International Conference

Securing a Frontline State: Alternative Views on Peace and Conflict in Pakistan
(08-09 December 2011, Islamabad, Marriott Hotel)

Prologue

Pakistan has become a ¿frontline state– in the ongoing War on Terror both as a result of its history of collusion with the terrorist groups and its newfound role of going against these terrorists in corroboration with the international coalition. Consequently, the country has suffered tremendous losses of human lives and development opportunities, especially in the past decade. One part of the problem is that the definition of security for the country so far has mainly been given from a military-strategic point of view. As a result, while Pakistan was busy to secure its borders, it has started falling apart from within. And thus today, it is related with all kinds of ills, which are generally attributed to characterize a ¿failed state–. So, in order to discuss and debate the issues of peace and conflict in Pakistan, Heinrich Boll Stiftung, Pakistan,andCenter for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad, in media partnership withThe Express Tribune, Pakistan organized a two day international conference on ‘Securing a Frontline State: Alternative Views on Peace and Conflict in Pakistan’, atMarriott Hotel, Islamabad.

This international conference aims at broadening the perspective by focusing on the interface between human and military security, the role of the government and Pakistan role in the region. How has the existing approach triggered the wave of violence that now threatens the very core of Pakistan? How is it related to the conflicts in its provinces? What are the most pressing needs that have to be addressed in order to secure Pakistan future as a peaceful state and prosperous society? How can it improve its relations with its immediate neighbors and cooperate in the region in order to secure peace and stability? And last but not the least: what shall be the nature of its relationship with the rest of the world?

Who Said What?

Ms. Britta Peterson (Country Director, HBS, Pakistan)

A very warm welcome to this International Conference ‘Securing a Frontline State: Alternative views on Peace and Conflict’ being jointly organized by CRSS and HBS. As it is clear from the title, we do not want to look at the security in Pakistan, only we want a broader perspective. We are getting away by media reports on causalities, border clashes, or major incidents like the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the latest Mohmand attacks, as important they might be for the moment, and as well for the strategic developments, they are only one aspect of Pakistani security. Can a country be called secure when it is terribly hit by floods and earthquakes, can a man be called secure who does not know how to feed his family, can a woman be called secure who is afraid to leave her house or can a child be called secure whose parents cannot afford to send him to school. These questions are obviously absurd, yet they show the security as a complex phenomenon that cannot be guaranteed by weapons or soldiers alone. On the contrary the security discourse tends to monopolize public debate and thus becomes self serving at the cost of all other factors mainly human security. We therefore try to open this discourse here in this conference.

In the next two days our experts, academicians, novelists, activists, diplomats and bureaucrats from Pakistan and from the rest of the world will be looking at the various security challenges that Pakistan is facing at the moment: Ranging from climate change to water scarcity and food insecurity to the concerns of women in the armed conflicts, as well as at the Pakistan internal conflicts in the provinces and at the Centre, the civil military relations and the jihadi discourse. On the second day we have invited the speakers from all over the world to talk about the region and to share their views on what is happening in Pakistan at the moment and how it will develop in the future. We are here to share the understanding of the road ahead in order to be able to save Pakistan, to make sure that Pakistan and its neighbouring countries are at peace with themselves and each other and its people do not live in fear.

Keynote Address

Dr Yunas Samad (Professor, Bradford University, UK)

I want to talk about chaos, national security, militancy and interpersonal violence. While talking about violence the thing that is striking, is the range and scale of violence that is being taking place in Pakistan, in the sense that how it is proliferated and how it actually changes shape from individual violence to group violence. In its descriptive sense, it gives the sense of chaos; there exists a link, structural processes link together different levels of violence. How you would define violence? Political violence normally is defined as the use of power within and outside of political processes, but we will look at its social dimensions and how the social actually links to the political. The notion of power and violence together then it gives some understanding about what may happen in the political domain.

The concept of strategic depth has been designed mainly from the perspective that how Pakistan defense vis-à-vis India can be enhanced. It has origins which go back to Afghan invasion in 1980s. The use of militancy was a strategy sanctioned by US and it was also designed to gain solidarity within the Islamic world. National security paradigm exits in certain context, and when the context changes the paradigm has to be revisited. In post 9/11 era and with the end game in Afghanistan, the US is very concerned about that country; they do not want a vacuum there to allow Al-Qaida or any transnational group to reestablish itself. They want to stabilize the Afghan government and they would like to withdraw by 2014 and they are becoming wary of Pakistan due to its relationship with militancy and they find it to be a difficult ally. This national paradigm that we are having is driving us into a standoff with the largest super power in the world, so the security policy is putting Pakistan at loggerhead with a super power.

The other type of context is strengthening our relationship with the Islamic world. In some sense we imported Iranian-Saudi rivalry into Pakistan, partially expressed in terms of sectarian violence. Today large numbers of these Arab states consider that Pakistan is full of crazy people having links with militant elements, so Pakistani position in Islamic world is also becoming isolated. Then we have an issue with India; being a nuclear power and having this militancy issue tensions have increased between the two countries. In the aftermath of 2002 attacks on Indian Parliament the Indian Army was on standby on borders, and there was a potential danger that this conventional conflict with India can spiral into nuclear war. We should rethink this paradigm; it is leading us to a number of dead ends where we are having quiet difficult conflicts and tensions leaving us isolated. The national security paradigm of a country should enhance the security of the country rather than making it weaker. We need re-evaluation of the paradigm and more civilian input in it. We need to think how we can have a security paradigm to assist the drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan; we can talk about better relationship with India and to de-link ourselves with militancy.

Militancy has a relevance to the national security paradigm, and also causing us great internal costs. We need to locate it in the social movements; there are groups within the framework of Islamic social movements. From 1980 and onwards there has been an intense militarization of these organizations and they have become independent getting funding directly from UAE, Saudi Arabia and Arab countries. They perform NGOs– functions but they don–t follow any regulation and no transparency. They are promoting intolerance and bigotry, which is linked to sectarianism. The change has come with American presence, as US presence has become magnet for radicalism and it has blurred boundaries among different extremists. As anti-Americanism has become much more significant; it increased the influence of transnational groups which have become much difficult to control. They have distrust in security forces, they have independent agenda, and they have pockets within the security apparatus, so they have become much more difficult to manage and at times they are in direct confrontation with the states. Also there is this phenomenon of infiltration as they have sympathizers within the military apparatus, as in the case of attacks on former President Parvez Musharraf and at naval base, the information was leaked from within the military.

The other issue is to deal with militancy, a number of military campaigns have been launched in Swat, Bajour etc. In the tribal areas, the difficulty is this that while conducting these military operations Pakistani military created collateral damage and exacerbated the situation in the conflict zones. To deal with this political issue there is a need for negotiations and reconciliation, we need to bring them back because we cannot deal with them militarily; demilitarization, demobilization and rehabilitation program is the answer. There is a need to think about regulation of Islamic group finances; we have no transparent system about this method presently and some of the money is ending up in the actions which are detrimental to state.

How does all this turn into inter personal violence? During interactions with each other, there arise some conflicts leading to violence, even parts of the state get involved in the process with the informal economy where occupiers occupy the land and build the house and apply to the state for water and electricity sanitation. Increasing inequality is a factor leading to group violence. With the introduction of militancy, drugs and weapons proliferation the potential for violence on the streets has increased. Young men now know no way except violence as a way of making living so militancy is a life strategy. It allows them to be respectful and imparts power, people like Fazlullah, and Hakimullah Mehsud are two examples. How did these humble people become suddenly powerful? These groups are literally grabbing everything what they want by the use of violence. Women and children have become commodities, they are now no other item for sale, and hence militancy has become almost a causal factor in the increase of inter-personal violence.

Against this backdrop, there is a need to rethink about our recent security paradigm that is driving us into conflict with the only super power in the world. If US wants to withdraw from Afghanistan than it should do so in terms that are suitable and acceptable to Pakistan. When we talk about influence over Afghanistan, either through Taliban or Haqqani network, we should rephrase that into soft power. We need to get out of this militancy paradigm. There is a need to clarify to these Islamic groups that we want to de-link from this phenomenon of jihad, we need to talk about serious attempts about demilitarization, demobilization and rehabilitation. We need to talk about development in education and better governance. Human development and security are not two separate categories, there is a linkage and one feeds the other and if we do not deal with the issues that promote this kind of violence than we are not going to be able improve the internal security and security in general of this country.

First Session

Dr Abid Suleri (Executive Director, SDPI, Islamabad)

How various types of insecurities are further breeding insecurities? Developmental challenges in Pakistan are diverse and chronic having short, medium and long term impact on development. The common strand among all of them is that they have their origin in the policies that Pakistan has pursued over a long period of time, or they are policy led challenges. These challenges could have been avoided if right set of policies and actions in the form of people centric paradigm would have been followed. In case of Pakistan, security paradigm was adopted due to long dictatorial rules and country peculiar geopolitical situation. This security paradigm remains confined to achieving state security, mainly through military means, but state security cannot be achieved without achieving human security.

There are four interconnected levels of security, human security, national security, regional security and global security. Successive governments in Pakistan always tried to achieve national, global and regional security, often neglecting human security. Pakistan has always tried to involve in global and regional security to ensure its national security as well as that of region and the global. Thus global and regional security seems to be of high priority for Pakistan. Human security has been ignored in Pakistan, at times to achieve the other three levels of security. Human security has been perceived as a threat to the national security. The country success in becoming a nuclear power and having a large standing army has been achieved at the expense of human security. Country current account expenditures can be divided into four Ds, debt payments, defense expenditures, day to day administration and development related expenditures.

Among these four, only PSDP funds seem to be flexible, hence its size is slashed due to over spending on first 3Ds. Size of PSDP has seen a continuous downward revision in 2008, 09,10 and 11. Hence, PSDP is perceived to be a lubricant for the growth of national security. When PSDP is cut it gives rise to economic and social insecurity, and the individual insecurity results in violent and destructive protests for basic facilities, suicide bombings, prostitution, child labor etc.

Socio political instability leading to violence is evident from urban violence in Karachi and ethno-nationalist movement in Balochistan. Hence global and regional actors have started doubting the capacity to secure the nuclear assets. The state of food security in Pakistan has been aggravated in the last six years, as in 2003, 45 percent of the population was food insecure and now it is almost 50 percent, in 2003 only 54 districts were food insecure while now 80 out of 120 districts are food insecure. Most of the food insecure regions are also the conflict ridden areas. FATA has the highest number of food insecure population followed by Balochistan and then KPK. Dera Bugti has highest rate of food insecure persons that is 82.4 percent of the population. Out of Balochistan 49 districts 26 are food insecure. Echoes of Talbanization in southern Punjab are also due to food and physical insecurity. Floods further exacerbated the situation and the areas have become vulnerable to internal and external challenges. We should reorient our state security paradigm from ensuring national, global, and regional security, to increased expenditure on human security.

Dr Saba Gul Khttak (Former Member, Planning Commission of Pakistan)

Frontier is those areas where there is no rule of law they are at the border of civilization where state in its pluralist concept does not exist. Today whole country has become FATA in the context of the world, as there is no rule of law, corruption and government doesn–t work. So there is a need to check why rule of law is not efficient as it is in the other parts of the world. Now talking about the women, their lives are threatened inside as well as outside the house; their lives are threatened under the rubric of rivaj, customs, traditions, or conflict zones. Often women concerns are overlooked both in the context of effects of violence and their requirements for peace. In Pakistan there are a number of conflicts going on; in Karachi since 1986, in FATA since 1980, post 9/11 jihadi phenomenon and drone attacks, in all of these conflicts houses were targeted because people are identified with reference to their homes.

Homes have played a very important role in conflicts, both in displacement as well as home identification. It is not only a place where you live, and rather it means identity and place of security to the people. Demolition of homes is the prime threat to individual security and have deepest impact on women and children, when the home gets targeted it is the women who bears the burnt of such attitudes. Another aspect for women in the line of fire is the early marriages and overnight marriages in conflicts, when men are on the run and not sure about the security of their daughters and sisters hence they go for overnight marriages to get rid of this responsibility. There are anomalies for Pakistan as well as many of the young women in FATA, were married off to some Arabs, when these men disappeared these women came to Pakistani courts asking for justice and citizenship. Economic policies introduced have eroded the economic power of the state so the state cannot be a social welfare state as envisioned by the constitution deliver. The rules of the game should be changed radically if we desire for a realistic change.

Mr. Shakil Ramay (Senior Research Associate, SDPI, Islamabad)

Scarcity of resources in Pakistan is a major non-traditional security threat to national security. Further elements include the scarcity of opportunities, climate change and structural threats in the form of cast and class system. Talking about climate change, water is a basic element to bring about climate change, and then comes the food, energy and the economic opportunities. Most of the coastal cities are economic hubs, at the same time these are vulnerable to cyclones and sea level rise and any climate change will badly impact these cities and your economic hub will be gone. David King, chief advisor to UK government says that climate change is even bigger threat than terrorism.

How these nontraditional security threats will become a larger threat for Pakistan in future? Water related threats contain four elements, water scarcity, floods, draughts and trans-boundary water issues. Per capita availability of water is shrinking and this is threatening as increasing water scarcity will result in conflicts. Climate change is triggering water scarcity, with increasing temperatures water related disasters like floods, droughts, sea level rise, intrusion of sea and cyclones are increasing. Climate change driven migration or displaced people is yet another drawback of climate change, as number of displaced people in 2010 was 20 million while it is 5.3 million this year. On economic front we are not able to bear the losses as estimated cost of floods was $10 billion last year and five billion US dollar this year. In Balochistan and Sindh people are already suffering from droughts, and climate change is bringing more severity to it. Regarding trans-boundary issues, we had Pak-India trans-boundary water issues since independence, but now we also have water issue with Afghanistan and with the increase in climate change effects these issues will get even more complicated.

Mr. Ayaz Wazir (Former Ambassador of Pakistan to Afghanistan)

Security is the most important factor in the development of any nation, and without security peace, progress and prosperity cannot be achieved. Pakistan from day one faced more external threats than internal; both its eastern and western borders were problematic. However problem with Afghanistan government on western front subsided after a few years, paving a way for greater cooperation. Disturbing hostility on eastern front forced Pakistan into an Indo centric defense and foreign policy. Hence we need an autonomous Afghanistan which does not allow foreign forces to use it soil for subversive attacks against Pakistan. After 9/11, former President Musharraf decided Pakistan to become a front line state in the War on Terror without consulting parliament or the nation. Furthermore contrary to the wishes of people and at the behest of US he deployed army at the western border of Pakistan. As a result Pakistan despite rendering tremendous sacrifices, more than the combined losses of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, dialed to address their (US and NATO) apprehensions.

Afghanistan, since its vote against Pakistan against the membership of forum in UN, has never been a cause of serious concern till very recent. Although during the cold war period Afghanistan was acknowledged as being in the Soviet sphere of influence yet it maintained its neutrality and no hostile acts were committed on our western border. This is the only strategic depth that Pakistan needs that Afghanistan never become antagonist to Pakistan in any circumstances. It (Afghanistan) should not hinder our access to energy needs via Wakhan to Central Asia. Pakistan should not foresee an Afghanistan which will be stooge to Pakistani wishes and interests; rather we should accept and treat Afghanistan as a sovereign country. We should facilitate the West in negotiation with Taliban. Live as an honorable, friendly neighbor and don–t poke nose in other states– affairs.

Mr. Ziauddin (Chief Editor, Express Tribune, Islamabad)

There have been diagnosis and prescriptions but the ruling elite, is not ready to listen to any suggestions for improving the situation in this country. And they are solely responsible for upholding national security at the cost of human security. The military wants to rule in this country, they don–t want any of their privileges touched, but as the governance is very messy so they don–t want to govern, hence they give it to the civilians. So that they may have an excuse that look they can–t govern so we are coming back. In today Pakistan, there is just one institution which needs reformation and that is the Pakistan Army.

Second Session

Mr. Ijaz Haider (Senior Journalist, Anchorperson, Islamabad)

Civil military rift is the major security threat that Pakistan is facing, many other threats flow from this outline. Civilian supremacy and effective civilian control of the military are not same things, and effective utilization of all the elements of national power, all these three factors forms the baseline. Why should we have a civilian control over military? Because a normative belief suggest that civilian control over military is better than military control over civilians and this has evolved through practical requirements of governance. In dialectical framework where state and society interact, there is going to be a conflict of interests. Institutions are the rules of the game in a society or more formally the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction while the organizations provide a structure to human interaction, but they consist of groups of people bound by some common purpose. If the rules of the game are not underlined, then we have an imbalance, and the organizations, as players, will have the incentive to cheat.

The one institution i.e. the military is going out of the balance and it certain strengths makes intervention in politics easier, like it is a superior organization, coherent, it has the control of arms, emotional and symbolic status, military virtue and the motivational factors as well. The mood to intervene can be induced by sense of overwhelming power or high self esteem and the opportunity. The second generation problem is that the civilian principles don–t have the capacity or don–t have the will, so there lays a motivation for military to intervene in civilian affairs. Third factor can be the longer periods of war faced by the country, making the state much more dependent on military, but we see that this motivation can be contained where there are entrenched democratic rules like US and India. Modern theorists believe it is difficult to separate the military and civil spheres, civil military affairs cannot be seen at a dichotomous level anymore.

Why civilians should have the control over military? It can be defined in terms of agency theory, which states, civilian have the absolute right to be wrong because they come into existence through the first order agency, which is accorded to them by the people, under the constitution, through free and fair elections. People empower the elected leaders to make decisions on their behalf. The second order agency is accorded by the elected representatives to the specialized bureaucratic institutions, military being one of them. So the interventionist militaries are temporarily violating the second order of the agency to be able to protect the first. The logic is that throwing out a civilian government for fixing the broken system, and military will hand over the power once the system is fixed, but this is where the devil resides, how does the generals will know that the system is fixed? So military is not the sole manifestation of national power rather it is one tool among many elements of national power.

Politics and governance are not about managerial skills, the main issue here is the issue of opportunity. Who provides the opportunity? If we look at the portfolio of defense minister in Pakistan, it is either been an additional portfolios of prime minister or it has been given to people who absolutely have no idea of the security sector. Situation in Pakistan is that, we have strong military, and a civilian government who are not doing anything to challenge the military either in a soft way or hard way. We do acknowledge that there are lots of issues faced by the civilian government like defining of national interests, ethnic issue, communal riots but one cannot take them as excuses. No analyst using the realist framework in US or India or anywhere else would be described as pro-military but in Pakistan it happens, because we have no national military strategy dominating the national security strategy and it is the biggest threat to the security of Pakistan.

Dr Pervez Hoodhbhoy (Professor, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad)

Why Pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear arsenal? Pakistani nuclear arsenal is growing faster than India and has probably exceeded India, and if the present rate of growth continued it will exceed Britain as well in the next five to ten years. We have two functioning reactors in Khushab, third one under construction and the fourth is having its foundation laid. These are plutonium producing reactor with no conceivable civilian use of energy. They are principally for making bombs which are smaller, more efficient and more easily deliverable by missiles. After Indo-US nuclear deal, India is capable of making many nuclear weapons per year, so Pakistan is obliged to have more nuclear weapons.

Why Pakistan needs so many nuclear weapons given its phenomenal difficulties? The country is on the verge of un-governability, marked by sectarian warfare, ethnic riots, wide spread terrorism, energy and water crisis. Do we want nuclear weapons due to the threat that there may be an attack from India? To attack Pakistan would be the last thing on India mind, as they are busy with their economic development. Pakistan single goal to make nuclear weapon was to counter India nuclear weapon. In 1987 the force equalizer concept began to gain attraction. Kargill War, Jan 1999, was the first non-conventional war caused by nuclear weapons, it would not have happened, but for the fact that Pakistan had nuclear weapons.

There is paradigm shift, in a way that the military establishment thinks about itself, its role, and Pakistan position with regard to the world. The reason does not owe to India but to the US, there is a fundamental shift in the way that how Pakistan regards US. Although the break has not come with US, yet it could be a few months from now. There is a shift towards strategic defiance, more or less on the lines being envisaged by Gen. (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig, where by Pakistan is going against the US on its own. US is considered a potential enemy in Pakistan, because firstly the Pakistani military is convinced that US wants to steal our nuclear weapons, secondly US want to deny our strategic depth in Afghanistan. Thirdly the military sees US as an ally of India and lastly due to religious radicalization, so people within the military see America as a potential enemy because they are considered to be the enemies of Islam. This is why Pakistan military leaders are ramping up nuclear weapon production.

It is supposed that if you have more nuclear weapons, they are harder to snatch. Secondly since US is leaving Afghanistan, Pakistan will use Taliban as an asset. Thirdly, the more nuclear teeth you have the less US will be inclined to bite you. Another reason for having more nuclear is that they will enhance our geo-politics importance. And finally these weapons are unifiers; they have become part of our faith now. These are all the reasons that the army has for making nuclear weapons and making more of them. What have these nuclear weapons given us? Have they given us security? If nuclear weapons have given us security then why do we have a problem in Balochistan and Karachi? Nuclear weapons have been a disaster for Pakistan, they have brought us nothing. The only thing they have done is to give us a more stubborn army who is not amenable to civilian control.

Dr Haider Nizamani (Vancouver, Canada)

Anti-nuclear voices in Pakistan are on margins and have remained primarily an intellectual debate, because we do not have a vibrant peace movement in Pakistan that Germany had during the cold war. Since 1950 intellectual activity in Pakistan took place in veritable intellectual wasteland. And the state termed them as Communists. Critical intellectualism in Pakistan comes with certain risks. Nuclear weapons in Pakistan have turned out to be effectively political weapons.Violence and military rule overlap and they strengthen each other. Pakistanis are ignorant of hazards of nuclear weapons and this is why there is low level of anti-nuclearism in Pakistan.

Ms. Afia Shehrbano Zia (Academician, Activist, LUMS, Lahore)

Religious conservatism and jihadism are one name of two things. Jihadist politics sustains itself through religious conservatism. Jihadist movement of Al-Qaida is a byproduct of globalization and it is not a moral undercurrent rather it has political motivations. Tribal poverty is not the sole cause of militancy in tribal areas; rather affluent people are also part of it. Illiteracy and religious seminaries are also not sole sources of jihadim in Pakistan because Ayesha Jalal believes that government schooling system is also adding towards jihadism in Pakistan. Religious violence is now referred to be religious conservatism and extremism; this implies that other forms of violence are lesser concerns.

Large number analysts assume that the steep rise of religious terrorism over the past decade is the direct result of General Zia era state sponsored Islamization, and also due to US imperialist policies. Religious conservatism may notbe a threat to the state but jihad can be and then religious conservatism is too much entrenchment in our social discourse and public lives. Religious violence according to some emerging social scientists inside the country and outside is the result of US invasion and action against Islam. MMA during its term enabled Islamic jihadism and this posed a challenge for the political dimensions of jihad. Liberal desire to reorient the ideology in Pakistan for improving women empowerment and liberal values is also vague in the face of challenges, thus they also need to rephrase their ideological philosophies.

Third Session

Mr. Irfan Ashraf (Assistant Professor, University of Peshawar, Peshawar)

Whatever is happening in FATA is not happening in the whole Pakistan. Because what people are facing in FATA is not faced by the whole country. Their houses are demolished, military operations have been carried out and no mother has surety whether his son will come back or not. Whenever there was a threat from external enemy the Pashtoons got strengthened but radicalism has damaged Pashtoon society from within this time. Battle of conflicting ideologies both from Iran and Saudi Arabia divided Pashtoon tribes on sharp sectarian lines. The main problem of radicalism was planted in Pashtoon society when radical elements from other countries were enlisted to join the war against the Soviets in the name of jihad. The invincible image of these militants is just because the anti-terror efforts are sometimes compromised and poorly coordinated. War on terror could not be won by using military means only; it could be won by strengthening the tribal society which is getting weaker day by day.

Mr. Mukhtiar Ahmed Ali (Former Executive Director, CPDI, Islamabad)

Southern Punjab is the hub of new emerging middle class, but it is under-developed as compared to other parts of Punjab. There are sectarian undercurrents in the area as well and the politics of sectarianism also played role to fuel sectarianism in the area. In Jhang, since partition, in one way or the other sectarian politics played out badly. Then there was socio-economic change happening in the area where middle class was moving to the cities and these were of Sufi Islam follower and to counter this trend Deobandi Islam came in the way to purities the system. The urbanization phenomenon also played to out create pressure on the state structure. People moved out of the rural areas for better economic opportunities and in return conflict management system in rural areas was left to the mercy of feudal lords. Also, in rural areas, Mosque Mullah played an important to create polarization among the village class.

DAY II

Fourth Session

Mr. Abdul Rahman Habibzui (Kabul, Afghanistan)

If Pakistan and Afghanistan leave their political, historical and geographical disputes for a period and devise their policies according to the acceptable international rules with no interference, mutual respectability and having surge in transit trade, then Pakistan and Afghanistan can create a believable atmosphere for mutual economic and trade benefits. Afghanistan knows the strategic strength of Pakistan that it can play important role in bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan. But Pakistan should know the economic and transitory values of Afghanistan that Afghanistan is the corridor between three ways. Afghanistan is a golden link between three vital economic regions of Asia, which are South Asia, Central Asia and Middle East. The three regions can have lot of trade and economic links and the only bridge connects them is Afghanistan. Members of SAARC and Shanghai Cooperation Organization understand the importance of Afghanistan that stable Afghanistan can bring better economic benefits than an Afghanistan which is unstable and causes greater risks for stability.

Pakistan needs an access to gas and oil for its huge industrial requirements from the mines of Central Asia, and Central Asia needs manufactured goods from Pakistan and India. Also Central Asia hopes to increase its export of their fresh underground mines to South Asian countries. Thus Pakistan and Afghanistan should leave all their political issues, in just to think of economic promotion especially transit and trade like APTA (Asia Pacific Trade Agreement). The APTA agreement has its own defects, like not allowing India to exports commodities through Wagah border from Pakistan to Afghanistan. But unfortunately the mentioned unjustified agreement has not been implemented by Pakistan yet. Pakistan and Afghanistan has long term historical, lingual and religious relations. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan were bothers and had no intricate problems. Since the last three decades two generations of Afghanistan acknowledged Pakistan aid to Afghanistan during Soviet invasion, support to mujahideen and especially giving shelter to the Afghan refugees.

But the third generation in Afghanistan doesn–t owe this and they think Pakistan is exporting terrorism and bigotry to Afghanistan. They feel that Pakistan is dispatching terrorists to Afghanistan. They also think that sanctuaries of militants, who are fighting in Afghanistan, are located in Pakistan. There is pessimism among the youngsters and a theory says that new styles of pessimism will generate a new form of conflicts. Also we know that both Pakistan and Afghanistan are the victims of terrorism. We are going through a period of modernization. European model is inspiring model for some regions but those regions also had greater cultural, civilization and political hurdles before unification. Nonetheless they have started their endeavor for the regional unity in the realm of economic and politics. Afghanistan is an important region for the unification of the three regions mentioned above. In general the international community has changed their policy towards the region and did not like those strategies which were implemented in the period of Cold War. International community has more interest and goals in the region besides fighting against terrorism. We will be fighting and other states will seek their benefits in the region. Thus Pakistan and Afghanistan should not give an opportunity to these states which will get advantage from the problems between the two countries.

Those states which have influence in Afghanistan and creating clouts through creating extremist movements, questionable foundation for the involvement of these groups in the fundamentalism, terrorism and narcotic trafficking. What we lack to endorse is the unity against these issues by endeavoring policy and mechanism against these conspiracies. Afghanistan is a principal victim geographically; it could be able to tackle these issues provided that the neighbors and important countries stop their competition between them. Leave aside double political game in policies and interests. Through Afghanistan active diplomacy we can convince that international community working for the stability of Afghanistan which will be in benefit of the neighbors. Afghanistan in line with international community should state its national interest. International community should not rate Afghanistan national interest and Afghanistan can give assurance if the neighbor stops interfering, it will not be used against the interests of the neighbors. The international community can help by the construction of roads, infrastructure and effectively revive the transit routes connecting the region so that neighbors can be encouraged to have economic trade. The international community can work to create balance and symmetry in force configuration in the region through strengthening Afghanistan. But Afghanistan needs a better security force after giving the assurance that the neighbors cannot carry out their subversive activities with impunity. The only way of peaceful relation with Afghanistan is through a popular Afghan government.

Mr. I.A. Rehman (Human Rights Activist, HRCP, Pakistan)

Few preliminary observations, the inhuman and material cost of Pak-India hostility is insignificant as compared to human cost; this hostility has human suffering on vast scale. Then the human cost and hostility are inter-dependent, they fuel each other, hostility increases, and human cost also increases. Moreover, hostility dates back even before their birth; we are the victim of history, which preceded these two countries to emerge as independent states. As a result of the division of India took place, commenced great sufferings for the people. The partition rights, the transfer of population, the cost of migration that was imposed on both side of Pakistan and India. The cost imposed on both countries was so enormous that the wound has not healed up even today. The migration continued from India till 1957 to 1970s, even today minorities from Sindh and Balochistan migrating India and thus the animosity keeps simmering. So the hostility between the two states tended to keep the bitterness of memories over century alive. The major consequence of Pakistan India hostility is the hardships faced by non-Muslims in Pakistan and by Muslims in India. We do not treat non-Muslims in Pakistan as Pakistanis but agents of India. In India also for a long time Muslims were treated as the surrogates of Pakistan, the situation has changed to some extent but not entirely. The cost of being Muslims is paid by those who are poor, and backward.

The logical consequence is the derogation of rights, the rights of non-Muslims were usurped in Pakistan, and the rights of Muslims affected in India, directly by the hostility between India and Pakistan. Thus the cost paid for this hostility is colossal for the two countries. It is not only the people of India and Pakistan suffered but Pakistan and India has kept South Asia a hostage of their bitterness and hostility due to their confrontation. Whenever, we go out to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, they always blame India and Pakistan for having retarded the progress of the South Asia as distinct and regional entity, for beneficial relationship in this region. According to Gen. (Retd.) Mehmood Durani (former National Security Advisor), ‘Pak-India hostility has affected the interests of the rest of the world also which is demonstrated in the region.’ They have direct conflicts in 1948, 1965, 1971, 1999, they cost loss of lives of the combatants but it also influenced the thinking of the people on both sides.

The people of Kashmir divided between the two countries are living the life of insecurity. It was the direct result of Pak-India hostility that Pakistan has rendered itself as a Cold War champion, jumped into all kinds of defence agreements for which we are paying the price even today. It is also the direct consequence of the bad relations between the two countries that Pakistan instead of becoming welfare state has been defined as national security state. Due to this confrontation, both countries have been entered into arms race, first in conventional weapons and then for horrible nuclear weapons. The people of India may not have paying much price but the people of Pakistan are still paying for these nuclear weapons. And now the whole world is worried for Pakistan that these weapons might not fall into the hands of militants. The results of Pak India hostility is felt in many ways, trade has also suffered between the two countries. The Pak-India hostility has now become the part of their national ideology. Our culture has also suffered, our musician artists from this part and India, so all these should be counted in human sufferings. We are also paying the cost in the form of our attitude towards Afghanistan; we are competing in Afghanistan instead of being cooperative.

South Asia left behind, with one fifth of the world population; it is not playing its due role in the world of nations. We have the resources, as we had been the vanguard of the anti-colonial movement in the world; we gained independence much earlier than the African countries. We are spending much of our resources on military. This has to be undone. If Indians think that they need Americans more than Pakistan, it is an evaluation for the time being. Pakistan can live without good relations with United States but it cannot live without having good relations with India and other neighboring countries. We have to choose between the two paths: first is to settle all the disputes and then have good relations, the other is path is our disputes would be solved, if we could have good relations. The sooner we will be turning from first to the second one, will be better. On the other hand we can keep counting the loss of the people on both sides.

Dr. Smruti S. Pattanaik (New Delhi/India)

Pakistanand India share history of mistrust and misperception. It is since 65 years but the mistrust still persists that makes peace in South Asia an illusion. Despite having shared history and culture both countries failed to develop a modicum of trust between the two. Already the partition narratives have affected the discourse of the two states which is not allowing them to move towards peace. The two countries have not emphasized that the borders splitting the two states would be complicated for migration. The rigid visa system is not allowing the state policies to be constructive. There is a strong perception that the establishment of Pakistan does not want good relations with India. There are many things that make the cooperation between the two very important in this arena of globalization. In the past most of the time, if there is any terrorist attack, they were pointing figures towards each other. The public opinions have been developed against each other that will hamper both from developing peace constituencies. After the terrorist attack of Mumbai, Pakistan didn–t take the action as it should has to take. Pakistan willingness to cooperate in the case of Mumbai attack would be helpful in the development of confidence building. Trade relations between the two countries are very important according to the report of MFN statement that came last month. There is a conflicting report from Pakistan army that they are against the MFN statement. There should be consensus between the political parties of India and Pakistan. We take the opinion of most of the political parties regarding the decision about Pakistan.

The visa restrictions should be removed because the contact between the two is very important in the confidence building milieu. Pakistan and India can cooperate in the case of Afghanistan; Pakistan has concerns regarding India presence in Afghanistan. It is connected to the regional peace. If there are concerns of both countries then they should channel it through diplomacy, such concerns can be addressed through dialogue. If Pakistan realizes that India has legitimate interest in Afghanistan and in this context Pakistan can build a confidence, the India-Pakistan confidence will be exchanged to the western border not only to the eastern border. There is lot of discussion that radicalization in Pakistan is soaring. There is need to protect a liberal space in Pakistan for continuing peace process between the two countries. There is the need of dialogue between the scholars and the students from both countries, a kind of stakeholders in this issue between India and Pakistan. The politicization of this issue through street politics is actually obstructing them from having dialogue. Insight in public opinion is not providing space for meaningful negotiation on the issues. To build peace constituencies, there should be contacts between the two countries, so that we can actually facilitate good relations with each other.

Mr. Mehmet OZKAN (Istanbul, Turkey)

Turkish foreign policy is going under transformation since 2003. There are three trends in Turkey foreign policy towards Asia. Turkey should have to put systematic relations through some sort of institutional realignment which will foster relations in the region. Normalization of the relations between China and India is problematic to some extent. And to have deep cooperation among the countries which includes Japan, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan?

Basically Turkey concern is to assume to solve the problem and contributing in this process but in very modest way, not very expressive. As many people say that Turkey is in advantageous position apparently Turkey has no local proxy, being not involved in politics. The bilateral relation between Turkey and Afghanistan is to help ISAF militarily, investment, helping with Turkey official aid, and helping through the involvement of civil society as Turkey has 1000 military men with ISAF ,not involved in the counter-terrorism but only works for the security and training of the police forces in Afghanistan. Also Turkey is involved in the construction; it has 200 projects in Afghanistan. The civil society of Turkey is hugely involved in Pakistan and Afghanistan in helping to rebuild the societies.

Turkey has good relations with Pakistan but Turkey wants to turn them into constructive relations. With regard to Turkey there is tri-lateral process going on with Pakistan and Afghanistan since 2007. Last year during Istanbul moot it was decided between the three countries to have cooperation in education, banking and other areas, and in organizing joint military exercises. There was a question, was that trilateral meeting successful, not concrete results, but the social dynamics, education, economy will make a break through. Political process is a part of it but the process of social dynamic will be helpful. Turkey wants to go beyond the security centric approach; because it is occupying the situation too much and we are not going out of the box. Turkey has inclusive approach towards all the sectors of the societies. Solutions should come from within the regions through cooperation. If we see the history of Turkey, it has always involved through low politics. Turkey and Germany will not be in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Turkey in not involved through arms, it is involved softly, indirectly and this is the Turkey Islamic politics. This process will have indirect influence for this part. But there are three discourses want to mention, moderate Islam, Muslim democracy and Islamic democracy.

Fifth session

Mr. Jeffrey Laurenti (Washington, USA)

There are few countries in the contemporary world where US war is more unpopular than Pakistan. Almost 73 percent people in Pakistan are anti-American, while this hatred relationship runs even deeper in USA where according to recent surveys 81 percent people are anti-Pakistan. According to a poll by The Economist only two percent of the American favour Pakistan. Coming to the most tumultuous issue between the two countries that is Afghanistan, here Pakistan should be mindful of the fact that medieval fundamentalist regime (Taliban government) in Kabul will not unlock economic and social potential of that state. For almost two decades Islamist generals in Pakistan supported radicals in Afghanistan and envisaged to unleash jihad in extra regional. This very legacy continues to haunt Pakistan even today, where America is on one side and hardliner killers (Pakistani Taliban) on the other side. Although it is not an easy job for any government to deal with but Pakistan will have to make hard choices since the time is running out.

Pakistan and USA has many conflicting issues and the most thumping one is of drone strikes in Pakistan tribal regions. It is the CIA which is handling and carrying out drone attacks, and interestingly US Secretary of State can have say in selecting the targets but it is the CIA chief who is responsible for making final decision. And it shows the role of Pentagon and US intelligence in conducting the war against terrorism. The mistrust between two states have reached to such a point today that it is the State Department who wanted to go hand in hand with Pakistan, while Pentagon and US intelligence community are vary of fragility of relationship with Pakistan. US military establishment believes that the gains in ongoing war against terror are short lived and it is primarily due to the double dealing of Pakistan secret agency (ISI).

The recent attack on Salala Check Post in Mohmand Agency and subsequent decision by Pakistani government to shut down NATO supply route is taking heavy toll on ISAF forces in Afghanistan. Although the US has diversified routes but it still heavily depends on Pakistan for feeding its troops in Afghanistan. Such steps will not surely help any country cause and will impair fight against terrorism. Moreover, Pakistan is getting global recognition as a playground of militants and extremists, and it is up to Pakistan to decide about its fate and future. Pakistan can have good relations with Beijing, but the latter cannot be alternative to Washington for Pakistan. Pakistan and USA still needs each other and yes Pakistanis are right in venting their anger over US for pushing it hard in War on Terror, but there is need for pragmatic self-assessment on the part of both allied states to come out of this bad patch.

Dr Mariam Abou Zahab (Paris, France)

Pakistani security establishment has always maintained obscure nexus with sectarian groups as an asset to be used against other states. I am visiting Pakistan since 1973 and lots have changed but unfortunately I should confess that the change is not for better rather it is for worse. Banning of sectarian groups in the past have changed nothing on ground because no one cared about their structures and they are intact even today and playing havoc in Pakistani society. When it comes to prosecution of sectarian terrorists, unfortunately they are left open due to the lack of evidence. Also, it is an interesting fact that there are nexus between sectarian terrorists and international jihadis and all this happened in Afghanistan during Taliban regime.

Today sectarian terrorists are more diverse and they have scattered training facilities. Given the history of sectarian terrorism in Pakistan, I would like to underline that sectarian terrorists are more dangerous than contemporary Pakistani Taliban fighting in tribal areas. It is because sectarian terrorists were trained by intelligence agencies on military training lines. Presence of sectarian groups in tribal areas is a lifeline for TTP since they provided it base for operations, manpower and resources. TTP and Al-Qaeda want a weak state and then prey upon it to make it collapse and they use sectarian rift to achieve their ends and they did this in Iraq but they cannot repeat this in Pakistan despite the fact of their best efforts for years. Sectarian violence in Pakistan has the potential to destabilize the entire region one day.

Dr Ishtiaq Ahmad (Oxford, UK)

Pak-UK relationship is historical in nature and faces some inescapable realities. Due to the Britain position in the world Pakistan deems its relations with the former very crucial. British foreign policy towards Pakistan is primarily shaped by the strong presence of British troops in Afghanistan and thumping presence of Pakistani origin people in UK. Pakistanis exhibit strong presence in UK politics, business and other spheres of public life and political circles. A recent debate on Kashmir issue in UK Parliament is an example of strong presence of Pakistanis in the country and its politics.

Also, British authorities are fearful of terrorists originating from Pakistan and regard them as the major security threat to its national security. But at the same UK counter-terrorism policies vis-à-vis Pakistan are not as harsh as of US, because UK thinks that close cooperation between two states based on mutual respect is beneficial for both of them. In future any political reconciliation in Afghanistan can bring both UK and Pakistan closer because they share same objectives.

Dr. Thomas K. Gugler (Vienna, Austria)

Lashkar-i-Taiba (LeT) is the ticking time bomb of South Asia due to its relations with Al-Qaida, its outreach, resources and global networks. In the past decade, Pakistani ISI supported and enacted the organization for jihad in Kashmir but now it has become global in scope and conduct, and we have seen its vigor in the form of Mumbai attacks in November 2008. LeT chief, Hafiz Saeed is preaching jihad every now and then and his son is also following the suit. LeT fits into Pakistani military strategy towards India, as it is playing the role a ferocious tool for launching proxy wars. Also, we have seen the utilization of LeT in Kunhr and Nooristan provinces of Afghanistan in recent months, where it is involved in fierce fighting against coalition troops. LeT championed the deadly phenomena of suicide bombing in South Asia and carried out for the first time in Indian part of the Kashmir back in early 1990s.