Raza Naeem, Assistant Professor at the School of Governance and Society in the University of Management and Technology, Lahore , speaking giving at CRSS on Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's geo-political crisis; the problems, the opportunities and the road forward Raza Naeem gave a run-down of the events preceding the Saudi Arabian bombardment of the Houthis militia in Yemen. He said the only way out of the current crisis was to hold negotiations with the Houthis in Yemen itself. This would prevent the region from descending into a protracted war. He said the national  dialogue in Yemen failed because it had degenerated into a Saudi-American construct. The unrest in Yemen is the result of the socio-economic disparities that had historically existed between the north and the south, despite the south being an inclusive democracy. He said Saudis being a monarchy, always felt threatened by a democratic Yemen and thus felt uncomfortable when the Houthis reached Sanaa, the capital, without any resistance. Usama Butt, executive director of the London-based Institute for Islamic Strategic Affairs argued that the war in Yemen has for all practical reasons become a sectarian conflict with multiple competing interests playing out there. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have their own geo-stratgic objectives and the Saudi invasion of Yemen in fact provided Iran with an indirect victory in the region, where Teheran has been expressly expanding its influence. He also advised Pakistan against isolating itself in the region. Pakistan being an important leaders should reach out to both Iran and Saudi Arabia and play a pro-active role rather than isolating itself, he said. Butt and other participants of the discussion agreed that military option provides no solution to similar situation. Nor should any party dream of talking from the position of strength, they said. This logic is flawed and has often failed. All parties must be open to careful and quiet talks rather than placing...

Raza Naeem, Assistant Professor at the School of Governance and Society in the University of Management and Technology, Lahore , speaking giving at CRSS on Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's geo-political crisis; the problems, the opportunities and the road forward Raza Naeem gave a run-down of the events preceding the Saudi Arabian bombardment of the Houthis militia in Yemen. He said the only way out of the current crisis was to hold negotiations with the Houthis in Yemen itself. This would prevent the region from descending into a protracted war. He said the national  dialogue in Yemen failed because it had degenerated into a Saudi-American construct. The unrest in Yemen is the result of the socio-economic disparities that had historically existed between the north and the south, despite the south being an inclusive democracy. He said Saudis being a monarchy, always felt threatened by a democratic Yemen and thus felt uncomfortable when the Houthis reached Sanaa, the capital, without any resistance. Usama Butt, executive director of the London-based Institute for Islamic Strategic Affairs argued that the war in Yemen has for all practical reasons become a sectarian conflict with multiple competing interests playing out there. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have their own geo-stratgic objectives and the Saudi invasion of Yemen in fact provided Iran with an indirect victory in the region, where Teheran has been expressly expanding its influence. He also advised Pakistan against isolating itself in the region. Pakistan being an important leaders should reach out to both Iran and Saudi Arabia and play a pro-active role rather than isolating itself, he said. Butt and other participants of the discussion agreed that military option provides no solution to similar situation. Nor should any party dream of talking from the position of strength, they said. This logic is flawed and has often failed. All parties must be open to careful and quiet talks rather than placing...

Traditionally ruled by military or quasi-military regimes, Pakistan is struggling to strengthen its democratic governance but the military remains in charge of country’s security policy. This period of incremental democratization corresponds to the unprecedented rise in terrorism and domestic insurgencies that have challenged state capacity and taken a toll on both the morale of the country and the economy. This report reviews Pakistan’s progress in devising and implementing counterterrorism policy frameworks in recent years. In highlighting key related strategic and operational issues, it offers Pakistani policymakers ways forward on how best to ensure internal stability and security, reminding us that a balance in civilian and military institutions is vital for effective policy outcomes. Summary Pakistan’s recently announced National Action Plan focuses on combatting both terrorism and militancy and addresses endemic insecurity and radicalization. The plan follows in the wake of the National Internal Security Policy, which has been in place for more than a year. These two policy frameworks underscore the commitment of the government to implement counterterrorism operations. Implementation of both, however, is affected by the civil-military divide that defines Pakistan’s power landscape and by the altered governance architecture since the onset of devolution reforms of 2010. Pakistan’s historically entrenched civil-military imbalance puts the military in the driver’s seat on all issues related to national security. The current civilian government has enabled the military to take the lead on internal security arrangements as well. Internal security challenges of Pakistan are directly related to its external security policy, especially with respect to India and Afghanistan. Centralized management of internal security policies, however, is fraught with difficulties. It is unclear whether the provincial governments “own” the National Internal Security Policy and how...

Abigail Fielding-Smith and Jack Serle of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveal the latest drone strike data for May, 2015. A total of seven strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen claimed 48-56 lives. Executive Summary 1. Key points: A Pew Research Center poll finds strong support in the US for drone strikes Three US strikes kill at least 34 in Afghanistan The US continues to bomb Yemen in the midst of a brutal civil war British drones flew 301 missions over Iraq from September to the end of March 2. The Bureau’s numbers: Recorded US drone strikes to date Pakistan (June 2004 to date) Yemen (Nov 2002 to date)* Somalia (Jan 2007 to date)* Afghanistan (Jan 2015 to date) US drone strikes 417 97-117 9-13 5 Total reported killed 2,456-3,962 453-673 23-105 49-55 Civilians reported killed 423-962 65-97 0-5 0 Children reported killed 172-207 8-9 0 0 Reported injured 1,148-1,727 88-217 2-7 1 Recorded US air and cruise missile strikes to date Pakistan (June 2004 to date)** Yemen (Nov 2002 to date)* Somalia (Jan 2007 to date)* Afghanistan (Jan 2015 to date) US air & cruise missile strikes N/A 15-72 8-11 4 Total reported killed N/A 156-365 40-141 29-36 Civilians reported killed N/A 68-99 7-47 0 Children reported killed N/A 26-28 0-2 0 People reported injured N/A 15-102 11-21 0 * The Bureau’s estimates are based predominantly on open sources information such as media reports. Sometimes it is not possible to reconcile details in different reports. This is why use ranges for our record of casualties and, in the case of Yemen and Somalia, our strike tallies. ** The US has only carried out drone strikes in Pakistan. iii. Bureau analysis for May 2015: A new poll this month shows the American drone campaign continues to enjoy popular support in the US as seven strikes reportedly kill 48-56 people in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. According to the Pew Research Center poll, 58% of respondents approve of “US drone strikes to target extremists” with 35% who disapprove....

Peru, an impoverished South American country, remained plagued with the menace of terrorism for fifteen long years. The Peruvian problems started with the emergence of Maoist terrorist organisations Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) in 1980 and Tupac Amaro in the late 1970s. The more lethal of the two was Shining Path, led by Abimeal Guzman (aka Presidente Gonzalo), a former university professor of philosophy. Guzman’s ideology was a mix of Marxist-Leninism with a strong blend of Maoism. He wanted an armed revolutionary movement against the state to install a communist system based on ‘pure communism.’ Since the movement had its origins from the southern poverty-ridden and most disadvantaged region of Ayacucho, therefore Ayacucho nationalism appeared to blend with the Maoist ideas propounded by Guzman. Shining Path, though ideologically Maoist, had a slightly different version of Maoism than the regular one. Guzman’s idea was to bring about a cultural revolution in Peru to establish dictatorship of the proletariat without any revisions, which he believed many other communist countries had earlier done. Guzman called it New Democracy. The Peruvian government faced tremendous difficulties in tackling the situation since over time Guzman’s organisation had become a personality cult with thousands of armed fighters launching terrorist attacks against government and civilians across Peru. In more than 6,000 incidents of terrorism by Shining Path more than 60,000 Peruvians lost their lives with billions of dollars of economic and infrastructural losses. More than half of rural Peru had become a no-go area for the government. The Peruvians had no resources to take any counterterrorism measures. Terrorism is generally considered a weapon of the weak, with very little resources required to conduct acts of terrorism. Simply put, terrorism is cheap whereas counterterrorism is very expensive. But the Peruvian had faith in the leadership of their then prime minister Alberto...

Courtesy: Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University. Summary This report summarizes the separate toll of war on civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan and describes some of the ways the wars in each of those countries, while still having distinct features and dynamics, have become one larger conflict.2 The two wars are linked in several ways. Afghan civilians have fled the war to neighboring states, including Pakistan, in large numbers. United States drone strikes in Pakistan are in service of both the larger war on terror and aimed to kill anti-government militants in Pakistan who have fled from Afghanistan or who are attempting to destabilize and overthrow Afghanistan's government. Drone strikes kill Pakistani civilians as well as their intended targets. The US also supports Pakistan's ground and air war against militant organizations, such as the Pakistani Taliban, which has led to growing numbers of civilian casualties in Pakistan. Pakistan's attacks on militants have also included cross-border shelling into Afghanistan, which has led to displacement and caused some deaths and injuries in Afghanistan. Finally, international military forces have transported food, fuel, and equipment through Pakistan to Afghanistan, and militants have repeatedly attacked the vehicles, leading to civilian deaths. This report describes the two kinds of war-related death and injury: direct deaths due to violence, and deaths caused indirectly due to the effects of the destruction of infrastructure and displacement. The focus is on direct deaths since it is very difficult to estimate the toll of indirect death in Afghanistan and Pakistan (AfPak). Although the US stated in December 2014 that it would soon withdraw from Afghanistan, the war there has grown in destructiveness over the past year and the Obama administration announced on 24 March 2015 that it would keep the same level of troops in Afghanistan through 2015. By contrast, the war in Pakistan has seen...