Donald Trump’s New Policy About Afghanistan, Pakistan & South Asia

What are the processes that have led the US Republican president, Donald Trump to enunciate a much tougher policy toward Pakistan?

In this interview with Sindh TV, US based journalist Nafisa Hoodbhoy reveals why after 16 years of involvement in Afghanistan, the US administration has decided to enunciate an Afghan policy that includes both Pakistan and India.

It explores how the Trump administration’s policy decision that India do more business with Afghanistan is a departure from former president Barak Obama’s Af-Pak policy, that focused single handedly on the two countries.

Moreover, it discusses how Trump’s refusal to lay a time table for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan changes the dynamics in a war that completes its 16th year on September 11.

The interview can be heard and seen at the following address:

https://www.facebook.com/livebtn/posts/900016503489366

https://www.facebook.com/livebtn/posts/900016503489366

U.S. Gives Military Assistance to Pakistan, With Strings Attached

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration notified Congress on Wednesday that it was putting $255 million in military assistance to Pakistan into the equivalent of an escrow account that Islamabad can only access if it does more to crack down on internal terror networks launching attacks on neighboring Afghanistan.

The dueling messages sent to Pakistan — promising aid but attaching strings if the country’s counterterror efforts fall short — are part of an increasingly confrontational turn in an alliance that has long been strained.
The United States has provided Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid since 2002. But the annual funding has declined in recent years as Washington became increasingly disenchanted with Pakistan’s quiet support for the Haqqani network and the Taliban, whose attacks have been responsible for the deaths of American troops in Afghanistan.

Still, American officials have long recognized that Pakistan has tried to crack down on terror groups, and plays an important role in facilitating supply shipments to the United States military in Afghanistan.
“We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond,” Mr. Trump said.

He added: “We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately.”
State Department officials said that Mr. Trump’s promised changes would bring explicit conditions on military aid. Once Pakistan more aggressively pursues the Taliban and Haqqani network, the aid will be released — a determination to be made by Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, officials said.

Last week, Mr. Tillerson suggested that the United States’ patience with Pakistan was nearing a breaking point.
Get what you need to know to start your day in the United States, Canada and the Americas, delivered to your inbox.

“We’re going to be conditioning our support for Pakistan and our relationship with them on them delivering results in this area,” Mr. Tillerson said.

Critics of American aid to Pakistan said the administration was still not being tough enough.

“I would have preferred that the money just disappeared,” said C. Christine Fair, an associate professor at Georgetown University. “But if they’re going to do this, they should have said Pakistan can’t buy strategic weapons that could be used to attack India, such as F-16s.”

The $255 million in military assistance was the largest portion of $1.1 billion in aid authorized by Congress in 2016 that also included money for counternarcotics operations and health initiatives. If the State Department had failed to notify Congress in the next few weeks of its intention to spend the money, it would have been returned to the United States Treasury.

Rather than lose such a carrot, Trump administration officials said they wanted to use the money as incentive for Pakistan to change its behavior. By effectively putting the funds into escrow, the Trump administration also allows its own ongoing review of its policy toward Pakistan to continue unaffected by aid concerns, officials said Wednesday.

The Obama administration tried to use the sale of eight new F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan in the same way to persuade Pakistan’s government to better police its border with Afghanistan. Congressional strings on the deal made it less attractive to Pakistan.

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously said at a town-hall meeting in Islamabad: “You know, it’s like the old story: You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors.”

Mr. Trump’s explicit call for India to become more engaged in Afghanistan demonstrated that Washington’s long history balancing the two South Asian rivals has tipped in India’s favor, which has deeply alarmed Islamabad.
But the Trump administration can ill afford to ignore Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal, which has served as a source for nuclear materials sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya.

The Empire Stopper By ROD NORDLAND AUG. 29, 2017 (nytimes.com)

When the American author James A. Michener went to Afghanistan to research his work of historical fiction, “Caravans,” it was 1955 and there were barely any roads in the country. Yet there were already Americans and Russians there, jockeying for influence. Later, the book’s Afghan protagonist would tell an American diplomat that one day both America and Russia would invade Afghanistan, and that both would come to regret it.

Michener’s foresight was uncanny, but perhaps that is not terribly surprising. Afghanistan has long been called the “graveyard of empires” — for so long that it is unclear who coined that disputable term.

In truth, no great empires perished solely because of Afghanistan. Perhaps a better way to put it is that Afghanistan is the battleground of empires. Even without easily accessible resources, the country has still been blessed — or cursed, more likely — with a geopolitical position that has repeatedly put it in someone or other’s way.

In the 19th century there was the Great Game, when the British and Russian empires faced off across its forbidding deserts and mountain ranges. At the end of the 20th century it was the Cold War, when the Soviet and American rivalry played out here in a bitter guerrilla conflict. And in this century, it is the War on Terror, against a constantly shifting Taliban insurgency, with President Trump promising a renewed military commitment.
Wars of the last three “empires” to invade Afghanistan coincided with the age of photography, leaving a rich record of their triumphs and failures, and an arresting chronicle of a land that seems to have changed little in the past two centuries.

The British Empire
Over an 80-year period, the British fought three wars in Afghanistan, occupying or controlling the country in between, and lost tens of thousands of dead along the way. Finally, exhausted by the First World War, Britain gave up in 1919 and granted Afghanistan independence.

It is striking, looking at these photographs, how little the rural Afghan landscape has changed between the early 19th and 21st centuries. The mud-walled fortifications of those days can still be seen throughout the country, and some of them are still in use as military facilities today. The fort in Kabul during the British occupation in 1879, shown below, looks very much like the famous Qala-i-Jang fortress in northern Afghanistan where the century’s first American combatant, a C.I.A. agent, was killed in 2001.

The insurgents’ dress, and even that of many pro-government militiamen, has changed little from the British period.

One of the books inspired by that period was “Flashman,” the first in a series of historical novels by the Scottish author George MacDonald Fraser. The book’s hilarious eponymous character, Flashman, is a caddish rake and self-described coward who manages to be the lone survivor of the Battle of Gandamack, arguably the British army’s worst ever defeat. Flashman is, of course, fictional, but he has a thoroughly modern eye when he describes the nature of the British war against the Afghans.

“There were scores of little petty chiefs and tyrants who lost no opportunity of causing trouble in the unsettled times,” Flashman recounts. “Our army prevented any big rising — for the moment, anyway — but it was forever patrolling and manning little forts, and trying to pacify and buy off the robber chiefs, and people were wondering how long this could go on.”

The British lost that Battle of Gandamack, but they were back in the next fighting season exacting vengeance, and eventually defeated the Afghans. It was for many of them a sobering experience.

A British Army chaplain, G. R. Gleig, who witnessed it, called it “a war begun for no wise purpose, carried on with a strange mixture of rashness and timidity, brought to a close after suffering and disaster, without much glory attached either to the government which directed, or the great body of troops which waged it. Not one benefit, political or military, was acquired with this war.”

Sovietstan
The Soviet Union spent the postwar period pacifying and modernizing its Central Asian republics with great success. But it was mistaken in assuming that the same program could stick in Afghanistan. The Soviets invaded in 1979 to try to quell a brewing civil war and prop up its allies in the Afghan government, and they limped out in 1989.

The Soviets brought schools and roads, civil institutions and freedoms for women. But their occupation was unbearable to a generation of Afghan insurrectionists who declared a holy war and enjoyed the extensive support of the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

It was a brutal war, on all sides. “Two Steps from Heaven,” a novel by the Russian writer Mikhail Evstafiev — himself one of the “Afgantsy,” as Soviet veterans of that Afghan war are known — describes a set of arrangements amid perpetual conflict that seem conspicuously familiar today: “As the years passed, numerous military installations grew up on the territory adjacent to the palace. A compound covered several square kilometers. It was guarded assiduously against the Afghans and, as was to be expected, Soviet power reigned supreme in that one specific part of Kabul.”

“The distance between the Afghans and the Soviets was measured in centuries,” Evstafiev wrote. “A man felt safe and secure only inside the garrison, surrounded by barbed wire, tanks and machine guns; fate had strewn Soviet military divisions all over Afghanistan, they were like islands in an ocean, lonely, far from the mainland.”

The Soviets left the Afghan landscape permanently disfigured with the bombed-out husks of tanks, and the earth itself seeded with more mines than anywhere else on the planet. When their client state in Kabul collapsed, what ensued was years of bitter civil war that destroyed many of the cities, and led to the rise to power of the Taliban in 1996.

That first battle, fought at the Qala-i-Jangi fort, featured American personnel on horseback, using lasers to guide bombs released from jet aircraft.

Since then more than a million American servicemen and women have served in Afghanistan; 2,400 of them lost their lives, along with another 1,100 NATO and other coalition allies killed. Afghan security forces lose three or four times that number just in a year now; the conflict killed more than 3,000 Afghan civilians in the past year, as well. American casualties this year have totaled only 11, most of them Special Operations troops on counterterrorism missions. NATO casualties: zero.

By 2010, as American military numbers rose to 100,000, American and other coalition troops were in every one of the 34 Afghan provinces, often scattered — as the Soviets had been — in isolated fortresses. Now they are mostly restricted to a few major bases, and their numbers are estimated at around 12,000, including an influx of perhaps another 4,000 from President Trump’s military commanders. The Afghan security forces, at the same time, have peaked at around 330,000 — roughly the same size they were during the Soviet period.

Many years after he had researched “Caravans,” James Michener was asked which country he would most want to revisit. His answer was Afghanistan, which his American diplomat character had described as “one of the world’s great caldrons.”

“I remember it as an exciting, violent, provocative place,” Michener wrote. “Almost every American or European who worked there in the old days says the same.”

And in these days, too, Americans seem committed to return to Afghanistan for many years to come.

“We are with you in this fight,” the American military commander, Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., told Afghans on Thursday. “We will stay with you.”

The American century in Afghanistan is far from over; its book has not been written yet.

Talks with US suspended in protest, Senators told

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister Khawaja Mohammad Asif said on Monday that Pakistan had suspended talks and bilateral visits with the United States as a mark of protest over the recent anti-Pakistan diatribe by US President Donald Trump.

Sources quoted the minister as telling the Senate, which converted itself into a committee prior to its regular session, that Pakistan had taken the fiery remarks seriously.

US Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Alice Wells was supposed to arrive here on Tuesday, while the foreign minister himself was to travel to the US last week under the previous schedule.

About the recently unveiled policy of the US president on South Asia, Mr Asif said it envisaged no military role for India in Afghanistan. According to the sources, the minister said it was rather a role of economic development. He claimed during the in-camera session of the committee that India would not be allowed to use Afghan soil to destabilise Pakistan.

FM Asif says Trump’s South Asia policy envisages no military role for India in Afghanistan
The remarks were surprising for many as they believed that India was already using Afghan territory for subversive activities in Pakistan. A participant in the meeting told Dawn that the members instead sought the details of the India-sponsored terror incidents in Pakistan, including the ones carried out by the under-arrest serving officer of India’s intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing, Kulbhushan Jadhav.

The members raised questions as to what would be the mechanism to check if the enhanced Indian presence was not abused to foment terrorism in Pakistan. They also sought to know details of the unusual number of Indian consulates in Afghanistan, which it is said was more than those it had in the US.

The members also asked the government to share a fact-sheet on US assistance received after 9/11, the reimbursed amount of coalition support fund (CSF) and the financial loss incurred by the country as a frontline state against the war on terror.

Foreign Secretary Teh¬mina Janjua informed the house that a meeting of Pakistan’s envoys had been convened from Sept 5 to 7 to chalk out a strategy after announcement of the new US policy on South Asia.

It was decided that the Committee of the Whole will meet again Tuesday to finetune policy guidelines in the light of emerging realities and the role of the United States, developed by a six-member committee of the house. The policy guidelines will be given shape of a resolution which is most likely to be passed by the Senate on Wednesday.

Before the foreign minister made a request to declare the proceedings in camera, Senate Chairman Raza Rabbani reminded him of his proposal for a joint session of parliament made in the presence of Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. He said that if a resolution passed separately by the Senate was sent to the National Assembly, it would be sitting in judgement on a document of the other house. He said it would also not send a good message if both the houses passed different resolutions.

The foreign minister, however, said the National Assembly might endorse the resolution passed by the Senate or slightly alter it.

Senator Farhatullah Babar of the PPP noted that the substance and spirit would remain the same and there would be no harm in the two houses passing separate resolutions on the same subject
.
During its regular session shortly after the meeting of the committee of the whole, military dictators came under fire.

Speaking on the motion on creating awareness about the Constitution, Farhatullah Babar called for compulsory teaching of the Constitution and constitutionalism in all military academies in the country.

Referring to General Zia, he said a former military dictator in a newspaper interview described the Constitution as a “mere 15-page document that I can tear at will and all the politicians will follow me wagging their tails”. Another military dictator said that the Constitution could be dispensed with if the country faced threats, he added.

He said that the Quaid after his visit to Quetta in June 1948 and meeting some senior officers had said in his conversation with them he had noticed that they did not fully grasp the value of the Constitution. The Quaid then explained to them the importance of the Constitution and the value of upholding it.

Secondly, Mr Babar said that those who subverted the Constitution and their abettors must not be allowed to escape punishment. He wondered what made it possible for the last dictator who instead to going to the court turned his car towards a hospital in Rawalpindi. He called for removing the portraits of dictators from all official premises.

A resolution moved by Mr Babar to preserve the culture and heritage of the people of Kalash in Chitral and for the inclusion of this area in the Unesco World Heritage Site was passed unanimously when Law Minister Hamid Zahid said he did not oppose it.
https://www.dawn.com/news/print/1354652

Published in Dawn, August 29th, 2017

Pakistan finds itself on the defensive in Trump’s Afghan war strategy

It feels like a lifetime ago, but it was just in November, weeks after his election, that then-President-elect Trump was lavishing praise on Pakistan, calling it a “fantastic place … doing amazing work.”

But as Trump said in outlining his new strategy in South Asia, things look different from behind a desk in the Oval Office, and his views toward Pakistan seem to have changed since that strange phone call with former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Sharif is gone, having resigned last month in the wake of a corruption scandal, leaving Pakistan’s military as unquestionably the most powerful force in the country. But that military — one of the United States’ most troublesome allies and the recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. aid — now finds itself on the defensive as Trump demands it “change immediately” its policy of harboring the Taliban and other militant groups carrying out attacks in Afghanistan.

Trump’s tough talk signaled a possible shift as the U.S. tries to restart its failing 16-year war in Afghanistan. Many Afghans on Tuesday praised Trump’s blunt assessment of Pakistan and expressed hope that more American troops could reverse Taliban insurgents’ momentum and stem the mounting casualties suffered by Afghan security forces and civilians.

With the Taliban holding more territory than at any point since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, Trump’s announcement of a “fight to win” strategy — though lacking in specifics — soothed Afghans who worried the United States was abandoning its longest war as it had settled into a bloody stalemate.

“I am grateful to President Trump and the American people for this affirmation of support for our efforts to achieve self-reliance and for our joint struggle to rid the region from the threat of terrorism,” Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said in a statement.
“The Afghan government welcomes renewed U.S. emphasis on seeing security in Afghanistan as part of a wider regional package.”

Pakistan scrambled to respond to the criticism. Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif met with the U.S. ambassador in Islamabad and “underlined Pakistan’s continued desire to work with the international community to eliminate the menace of terrorism.”

Late Tuesday, following a two-hour Cabinet meeting, Pakistan’s government issued a statement saying it had “taken note” of Trump’s Monday night address and rejected his “false narrative” that it provided safe havens to militant groups.

“No country in the world has done more than Pakistan to counter the menace of terrorism. No country in the world has suffered more than Pakistan from the scourge of terrorism, often perpetrated from outside our borders,” the statement said.

“It is therefore disappointing that the U.S. policy statement ignores the enormous sacrifices rendered by the Pakistani nation in this effort.”

Pakistani officials were particularly stung by Trump’s embrace of its rival India, which the U.S. has not often included in its Afghan strategy despite its being the largest country in the region.

Trump “has given a negative message to Pakistan,” said Sherry Rehman, a Pakistani lawmaker and former ambassador to Washington. “The best possible way forward is to promote peace and harmony in the region instead of dividing Pakistan and India.”

Opposition leader Imran Khan lashed out on Twitter, saying Pakistan had lost tens of thousands of lives to terrorism and was “being made scapegoats for the policy failures of the U.S. and India.”

Pakistan’s military — which denies allegations that it nurtures terror groups who attack India and Afghanistan — appeared to anticipate Trump’s criticism, holding a news conference on Monday to trumpet the success of Zarb-e-Azb, a years-long operation involving around 200,000 troops to eliminate militant havens in the northern tribal areas.

In between slides showing statistics — officials say around 3,500 militants have been killed and thousands arrested — the military played short films set to dramatic music showing Pakistani troops in the remote region.
Pakistan has carried out dozens of such offensives and been accused of picking and choosing which militant groups it confronts. The Haqqani network, which U.S. officials blame for some of the deadliest attacks against its forces in Afghanistan, has largely escaped the effect of more than a decade of Pakistani military operations.

But Pakistani officials insist this time is different. They argue that terrorism-related deaths in Pakistan have fallen by about half since 2014. They blame several high-profile terror attacks on militants who, they say, enjoy safe havens in Afghanistan and the backing of Indian intelligence agencies.

“A militant resurgence is now out of the question,” Pakistani military spokesman Maj. Gen. Asif Ghafoor told reporters Tuesday. “They want to regain lost influence, but it won’t happen. It’s too late for that.”
Congress already has reduced funding for the Pakistani army and denied it the chance to purchase U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets at subsidized prices. But because U.S. strategic planners fear that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of militants, Washington has been reluctant to exert too much pressure on the Pakistani security establishment.

“Anyone who thinks this shift in Pakistan strategy will be easy to implement, remember: Pakistan negotiates with a gun to its own head,” tweeted Vipin Narang, an MIT political science professor who studies South Asia.
Many Afghans said they hoped U.S. pressure would force Pakistan to bring Taliban leaders to the negotiating table and curtail their ability to direct attacks from across the border.

“I believe the U.S. has seen Pakistan in a better light than Afghanistan, so I would be optimistic and support the new strategy of the United States if it implements it honestly,” said Nasir Karimi, a 22-year-old psychology student at Kabul University.

“Still,” Karimi added, “I can’t trust that the U.S. will be honest.”

Afghans’ wariness is rooted in a history of U.S. inconsistency in the country. U.S. forces quickly ousted the Taliban government from power in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but then diverted troops and focus to the Iraq war, allowing Taliban fighters to stream back into the country.

President Obama announced a troop increase in 2009 but, in the view of many Afghans, undermined the strategy by setting a withdrawal deadline that reassured the Taliban that it could simply lie in wait. Trump, too, once advocated for bringing all U.S. troops home before saying in his Monday night address that he had changed his mind after months of consultations with Cabinet and military officials.

As the U.S. troop presence dwindled from more than 100,000 to 8,400 today, the Taliban has regained control of large chunks of northern and southern Afghanistan while the government holds just 60% of the country’s 407 districts, according to the most recent assessment by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

Trump did not specify how many additional U.S. troops would be deployed, but Pentagon officials have said the number is expected to be about 4,000. They will be focused on “killing terrorists,” Trump said, including the Taliban, Islamic State loyalists and remnants of Al Qaeda.

“President Trump has embraced a strategy that gives Afghanistan what it needs,” said the Afghan ambassador to Washington, Hamdullah Mohib, including “a shift away from talking about timetables and numbers to letting conditions on the ground determine military strategy.”

United States as terrorist groups are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan, “the highest concentration in any region anywhere in the world.” Some observers noted that neither country is subject to Trump’s travel ban on citizens from countries deemed prone to terrorism.

Trump’s speech provoked mixed reactions in India, where officials welcomed the promise to be tougher on Pakistan but questioned his call for New Delhi to play a greater role in building Afghanistan’s economy.

The Indian foreign ministry issued a statement saying India “has been steadfast in extending reconstruction and development assistance to Afghanistan,” which has included hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and constructing a new parliament building.

And Indian analysts chafed at Trump’s reference to the U.S. trade deficit with India when he said that because “India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States,” it should “help us more with Afghanistan.” Indian investment in Afghanistan is based on its own regional security and should not be tied to demands from Washington, said Kabir Taneja, associate fellow at Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi.

“I think President Trump needs to understand, or someone needs to explain to him, that everything cannot be equated to trade data,” Taneja said.

“New Delhi does not act at America’s behest on its Afghanistan policy. It knows better,” he added. “Attaching possibilities of better joint cooperation over security in Afghanistan to some sort of trade [spreadsheet] is a self-defeating act for Washington.”

Altaf Hussain meets Khan of Kalat, US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in London

Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) founder Altaf Hussain on Thursday met with United States (US) Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and self-exiled Baloch leader, the Khan of Kalat Mir Suleman Dawood Jan, at the MQM’s London Secretariat, according to a press release issued through the party’s website.

The Khan of Kalat joined the latter half of the meeting, which included lunch and lasted over four hours.
Hussain briefed Rohrabacher on what he claimed were “unlawful arrests, torture, abductions, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings” of MQM workers and members of the mohajir community in Karachi and other parts of Sindh by security forces.

He also apprised Rohrabacher of alleged “arrests, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and acts of mistreatment” of Baloch people by security forces.

Congressman Rohrabacher pledged to raise these issues in the US Congress and at other appropriate forums, the press release said.

The Khan of Kalat and Hussain also agreed to “work together” for the rights of the mohajir community and Baloch people.

All three agreed to continue holding such meetings in the near future.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher has a history of making anti-Pakistan moves in the US Congress, but has not always been successful in achieving his objectives.

Earlier in July, a US Congressional panel titled “Pakistan: Friend or foe?” — where Rohrabacher also spoke — had come close to challenging Pakistan’s existence as a state.

The Khan of Kalat had left the country in 2007 on the recommendations of a ‘grand Baloch Jirga’ after developing serious differences with the state following the killing of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti.

The Baloch Jirga had been convened in Kalat in September 2006 by the Khan. Tribal leaders and elders from Balochistan were invited to attend the jirga, held for the first time in 103 years, to discuss the situation in the province with special reference to the killing of Nawab Bugti.

The jirga had reportedly asked the Khan to leave the country, and “struggle for the rights of Balochistan and its people” from abroad.

The Khan has since then been provided political asylum by the British government and currently lives in London.
A Baloch delegation that visited the Khan in London in July 2015 to convince him to return to Pakistan failed in its mission, as he maintained that only the Grand Baloch Jirga which sent him abroad had the mandate to make a decision regarding his return.

Musharraf’s N-technology disclosure embarrassed Pakistan: Foreign Office

ISLAMABAD: The disclosure made by retired General Pervez Musharraf in his 2006 autobiography that Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan transferred sensitive nucl¬ear material to North Korea had come as a big embarrassment to the country, an official of the Foreign Office said on Friday at a meeting of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee.

The disclosure had forced the Foreign Office on the defensive and left it with no choice but to regurgitate the standard response that Pakistan was firmly against nuclear proliferation, the additional secretary said.
Foreign diplomats viewed the statement with scepticism and disbelief, he added.

The Foreign Office reply came in response to a question by Senator Farhatullah Babar as to what was North Korea’s official reaction to Pervez Musharraf’s revelation in his memoir, In the Line of Fire, that a clandestine proliferation network operating from Pakistan had transferred nearly two dozen centrifuge machines, a flow meter and some special oils to North Korea.

“Had such an irresponsible disclosure been made by a civilian minister or a bureaucrat, he would have been sent to the gallows, but Musharraf got away with it because he was a general,” Senator Farhatullah observed.

The official reaction to Pervez Musharraf’s disclosures would help this committee better understand “the nature and depth” of Pakistan-North Korea relations, he added.

The committee was also briefed on Islamabad’s relations with Tokyo and the government’s position on territorial disputes in the Strait of Malacca.

The meeting, chaired by Senator Nuzhat Sadiq, was attended by Senators Mushahid Hussain Sayed, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Shibli Faraz, Dr Karim Khawaja, Tahir Hussain Mashhadi and Farhatullah Babar.

Published in Dawn, August 12th, 2017

Trump seen hardening line toward Pakistan after Afghan war review

WASHINGTON, June 20: President Donald Trump’s administration appears ready to harden its approach toward Pakistan to crack down on home-based militants launching attacks in neighbouring Afghanistan, US officials tell Reuters.
Potential Trump administration responses being discussed include expanding US drone strikes, redirecting or withholding some aid to Pakistan and perhaps eventually downgrading Pakistan’s status as a major non-NATO ally, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Some US officials, however, are skeptical of the prospects for success, arguing that years of previous US efforts to curb Pakistan’s support for militant groups have failed, and that already strengthening US ties to India, Pakistan’s arch-enemy, undermine chances of a breakthrough with Islamabad.
US officials say they seek greater cooperation with Pakistan, not a rupture in ties, once the administration finishes a regional review of the strategy guiding the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan. Precise actions have yet to be decided.

The White House and Pentagon declined to comment on the review before its completion. Pakistan’s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. “The United States and Pakistan continue to partner on a range of national security issues,” Pentagon spokesperson Adam Stump said.

But the discussions alone suggest a shift toward a more assertive approach to address safe havens in Pakistan that have been blamed for in part helping turn Afghanistan’s war into an intractable conflict. Experts on America’s longest war argue that militant safe havens in Pakistan have allowed Taliban-linked insurgents a place to plot deadly strikes in Afghanistan and regroup after ground offensives.

Although long mindful of Pakistan, the Trump administration in recent weeks has put more emphasis on the relationship with Islamabad in discussions as it hammers out a regional strategy to be presented to Trump by mid-July, nearly six months after he took office, one official said. “We’ve never really fully articulated what our strategy towards Pakistan is. The strategy will more clearly say what we want from Pakistan specifically,” the US official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Other US officials warn of divisions within the government about the right approach and question whether any mix of carrots and sticks can get Islamabad to change its behaviour. At the end of the day, Washington needs a partner, even if an imperfect one, in nuclear-armed Pakistan, they say.

Congressman urges Trump to consider resuming airstrikes in Pakistan
The United States is again poised to deploy thousands more troops in Afghanistan, an acknowledgment that US-backed forces are not winning and Taliban militants are resurgent. Without more pressure on militants within Pakistan who target Afghanistan, experts say additional US troop deployments will fail to meet their ultimate objective: to pressure the Taliban to eventually negotiate peace.

“I believe there will be a much harder US line on Pakistan going forward than there has been in the past,” Hamdullah Mohib, the Afghan ambassador to the United States, told Reuters, without citing specific measures under review. Kabul has long been critical of Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan.

Pakistan fiercely denies allowing any militants safe haven on its territory. “What Pakistan says is that we are already doing a lot and that our plate is already full,” a senior government source told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. The source doubted the Trump administration would press too hard, saying: “They don’t want to push Pakistan to abandon their war against terrorism.”

Afghan president blames Pakistan for home-grown violence
Pakistani officials point towards the toll militancy has taken on the country. Since 2003, almost 22,000 civilians and nearly 7,000 Pakistani security forces have been killed as a result of militancy, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, which tracks violence. Experts say Pakistan’s policy towards Afghanistan is also driven in part by fears that India will gain influence in Afghanistan.

Is Pakistan an ally?
Nuclear-armed Pakistan won the status as a major non-NATO ally in 2004 from the George Bush administration, in what was at the time seen in part as recognition of its importance in the US battle against al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents.

The status is mainly symbolic, allowing limited benefits such as giving Pakistan faster access to surplus US military hardware. Some US officials and experts on the region scoff at the title. “Pakistan is not an ally. It’s not North Korea or Iran. But it’s not an ally,” said Bruce Riedel, a Pakistan expert at the Brookings Institution.
But yanking the title would be seen by Pakistan as a major blow.

SCO membership likely to pose fresh challenges for Pakistan
Lisa Curtis, senior director for South and Central Asia at the National Security Council, co-authored a report with Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to Washington, in which they recommended the Trump administration warn Pakistan the status could be revoked in six months. “Thinking of Pakistan as an ally will continue to create problems for the next administration as it did for the last one,” said the February report. It was unclear how seriously the Trump administration was considering the proposal.

The growing danger to Afghanistan from suspected Pakistan-based militants was underscored by a devastating May 31 truck bomb that killed more than 80 people and wounded 460 in Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul.

Afghanistan’s main intelligence agency said the attack – one of the deadliest in memory in Kabul – had been carried out by the Haqqani network with assistance from Pakistan, a charge Islamabad denies. Washington believes the strikes appeared to be the work of the Haqqani network, US officials told Reuters.

US frustration over the Haqqani’s presence in Pakistan has been building for years. The United States designated the Haqqani network as a terrorist organisation in 2012. US Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, then the top US military officer, told Congress in 2011 that the Haqqani network was a “veritable arm” of the ISI.

American soldiers wounded, not killed in incident at Afghan base: US official

The potential US pivot to a more assertive approach would be sharply different than the approach taken at the start of the Obama administration, when US officials sought to court Pakistani leaders, including former Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani.

David Sedney, who served as Obama’s deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia from 2009 to 2013, said the attempt to turn Islamabad into a strategic partner was a “disaster.” “It didn’t affect Pakistan’s behaviour one bit. In fact, I would argue it made Pakistan’s behaviour worse,” Sedney said.

More drones, cash cut-off
Pakistan has received more than $33 billion in US assistance since 2002, including more than $14 billion in so-called Coalition Support Funds (CSF), a US Defense Department programme to reimburse allies that have incurred costs in supporting counter-insurgency operations.

It is an important form of foreign currency for the nuclear-armed country and one that is getting particularly close scrutiny during the Trump administration review. Last year, the Pentagon decided not to pay Pakistan $300 million in CSF funding after then-US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter declined to sign authorisation that Pakistan was taking adequate action against the Haqqani network.

US officials said the Trump administration was discussing withholding at least some assistance to Pakistan. Curtis’ report also singled out the aid as a target. But US aid cuts could cede even more influence to China, which already has committed nearly $60 billion in investments in Pakistan.

Top career US diplomat in China embassy steps down
Another option under review is broadening a drone campaign to penetrate deeper into Pakistan to target Haqqani fighters and other militants blamed for attacks in Afghanistan, US officials and a Pakistan expert said. “Now the Americans (will be) saying, you aren’t taking out our enemies, so therefore we are taking them out ourselves,” the Pakistan expert, who declined to be identified, said.

Army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa last week criticised “unilateral actions” such as drone strikes as “counterproductive and against (the) spirit of ongoing cooperation and intelligence sharing being diligently undertaken by Pakistan”.

Understanding the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

As Chinese philosophy decisively asserts, “you cannot live in a castle made of glass while your neighbour lives in the stone ages”. This maxim offers a stark contrast to the case of the United States, a highly developed state that faces tremendous migration problems from its neighbours Mexico and Puerto Rico due to the existence of a glaring development gap in the region. Instead of increasing aid to these destitute countries, the current US administration is considering the construction of a “wall” to keep migrants out. There has not been a conclusive agreement upon which side of the border will bear the financial burden of this project.

On the contrary, in accordance with the Chinese wisdom aforementioned, the Chinese mega project, One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative, worth approximately $900 billion, is a regional plan which will enrich the entire Euro-Asiatic region, including China.

OBOR is a regional connectivity strategy that comprises 65 countries and six economic corridors and caters to two-thirds of the world’s population. It aims to improve infrastructure in these countries and enhance the movement of goods and people, promoting trade and exchange, generating more economic activities and employment opportunities for the whole region.

This will definitely better the standard of living for people in this region of the world. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is one of the six economic corridors proposed under the OBOR initiative. It is the shortest, most convenient and most feasible corridor, among them all. It is also the flagship project, as both governments attribute high value to its success, and are striving to make it the prototype for the rest of the world.

CPEC is not a completely novel idea. It was introduced by the first Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, General Geng Biao, in the 1960s. Geng was a visionary diplomat, general, and politician. He proposed the road linkage between China and Pakistan through Khunjerab. That is how the Karakoram Highway came to fruition. This highway was a blessing for the people of Gilgit-Baltistan (G-B) because prior to its construction, locals used to travel by foot or horseback to reach Punjab and the journey often took a couple of months.

With the commencement of this road, the travel was reduced to less than 24 hours. The topography of G-B encompasses a very tough terrain, high altitudes (Khunjerab Pass lies at approximately 4000m above the sea level), solid hard rocks, mountains, and extreme climate (some of the areas have minus 50 degree Celsius). Thus, the construction of the Karakoram Highway was a miracle and it is considered the eighth wonder of the world. Due to budgetary constraints and the lack of modern technology, however, the quality of the road was rather poor, with many sharp curves and steep slopes. The average speed of a vehicle could not be more than 40 kilometres per hour. But recently, the highway has been upgraded and a decent speed of 120 kilometres per hour can be maintained. Nevertheless, some sections of the Karakoram Highway are still under construction and hopefully, within the next couple of years, it will turn into a proper motorway.

Under CPEC, a huge network of highways and motorways are in progress. The ML1 railway track from Karachi to Peshawar is being upgraded. Some tunnels and bridges are under construction to maintain the high speed of trains and shorten distances. A huge dry port linked by railway and motorway is under construction at Havelian, which will be a logistic hub for CPEC in the future.

Oil and gas pipelines are now in an advanced stage of completion throughout the country. One of them is an oil and gas pipeline from Gwadar to Nawabshah constructed by a Chinese company, and another from Karachi to Lahore is under the initial stages of construction by a Russian company. In the future, transportation of energy (oil, gas, LNG, etc) will be conveniently transported by pipelines, instead of with costly trucks that cause pollution. In the next few years, these pipelines will also be transporting oil and gas from Gwadar to inside China through Khunjerab, at a fraction of the cost of the sea containers going through Malacca Strait. Even if China imports only ten per cent of its requirements through CPEC pipelines, Pakistan will be earning billions of dollars in revenue, and this makes it a win-win situation for both countries.

Among the 51 projects signed during the visit of Chinese President Xi Jin Ping, priority was given to power projects that amounted to a total worth of 33 billion. Some of these power projects have been completed and have begun adding power to the National Grid. However, several of the mega projects will take some time to complete. Upon completion of these projects, it is expected that Pakistan will have sufficient power, and there will be no more shortage of power. The next stage of CPEC is under planning, also referred to as the “industrialisation” phase. The Chinese industrial sector is saturated and increasing labour cost is forcing Chinese industries to shift out of China. Pakistan is the best destination for the Chinese industry. Pakistan is planning industrial parks, special economic zones and science parks to facilitate the flourishing of the Chinese industry in Pakistan. After overcoming the power shortage, the shifting of Chinese industries into Pakistan will be accelerated.

CPEC will directly or indirectly generate around two million jobs. In the beginning, Chinese workforce will be hired in Pakistan, but gradually within a few years once Pakistan trains its workforce to the Chinese standard, Pakistanis will replace the workforce. Chinese industry will increase our productivity, reduce our imports, and enhance our exports. The economy will grow on an unprecedented scale. It will also improve the security situation in Pakistan as well as in the whole region. The aforementioned is possible if we unite and work hard. We need visionary and sincere leadership to execute this. The common man in Pakistan is honest, simple, hardworking and willing to devote himself to the cause of a prosperous nation.

On his 71st birthday, Trump expected a quiet morning and woke up to a shooting

WASHINGTON, June 14 — It was supposed to be a quiet morning at the White House as President Donald Trump marked his 71st birthday, with nothing on his public schedule until the late afternoon. But that was shattered by early reports that a shooter had opened fire on Republican lawmakers and staff at a baseball practice across the Potomac River in Virginia.

White House staff canceled Trump’s scheduled public events Wednesday and scrambled to bring details to the president as he watched the developments on television, including the news that the House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and a congressional aide were shot.

Trump posted on Twitter shortly before 9 a.m. that Scalise, “a true friend and patriot, was badly injured but will fully recover. Our thoughts and prayers are with him.”

Scalise was shot in the hip on the ball field in Alexandria, Va., shortly after 7 a.m. and was taken to George Washington University Hospital in Washington for surgery.

Aides told reporters Trump would cancel his scheduled speech at the Department of Labor on Wednesday afternoon, and Trump’s senior advisers huddled to decide how the president would react to the shooting.

Vice President Mike Pence canceled a morning speech at the National Assn. of Home Builders in Washington to stay in the West Wing with Trump to help manage the administration’s response.

“The vice president and I are aware of the shooting incident in Virginia and are monitoring developments closely,” Trump said in a statement. “We are deeply saddened by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the members of Congress, their staffs, Capitol Police, first responders, and all others affected.”

In the hours immediately after the shooting, Secret Service agents closed off large sections of Lafayette Park in front of the White House. By 10:30 am, the park was open to the public again, and tourists were taking photos in front of the White House fence.