that this institutionalized, unprecedented oversight comes as a result of the judiciary and media being independent, which is a policy enacted by former General Musharraff as head of state during his tenure.
Finally, the drone attacks continue to be a point of discussion between the U.S. and Pakistan with Gilani reitering that Washington directly provide Islamabad with the technology so not as to further instigate Anti-Americanism in the region through the widespread collateral/civilian damage that the unmanned predator aircrafts inflict.
So it will be interesting to see statements from Washington in the coming weeks on Pakistan. Funding to help resolve the profoundly distressing energy crisis could be a wonderful opportunity for us to offer real aid to Pakistan. Military aid given since 2001 has been real, and can help for security, but if the Obama administration wants to shift from the previous administrations policies and engage in more meaningful solutions, I think winning the hearts and minds through funding projects that directly affect people is in our long term interest of securing the region rather than only focusing on aid to state level institutions for which trickle down can be painfully slow.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/29111
I think a decision to omit the cartoons isn’t necessarily censorship. It treads a very delicate line, but may not cross over into that realm because it might not distort the authors message. Having said that, there isn’t soundness to the recurrent reasoning for omission: that it would inevitably yield a violent response, as the article and some of the quotations in it insist. Reza Aslan thinks the images should not be omitted, perhaps for this reason, or because he finds it is a form of censorship. But leaving the censorship issue aside momentarily, I think the larger issue here is the faulty reasoning. Because a republication of the images does not NECESSARILY yield a violent response (especially if the content is not intended, or aimed to rile controversy). On the contrary it might seek to explain the reasons why such cartoons are harmful, but the article leaves any discussion of the actual content of the book out, which is surprising. All we know is that the book is about the “Cartoons that shook the world”, we are given no further details on the concept, thesis or which direction the author takes in respect to the cartoons.
I suppose if I were in the position of editing/publishing a work like this, i might opt to omit hurtful images if they severely trample on religious sensitivities more so than demonstrate a constructive thesis on my part. Emphasis on “more so” and I would also take into account the relevance to my audience. But If the images are necessary in furthering a productive debate, then keep them in. Again however, the actual content of the book in question isn’t touched upon in the article.
This makes the article irresponsible and problematic by relying on a false premise that Muslims all over the world (remember they cleverly quote international Muslim Ambassadors) are a homogenous bunch of religious persons who are definitely going to respond violently to the republication of those cartoons. That’s a gross over simplification and sweeping generalization, It also completely ignores how significant factors of the books audience or intent for the republication can affect responses.
In the end, shouldn’t there be some stifling of very relevant, and critical information, or a distortion of information in some way for us to call an omission of offensive material censorship? If the images aren’t critical to the authors thesis, there’s little reason to include offensive material unless for trivial shock value. So critics claiming Yale is being “cowardly” need to more closely examine what a republication of such images really brings toward generating substantial debate on the issue at hand. Because otherwise they’re just whining against a tactful, harmless omission.
You are currently browsing the Zainab Jeewanjee blog archives for the day Tuesday, August 18th, 2009.
Zainab B. Jeewanjee
Zainab Jeewanjee 