Current Projects

Inaction plan

The attack on innocent schoolchildren in Peshawar in December 2014 was an unprecedented wake up call for both civil society and the government. The National Action Plan (NAP), a 20-point set of strategies/objectives designed to eliminate and retard the growth of extremism and terrorism was enacted within two weeks. Nearly a half year later, Tariq Khosa looks at where the NAP stands now, and why momentum on it seems to have all but died out. Terrorists cannot demoralise the nation. The war will continue till the elimination of the last terrorist. Thus spoke the interior minister recently — after some weeks in hibernation. Reassuring? Or are words all he has? He was declared the counterterrorism czar in January this year by the prime minister in a meeting to discuss the implementation of the National Action Plan (NAP) when it was decided that the interior minister would lead the effort to implement the 20-point counterterrorism (CT) strategy and ensure proper coordination with all stakeholders. It is now time to point out the inadequacies of certain aspects of the CT policy being pursued and also highlight the lack of progress in implementing NAP in its true spirit. The snake-pit of militancy needs to be cleared. Firstly, over 100 convicts have been hanged in five months since the Dec 16 carnage at the Army Public School, Peshawar. Has capital punishment deterred diehard terrorists? All I can say with my experience of more than 40 years in law enforcement is that it is the certainty and not the severity of punishment that deters criminals or reduces criminality. As long as loopholes exist in our justice system, death by hanging will not work. Second, NAP emphasised that no armed militias would be allowed to function in the country. While the interior ministry has banned issuance of arms licences, some provinces are generously distributing licences of even prohibited-bore weapons. There is no policy of firm gun control in any province. No wonder violence cannot be...

China Pakistan Economic Corridor

The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a development mega project which aims to connect Gwadar Port in southwestern Pakistan to China’s northwestern autonomous region of Xinjiang, via a network of highways, railways and pipelines to transport oil and gas. The economic corridor is considered central to China–Pakistan relations and will run about 3,000 km from Gwadar to Kashgar. Overall construction costs are estimated at $46 billion, with the entire project expected to be completed in several years. The Corridor is an extension of China’s proposed 21st century Silk Road initiative. According to a First post report, “this is the biggest overseas investment by China announced yet and the corridor is expected to be operational within three years and will be a strategic game changer in the region, which would go a long way in making Pakistan a richer and stronger entity than ever before.” The announcement of an economic corridor between China and Pakistan linking Kasghar and Gwadar through multi-modal communication lines is an encouraging sign for a weakened economy and is a long awaited step in the right direction. The government is en-cashing on the historically friendly relations between the two countries termed as higher than mountains and deeper than oceans. Now comes the vision and desire to link these mountains and oceans with trade goods and economic opportunities freely flowing to and fro. Pakistan has long been involved and immersed in management of internal and regional security issues but now the time has come to take a turn in the right direction for welfare and prosperity of its people. Opportunity of having an economic corridor for the west China region can put us on a track of economic and trade development, provided that we prove ourselves equal to the task and are able to plan and manage accordingly. We can reap the fruits of our strategic location on the world map by appropriately moving ahead with consistency in policy formulation,...

Targeted: What’s Behind the Militant Assault on Pakistan’s Minorities

Minorities in Pakistan have been under attack for years. In the months since the atrocious attack on school children in Peshawar, that left 141 dead, 132 of them children, Pakistani authorities enacted the National Action Plan (NAP), a comprehensive document of interventions designed to combat and eradicate militancy in the country. Since the NAP came into effect, however, the focus of terror attacks has increasingly and visibly shifted from the general population and civil-military infrastructure to minorities. On May 13, 2015, a bus carrying members of the Ismaili community, a Shia sub-sect, was attacked by gunmen on motorcycles, killing 45 people, and injuring another 19. The youngest victim was 16 years old. Police reports and eyewitness accounts establish that six gunmen surrounded the bus, and then boarded it. They separated very young children from the rest of the passengers, and told everyone to bow their heads. They then shot the separated passengers using 9mm pistols. The attackers managed to flee the scene. This is the worst attack against Ismailis in the history of Pakistan. The Ismailis are widely recognized as a patriotic, peaceful community, largely apolitical, middle-class, and well educated. In the past, isolated incidents have occurred, such as the bombing at Aisha Manzil in Karachi in 2013, which killed four people and injured 42 others. Flare-ups in the northern Chitral Valley and Gilgit-Baltistan regions, where a large concentration of Ismailis reside, have resulted in casualties in the past, but nothing on the scale of the May 13 attack. Within hours of the attack, several banned groups clamored to claim responsibility. The first was Jundullah, a splinter group of the proscribed Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Initially affiliated with al-Qaeda, the group has claimed responsibility for multiple terror attacks, especially on minorities, often without any real evidence to prove their involvement. In November 2014, the group changed its...

‘Outrageous’ intelligence deal

In a bizarre though expected display of their contemptuous opposition to Pakistan, a large number of Afghans took umbrage to the recentMemorandum of Understanding (MoU) on counter-terror and security cooperation between the ISI and Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS). The head of the NDS, Rahmatullah Nabil, who refused to sign the MoU, his predecessor, Amrullah Saleh, sitting parliamentarians and former president Hamid Karzai joined the chorus against what they likened to a treasonous act. Their reaction has exposed their deep-rooted dislike, if not contempt, of Pakistan. Even Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval jumped into the fray to run down the ISI-NDS. The vitriolic reaction defied logic and also exposed the lobbies that are at work against any fence-mending between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The denouncement of the MoU and the calls to cancel it literally stopped short of questioning Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s integrity and commitment to the country by running down his attempts to smooth off the fractious relationship with Pakistan. All the Afghan detractors of the MoU essentially wishfully want Pakistan to eliminate all non-state actors and snap their social support with a single click; i.e., a precondition for any cooperation deal. This desire naively overestimates their own state’s internal divisions — within the unity government as well as among insurgent groups. Their proposition also grossly underestimates the likely internal blowback in case Pakistan goes all out after the Afghan Taliban by using their businesses and families residing there to pressure them into talks. Pakistan certainly has leverage but this leverage cannot be invoked at the cost of sociopolitical sensitivities on both sides of the border. The country has already enough fires to extinguish and should not be expected to add more to its raging troubles. Recent discussions with stakeholders in Washington and Beijing also entailed a more sympathetic view of...

Counter-Terrorism Situation and Cooperation in Asia

ImtiazGul, Executive Director CRSS, presented the following paper at the First Annual Conference of CICA Non-Governmental Forum Beijing, May 25-26, at Beijing, China. Contextualizing the Scenario Today, Muslim majority territories from western China to Central / South to the Arabian Peninsula and Africa – Xinjiang, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Algeria, Nigeria, Yemen, Sudan – faced one or other form of violent conflict driven by regional or national religio-political groups who draw inspiration largely from the trans-nationalist al-Qaeda to peddle their militant agendas. As a whole, some eight operational theatres under the influence of Al-Qaeda Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda Indian sub-continent, Al-Shebab, Boko-Haram, Taliban, and the Islamic State (IS) are all but a few manifestations of an increasingly volatile political landscape. The IS, the latest entrant to the world of militant Islam, has triggered fresh fears along new battle-lines. Yemen’s civil war and the Saudi Arabian invasion on that country, represent another source of instability in the already volatile region. This violent entity is certainly stoking fears in major western capitals as the group continues to galvanize disgruntled youth, mostly those confronted with an identity crisis or those who feel isolated and marginalized in the western societies. Why is this happening? Timeline Clearly, this has not happened in a vacuum. History has moved full circle; the United States and its allies – all those who had once directly or otherwise supported non-state actors in the Middle East, South America, or Afghanistan to pursue their geo-political objectives in the war against the Soviet Union, communism and China – now taste their own medicine. They put an entire generation of overzealous Muslims on the ‘medicine’ of “jihad” for their geo-political objectives but that “jihad” has not only transformed into violent extremism and naked terrorism, but also coming back to haunt most...

8 Pakistani cities feature in world’s deadliest cities index

Eight Pakistani cities are listed among 64 cities from around the world that are at an “extreme risk” of terror attacks, according to a new index by Verisk. The cities in Pakistan include Peshawar (7), Quetta (9), Hassu Khel (10), Karachi (16), Rawalpindi (27), Lahore (29), Sukkur (24) and Islamabad (44). The index after assessing 1,300 of the world’s most important commercial hubs and urban centres ranked world cities by the likelihood of a terror attack based on historic trends. Peshawar rose sharply in the index following a deadly attack on an army-run school in the city on December 16 which claimed more than 142 lives mostly children. Read: Our darkest hour Quetta and Karachi are privy to terrorist activities as well. In 2013, a US magazine Foreign Policy termed Karachi “the most dangerous megacity” in the world. Read: US magazine terms Karachi ‘most dangerous megacity’ in the world In a piece on Karachi’s role in the global trade of methamphetamine — an illegal psychostimulant – Foreign Policy cited a murder rate of 12.3 per 100, 000 residents, “some 25 percent higher than any other major city”. The world’s seven most dangerous cities are all in Iraq, with Baghdad topping the list as the world’s most dangerous city. Islamic State-held Mosul ranked number 2 and Ramadi was at number 3. Though majority of the cities in the index are in the Middle East (27) and Asia (19), European cities have also been placed at a risk of a terror attack in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Read: At least 12 killed in Paris massacre Paris is ranked 97th in the world, up from 201st at the start of the year prior to the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Three are in Europe, namely Luhansk (46) and Donetsk (56) in Ukraine, and Grozy (54) in Russia. The only South American in the list is Colombia’s Cali ranked at number 59. The British city most at risk of terror attacks is Belfast (91), followed by Bristol (178), Cardiff (313), Manchester (398) and London (400). Some 14 are in...

8 Pakistani cities feature in world's deadliest cities index

Eight Pakistani cities are listed among 64 cities from around the world that are at an “extreme risk” of terror attacks, according to a new index by Verisk. The cities in Pakistan include Peshawar (7), Quetta (9), Hassu Khel (10), Karachi (16), Rawalpindi (27), Lahore (29), Sukkur (24) and Islamabad (44). The index after assessing 1,300 of the world’s most important commercial hubs and urban centres ranked world cities by the likelihood of a terror attack based on historic trends. Peshawar rose sharply in the index following a deadly attack on an army-run school in the city on December 16 which claimed more than 142 lives mostly children. Read: Our darkest hour Quetta and Karachi are privy to terrorist activities as well. In 2013, a US magazine Foreign Policy termed Karachi “the most dangerous megacity” in the world. Read: US magazine terms Karachi ‘most dangerous megacity’ in the world In a piece on Karachi’s role in the global trade of methamphetamine — an illegal psychostimulant – Foreign Policy cited a murder rate of 12.3 per 100, 000 residents, “some 25 percent higher than any other major city”. The world’s seven most dangerous cities are all in Iraq, with Baghdad topping the list as the world’s most dangerous city. Islamic State-held Mosul ranked number 2 and Ramadi was at number 3. Though majority of the cities in the index are in the Middle East (27) and Asia (19), European cities have also been placed at a risk of a terror attack in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Read: At least 12 killed in Paris massacre Paris is ranked 97th in the world, up from 201st at the start of the year prior to the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Three are in Europe, namely Luhansk (46) and Donetsk (56) in Ukraine, and Grozy (54) in Russia. The only South American in the list is Colombia’s Cali ranked at number 59. The British city most at risk of terror attacks is Belfast (91), followed by Bristol (178), Cardiff (313), Manchester (398) and London (400). Some 14 are in...

8 Pakistani cities feature in world's deadliest cities index

Eight Pakistani cities are listed among 64 cities from around the world that are at an “extreme risk” of terror attacks, according to a new index by Verisk. The cities in Pakistan include Peshawar (7), Quetta (9), Hassu Khel (10), Karachi (16), Rawalpindi (27), Lahore (29), Sukkur (24) and Islamabad (44). The index after assessing 1,300 of the world’s most important commercial hubs and urban centres ranked world cities by the likelihood of a terror attack based on historic trends. Peshawar rose sharply in the index following a deadly attack on an army-run school in the city on December 16 which claimed more than 142 lives mostly children. Read: Our darkest hour Quetta and Karachi are privy to terrorist activities as well. In 2013, a US magazine Foreign Policy termed Karachi “the most dangerous megacity” in the world. Read: US magazine terms Karachi ‘most dangerous megacity’ in the world In a piece on Karachi’s role in the global trade of methamphetamine — an illegal psychostimulant – Foreign Policy cited a murder rate of 12.3 per 100, 000 residents, “some 25 percent higher than any other major city”. The world’s seven most dangerous cities are all in Iraq, with Baghdad topping the list as the world’s most dangerous city. Islamic State-held Mosul ranked number 2 and Ramadi was at number 3. Though majority of the cities in the index are in the Middle East (27) and Asia (19), European cities have also been placed at a risk of a terror attack in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Read: At least 12 killed in Paris massacre Paris is ranked 97th in the world, up from 201st at the start of the year prior to the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Three are in Europe, namely Luhansk (46) and Donetsk (56) in Ukraine, and Grozy (54) in Russia. The only South American in the list is Colombia’s Cali ranked at number 59. The British city most at risk of terror attacks is Belfast (91), followed by Bristol (178), Cardiff (313), Manchester (398) and London (400). Some 14 are in...

Migrant Smuggling: How Should the EU and its Members States Respond?

The Mediterranean Sea has proven once more it is today’s most dangerous border between Europe and Africa. Only 28 people could be rescued when a boat capsized last weekend, meaning that a further 800 perished at sea, including young children. Up to April 2015, 1600 people have lost their lives in an attempt to reach the ‘promised land’. This commentary focuses on one aspect of this complex phenomenon – migrant smuggling. It argues that the EU needs to address the root causes of migrant smuggling in order to prioritize human rights within its migration policies and to take preventive action. Last year was a record high for migrant smuggling, with an estimated 350.000 migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea irregularly. Many were refugees fleeing conflict and instability in Africa and the Middle East. Migrant smuggling presents the EU with new challenges, and blurs the lines between the various forms of migration that confront policy-makers. The trend is increasingly towards mixed migration, which underscores the fact that refugees and economic migrants often use the same routes and smugglers to reach the same destinations. To complicate things further, the smuggling trade may be professionalizing. For example, to reduce the risks to the smugglers themselves, rescue operations encounter ‘ghost-ships’, which are abandoned by their crew in the hope that migrants will be rescued by EU vessels. Alternatively, some boats are ‘captained’ by migrants themselves in return for “free” passage to Europe. Italy’s PM Matteo Renzi has called for an EU summit on the issue but how should the EU and its member states act to curb migrant smuggling? A careful balance is required between the sometimes conflicting obligations of ensuring refugee status to those forced to flee their countries, on the one hand, while combatting illegal and irregular migration, on the other. The following analysis calls for an EU response to migrant smuggling that centres on issuing humanitarian visas...

Farce of nation-building

The last few weeks have seen an unusual surge in Taliban operations in at least 10 Afghan provinces. The embattled provinces are all over the country — north, south, west and east — raising questions as to whether the Afghan government and army can repel the threat. Iraq offers a similar story, where the Islamic State (IS) appears to be on a rampage. The situation in both countries, as well as in and around Syria and Libya, are telling examples of disastrous adventures undertaken in the name of the war on terror and nation-building. Though raised on billions of dollars, these projects fell far short of the stated objectives due to strategic policy blunders and short-sightedness — hence failing to create durable institutions. The total annual cost for the combined 352,000-strong Afghan National Security Forces — comprising the ministries of defence and interior — is $5.5 billion a year, but despite having invested billions in the Afghan security apparatus since 2003, the US Department of Defense has no direct oversight of the Afghan National Army’s (ANA) personnel data. Neither does the Afghan defence ministry have an electronic payroll data system. Instead, it calculates salaries by hand, leaving limited assurances that personnel receive accurate salaries. In its April 2015 quarterly report to Congress, the office of John F Sopko, the US Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, concluded that the absence of electronic records means minimal oversight of US funding for ANA salaries, making it difficult to ensure the funds are being used to pay authorised ANA personnel their correct salaries. Despite over 13 years of engagement with US-led coalition forces, the ANA attendance data, upon which US funding for salaries relies, is minimally controlled and inconsistently collected. Emma Sky, a British citizen, who volunteered to help rebuild Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003, has similar tales to tell in her book, The Unraveling: High Hopes...