William Morris interviews Sabiha Malik

ANN TV presents THE ENGLISH HOUR with William Morris and special guest Sabiha Malik

Pakistan - Afghan relations

The Pakistani government is attempting to impose greater control over its western borders with Afghanistan. 

In a recent interview, Pakistan’s top national security advisor, Sartaj Aziz commented that Pakistani and Afghan security officials will meet to discuss cross-border movements between the two states. Aziz also stated that Islamabad will begin issuing special passes to people from the border region to facilitate their cross-border movements and will expedite the visa process for Afghans.

"Even now we issue 1,000 or 2,000 visas to the Afghans everyday," he said. "This is a process and we will know the outline of the new border management once Afghanistan and Pakistan work out its details. We cannot let this border remain porous.”  

Afghanistan has never formally recognized the Durand Line as an international border. The Durand line was created in 1947 when the state of Pakistan was founded and has been a constant cause for tensions. Pakistan has frequently been accused of violating the border because it hosts Afghan insurgents. Kabul and Islamabad often accuse each other of sheltering insurgents.

Whilst there are most certainly insurgents residing on both sides of the border, the reality of the situation is that it is highly likely that neither government is supporting these groups given the authorities have little or no control of the region. 

Border management and cooperation between the two countries might lessen cross-border attacks and restrict any liaisons between Taliban insurgents on both sides of the border. The importance of co-operative security strategy has been highlighted by the increase in violence in Pakistan in the last year, largely along the Durand Line. There were 1,717 terrorist attacks in 2013 (a 9% increase on 2012), that resulted in the deaths of 2,451 people (a 19% increase) and the injuries of 5,438 (a 42% increase).

With the handover of Afghanistan looming, there are serious concerns that we will see a Taliban takeover as soon as NATO turns its back. Hence peace talks between Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Afghan President Karzai are important.  

As Afghanistan faces monumental challenges in rebuilding its civil society, India needs to improve relations and cooperate with Pakistan to maintain relative peace in the region.

The execution of Zulfikar Bhutto, the indictment of Musharraf and changing attitudes in Pakistan

The indictment on Tuesday of Pervez Musharraf is the first time in Pakistan that a former army chief has had charges brought against him.

The indictment comes as a great surprise in many ways. It is a sign of a new attitude from the civilian administration towards military men such as Musharraf who have been previously too powerful to take on.

The military is still a dominant force in Pakistani politics. Many commentators thought that Nawaz Sharif would be unwilling to risk alienating the current military commanders by prosecuting their former colleague. Even now, it is possible that the charges will remain symbolic rather than having any real effect. There is also the possibility of a return to exile for Musharraf, to avoid any concrete decision having to be made.  

But the pursuit of the trial by the government is a sign of changing attitudes.

This will most likely not end in a convenient exile. The number of other charges brought against Musharraf did not allow him to run for election as he had planned to. Clearly when he decided to return he did not comprehend the scale of the case that would be brought against him. The charge of treason has raised the stakes significantly - as a capital offence it carries a possible death sentence. It suggests that the government and the prosecutors really are going after this prosecution.

The recent Abbottabad Commission report into the death of Osama bin Laden published findings which condemned Pakistan as ‘’a failing state’’. Widespread corruption, apathy and incompetence are all highlighted in the report. The roles of the military and particularly the ISI are criticized in the report, with both acting well beyond their remit in civilian affairs.

This pitiable state of the government’s administration is due to long-term military rule. Because of this history, the country does not possess the developed, vibrant, democratic institutions which are needed for an effective democratic government.

The zeal of the pursuit of Musharraf is a step towards setting in place these democratic institutions and establishing an attitude of the culpability of military strongmen. It is a sign of this civilian government showing the military they are not untouchable.

Musharraf’s lawyers have claimed that the indictment amounts to selective justice and ignores others complicit in his crimes. They do so in the knowledge that many of those who would have to be charged alongside him are currently serving in the government and military and it would be virtually impossible to bring charges against them all. The prosecution of Musharraf then could be a warning to those others; that things in Pakistan are changing; and that even if it is failing, the civilian government has not failed yet.

The execution of Bhenazir Bhutto’s father, Zulfikar, offers interesting comparisons to the current situation with Musharraf. The former leader was charged with murdering political opponents and then summarily executed by the military regime. This came after a prolonged and dubiously handled appeal process.

The civilian administrator being punished unjustly by the succeeding military government has now become the military leader being prosecuted by the succeeding civilian government.

This is not to say that Musharraf is innocent in the same way as Zulfikar (probably) was. Musharraf should be brought to justice for all the crimes committed during his rule. Nor is it to say that the pursuit of Musharraf’s trial by the current government is as clearly legally dubious and un-transparent as the military regime’s handling of the Bhutto trial and execution was. But make of the comparison what you will. The two cases are worth considering next to each other.

Barack Obama: Judge, Jury and Executioner

In 2009 Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. He now resides on a list which includes such names as Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Teresa and Desmond Tutu. However there is a massive difference between these winners and the current President of the United States. The ideology that these people preached was of peace. Now Obamaniacs may resent this view but the Obama administration has not been the peace maker much of the world expected. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict still rages, the Syrian uprising has claimed tens of thousands of lives and the tensions between Pakistan and the US are at an all time high. President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize after only being in office for nine months and there were many people who were astounded that the Prize went to him. I also wondered how they could pick a candidate who appeared to have done nothing, said a lot however but acted very little. With every passing moment of the Obama administration the decision to award Obama the prize seems even more ridiculous.

The continued drone strikes in Pakistan have angered many Pakistan civilians as well as angering diplomats. Wajid Shamsul Hasan the High Commissioner to London has claimed the US drone strikes on Pakistan are undermining Pakistan’s sovereignty and weakening democracy in a “violation of territory”. Hasan also realises that Pakistan has no real power to try to stop the drone strikes from the US unless public opinion throughout the world is against the strikes. The strikes have been deadly in Pakistan and to the US’s credited it has wiped out a large number of militants in Pakistan. However the number of civilians killed doesn’t justify the drones use. Including the civilian deaths the missiles have also killed a number of Pakistani soldiers. One of the main arguments against the use of drones is that all the civilian deaths, creates more militants for the groups you are trying to wipe out by leaving victims’ families  with a resentment of the west and NATO. Hasan also said that “the drone strikes won’t end extremism, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in general”. The goal of winning hearts and minds cannot be won by using drones.

The effect this could have on the American elections is also substantial. The liberals in America cannot be satisfied with an Obama administration that claims peace but practices anything but. The liberals however will also not vote for a gaffe prone conservative republican like Mitt Romney. This leaves liberals with only one option, to not vote for either. This will affect the result of the election as many election pundits view the result as those who do not vote will decide the outcome of the election which will be many liberals due to Obama’s stance on Pakistan.

The outcome of the drone strike which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, was for Pakistan to demand an end to drone strikes and for the NATO supply line into Afghanistan to be closed for a duration of time until the Americans conducted an investigation.  The effect this had on NATO troops was worse than NATO would have cared to admit however the effects were bad. The actions of the Obama administration on Pakistan have been labelled Terror Tuesday meetings where President Obama will decide with CIA chiefs who should be targeted in drone strikes and most likely eventually killed. How any liberal will vote for Obama in the next election is beyond me.

Pakistan must be able to remove Taliban and Al-Qaeda using their own methods, they will get help from NATO and the US. To show the world that droning must stop they must take a more active role in trying to stop these groups. How Obama sleeps at night is beyond me.