Afghan Journal

Denuclearising Pakistan

At about the time WikiLeaks released tens of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables, including one related to a secret attempt to remove enriched uranium from a Pakistani research reactor, a top Pakistani military official held a briefing for journalists that focused on U.S.-Pakistan ties.

Dawn’s Cyril Almeida has written a piece based on the officer’s comments made on the condition of anonymity, and they offer the closest glimpse you can possibly get of the troubled ties between the allies.

First off, as the officer says, Pakistan has gone from being the “most sanctioned ally” to the “most bullied ally” of the United States. Presumably the sanctions that the officer is referring to relate to those imposed  on Pakistan following its nuclear tests in 1998. And as for the most bullied ally the other comments offer a clue: 

These include and I quote from Almeida’s piece:

“The U.S. still has a transactional relationship with Pakistan; the U.S. is interested in perpetuating a state of controlled chaos; and perhaps most explosively given the WikiLeaks revelations, the “real aim of U.S. strategy is to de-nuclearise Pakistan.”

U.S. and Pakistani security interests aren’t the same including over Afghanistan and India, the military officer says. And while Islamabad understood America’s growing focus on North Waziristan, it had to first settle South Waziristan and also factor in the blowback any operation in the area would stoke. The officer intriguingly also talks about indications that parties in the conflict in Afghanistan can renounce al Qaeda and even ask it to leave Afghanistan. In other words he is suggesting  that the Taliban are  ready to break ties with al Qaeda  and if so that removes a big obstacle to peace talks.

from Pakistan: Now or Never?:

Al Qaeda, its branches and Afghanistan

So little is known about al Qaeda that it is can be tempting to see patterns when none exist, or conversely to see only madness when there is method at work.

But with that health warning, it's interesting to see Afghanistan cropping up in recent comments from both al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

By way of background, do first read Leah Farrall at All Things Counter Terrorism arguing that that AQAP, which is threatening to launch more low-cost  attacks on the west after last month's intercepted parcel bombs, should not be seen as either a new threat, or distinct from al Qaeda's core on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.  "AQAP is a branch of AQ,"  she writes in this post.

"It is not an affiliate, not a franchise, and not a network. Rather it is  an operating branch of AQ, which means that while it may have authority  for attacks in its area of operations (the Arabian Peninsula), it comes under AQ’s strategic command and control for external attacks outside of this area of operation.  And it has always done so, right back to 02."  (See also an earlier post here, and subsequent one here.)

In a commentary this month on an AQAP statement, Gregory Johnsen at the blog Waq al-Waq notes a reference to General David Petraeus , the U.S. commander in Afghanistan:

"Now, General Petraeus used to be head of CentCom and as such responsible for Yemen, but that hasn't been the case since General McChrystal self-destructed in a Rolling Stones profile. So why mention Petraeus? Well, by itself I would be willing to overlook this as the overwrought hyperbole of a jihadi calling out a famous US General, but I don't think that is the case. This is the latest in a series of suggestions that I have seen lately that lead me to believe that there is some new talent in the organization. And I am of the early impression that it is coming from Pakistan/Afghanistan."

Then just last week al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) demanded the withdrawal of French forces in Afghanistan in return for the safety of French nationals kidnapped in Niger.

Bring on the tanks, they’ll come to like them in Afghanistan

The United States is introducing tanks into the fight against the Taliban in the Afghan south for the first time since 2001, but the logic behind the move is still being hotly debated.

One of the reasons advanced is that the arrival of the M1 Abrams tank, propelled by a jet engine and armed with a 120mm gun that can destroy a house  more than a mile away, is going to shake up the battlefield.   “The tanks bring awe, shock and firepower,”  The Washington Post  quoted a senior U.S. officer based in Afghanistan as saying. “It’s pretty significant.”

What is even more significant is the end-result that the U.S. military is hoping to achieve by unleashing such firepower in the Taliban stronghold. The aim is not just to destroy the Taliban, but also in a rather convoluted fashion show ordinary Afghans that the government and its Western backers call the shots in the countryside, not the Taliban. Over the past several months,  as Wired blog reports the US  has already stepped up air strikes, Special Operations raids, and artillery attacks, as part of General David Petraeus strategy to turn the heat on the Taliban with a view to forcing them to sue for peace.

And so while civilian casualties have been avoided, people have lost homes and farms in the U.S. military offensive in the south which clearly has been reshaped into a sustained series of deadly attacks, rather than a big-bang high profile  operation of the Marjah type earlier this year. In one operation alone last month, U.S. planes dropped two dozen 2,000-pound bombs near Kandahar, the Post reported. You can imagine the impact of such firepower on the countryside.  Trees, crops and huts – everything is going to be swept up under the weight of the assault.

Farmers have been asking U.S. military officers during community meetings why so many of their fields have been blown up in recent months. In public, the military has been apologetic about these attacks, but in private they are saying something else, the Post said.  The destruction of homes and farms is forcing people to file claims for damaged property with the provincial administration and that is seen as a big gain because it reasserts the power of the civilian authority. “In effect, you are connecting the government to the people,” the newspaper quoted a U.S. officer as saying.

A rather extraordinary way of fostering links between the people and the administration. First, their property has to be damaged which will in turn compel them to approach the administration for help. 

What if one, or several of them, turn to the Taliban for help,  or indeed join the group having lost their homes and farms ?

You say Obama, I say da Gama, let’s call the whole thing off

    By Ian Simpson     KABUL – NATO leaders wrangling over the Afghanistan war in Lisbon could be excused if they feel a centuries-old historical circle closing in on them as they meet next to the Tagus River.

    If leaders including U.S. President Barack Obama step outside for a breath of fresh air at the riverside Park of Nations, a glance upward could be enough to give them a touch of historical vertigo.

    Soaring over them is the Vasco da Gama tower, named for Portugal’s greatest seafarer and a monument to a seismic shift in relations between Asia and Europe.

    The futuristic structure is shaped like the billowing sail of a Portuguese caravel, the revolutionary ship that da Gama used to sail around Africa and open the sea route to India in 1498.

    When the great globaliser headed out from the Tagus he changed world history — and Afghanistan’s role in it.

    Portugal’s caravels opened up the first direct route between Europe and China, India and the rest of Asia. The tiny ships made instantly obselete the fabled Silk Road trade routes that had enriched empires and rulers across Central Asia.

Ahead of Lisbon, soul-searching in Pakistan

For all of former Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf’s faults, the one thing you would have to give him credit for is the emergence of a free press. It’s every bit as fearless, and questioning as its counterpart across the border in India, sometimes even stepping over the line, as some complain.

Indeed east of the Suez, and perhaps all the way to Japan, it would be hard to find a media that is as unrestrained as in India and Pakistan, which is even more remarkable in the case of Pakistan given the threat posed by a deadly militancy.

And so in the run-up to the Lisbon summit where NATO leaders will decide, among other things, the way forward in Afghanistan, a few Pakistanis have spoken forcefully. They touch upon Pakistan’s role as a conflicted ally in the war there and the extreme danger that the state itself  faces now because of its refusal, or inability to break ranks with militant organisations. More striking, they challenge some long-held beliefs relating to India and Pakistan, in ways you would think was unthinkable.

One of them is an influential Pakistani newspaper editor, who according to Arnaud de Borchgrave in a piece carried by the Atlantic Council, has just made the rounds of Washington, delivering a stunning indictment of some of the players involved in the Afghan conflict.  He can’t be named and his comments were off-the-record, but meant for public use, Borchgrave says.

He has listed some of them, and I can do no better than sum them up here, given they speak so directly to the issues at the heart of a troubled region.

-  All four wars between India and Pakistan (1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999) were provoked by Pakistan.

Saudi Arabia spot on UN women agency triggers outcry

The United Nations has set up a new super agency to better fight for the rights of women around the world including Afghanistan. This week UN Women, as the new body is called, held elections to choose countries to sit on the board and the results have triggered a storm of criticism even before the new agency formally comes into being next January. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia were in the running for a seat, and while Iran got displaced at the last minute in the vote, the Saudis are through.

And that has provoked the wrath of rights activists and commentators.  The idea of the conservative desert kingdom, where women cannot drive or take significant decisions without the permission of a male  relative or work as supermarket cashiers, leading a global fight for the promotion of women’s rights is hard to accept, they say. How can you take the UN seriously, asks Greg Scoblete in a short piece on  Real Clear World’s Compass blog headlined  : Saudi Arabia bastion for women’s rights.

When the results of the vote were announced, the United States warmly welcomed the defeat of Iran, saying it would have been an inauspicious start to the board, had  they won. But what about the Saudis, asks Ami Horowitz, a documentary film-maker, in an article in The Huffington Post. How can Washington or the UN justify their leadership of a high-powered body set up to promote gender equality and empower women.

Horowitz proceeds to list cases reflecting the plight of women in Saudi Arabia including the most famous  case of  “The Girl of Qatif.”. This refers to a 2007 verdict in which a 19-year-old woman from the town of Qatif was sentenced to 200 lashes of the whip after she was gang-raped by seven men. The court blamed her for being alone with an  unrelated man. The rapists were handed sentences ranging from two years to nine years in jail. The woman was later pardoned which commentators said at the time was the result of an international outcry over the judgement.

Indeed in a rather ironic twist, the Saudi team showed up at the Asian Games in China just days after winning that seat, without a single woman in  their 180-strong squad. Iran actually comes off far better in this respect ; its 395-strong squad at the Games consists of 92 female athletes. Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-born columnist and public speaker on Arab and Muslim issues, said that while the United States, the European Union, Australian and Canadian diplomats went on an overdrive to ensure Iran wasn’t on the  board, they didn’t seem to resist as strongly the Saudi seat on the high table. Is it because the Saudis are big donors ? Eltahawy writes:

Once again, women are the cheapest bargaining chips, thrown on the table to silence and appease allies and “major donors.

from FaithWorld:

Muslims say Obama failing to keep Cairo promises

President Barack Obama's pledge on Wednesday in Jakarta to strive for better relations with the Muslim world drew skepticism in Cairo, where last year he called for a new beginning in the Middle East after years of mistrust.

Seventeen months after Obama's Cairo University speech, al Qaeda is still threatening the West, peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians remain stalled over the issue of West Bank settlements and U.S. troops remain in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many in the Middle East believe that Washington's tight alliance with Israel makes it impossible to end the suffering of the Palestinians, breeding cynicism among Arab Muslims toward U.S. intentions in the region.

"As soon as Obama took over, he said he would do this and that -- a lot of things. But he still hasn't met a single goal," said Saad Zaki Khalil, 56, who was selling cigarette lighters in central Cairo.

"It's all speeches -- in the end the same American politics, and Jewish politics, continues," said Cairo retiree Mohamed Abdel. "This is why nothing since Obama's Cairo speech has translated into action with Arab nations."

"I personally had higher expectations for change" after the 2009 speech, said Cairo lawyer Hatem Khalil. "It's ignorant to believe Obama will solve the Palestinian case... I also agree that if the U.S. takes out all its military from Iraq in one phase the country will collapse -- but I think that with Egypt, more needs to be done."

India, U.S. build ties, with an eye on China

In the end, Pakistan wasn’t the unspoken elephant in the room when U.S. President Barack Obama sat down for talks with Indian leaders. Far from tip-toeing around India’s Pakistan problem which complicates America’s own troubled war there and in Afghanistan, Obama spoke clearly and squarely.

Safe havens for militants in Pakistan wouldn’t be tolerated, he said, in what was music to Indian ears. But he also left nobody in doubt Washington wanted India to improve ties with Pakistan, saying New Delhi had the greatest stake in the troubled neighbour’s stability.

But the one elephant that the leaders of India and the United States didn’t name but which was written all over the flurry of announcements made during the three-day trip was China. Beginning with the headline-grabbing endorsement of India’s bid for a permanent place on the U.N. Security Council to maritime cooperation and a surprise partnership to promote food security in Africa, the United States seems to have gone the extra mile to bolster New Delhi’s credentials as a global player.

The one country that would be watching this most closely is China where some would see America’s deepening ties with India, a continent-size country with a billion-plus people, as aimed at countering its rise.

B.Raman, a  former head of India’s Research and Analysis wing, writes that the announcement by India and the United States  to work together for stability in the Indian Ocean region as well as the Pacific  will draw concern in Beijing, which has its own fears of U.S. encirclement.

“Thus, the partnership will seek to promote peace and security across Asia in general and in East and Central Asia in particular, strengthen maritime security and work for a peaceful settlement of maritime disputes. Though China has not been named, Beijing will have reasons to be concerned over the implications of this formulation.”

from Tales from the Trail:

McCain sees India, U.S. teaming up against “troubling” China

As President Barack Obama begins his visit to India, his erstwhile rival John McCain is voicing hope that Washington and New Delhi will tighten up their military cooperation in the face of China's "troubling" assertiveness.

McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential candidate and the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told a think-tank audience in Washington on Friday that the two huge democracies were natural allies in the quest to temper China's ambitions.

"While India and the United States each continue to encourage a peaceful rise for China, we must recognize that one of the greatest factors for shaping this outcome and making it more likely is a robust U.S.-India strategic partnership," McCain said.

McCain suggested that India and the United States could increase the level of representation at each other's central military commands and work to make their armed forces more "interoperable" through joint military exercises and sharing of intelligence.

"There's no reason why we can't work to facilitate India's deployment of advanced defense capabilities such as nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, missile defense architecture as well as India's inclusion in the development of the joint strike fighter," the next generation fighter aircraft being developed by the United States, the United Kingdom and others, McCain said.

The United States should also firmly back India's desire for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, he said.

The Afghan media surge — highlighting unpaid salaries

US and NATO forces in Afghanistan recently sent out a news release apparently highlighting that teachers in a school supported by international troops were going unpaid for weeks, or even months.That wasn’t the headline of course — we were told “Uruzgan teachers to begin receiving salaries” but just three paragraphs in was the news that the school reopened on September 23.And the six teachers shouldn’t expect their modest 5,000 Afghanis (just over $100) salary for at least another few weeks it added — mentioning only that pay would arrive “in the coming weeks”.

The military are sending out far more news releases than just a few months ago, with even relatively small operations highlighted, more frequent updates on major operations, and more reports on aid projects and ventures like a children’s day in Bamiyan province. Recent headlines include: “Coalition and Afghan Border Police living on the edge” ,  “Female engagement team builds bridges into Afghan society” , “Afghan National Army honoured at concert” and “Afghan masons ‘build’ sustainability through concrete training”.

We no longer leap to attention quite so fast when we see one of their news releases pop into our inboxes.

They also seem to have taken on a lot of new staff; some of whom are still getting used to the job. Ringing up with a question about another routine news release recently, I was asked to spell out my name and that of the company I work for, and then asked what Reuters does.

Of course we are not universally known, but we do have correspondents in nearly every country in the world, most major news outlets are our subscribers, and our reports, directly and indirectly, reach hundreds of millions of people each day. So if you are in the business of disseminating news, its quite unusual not to have heard of Reuters.