بسم
الله الرحمن الرحيم
Question:
On February 15
2009, the Pakistani government announced that it had reached an agreement with
the supporters of Pakistani Taliban, Tehrik Nifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi (TNSM).
The agreement contained provisions to enforce of Sharia law under the guise of
Nizam-i-Adl Regulation' in the Malakand region of Swat. In response the Taliban
declared a truce to study the proposals. The Swat Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan
said, "Taliban have declared a unilateral ceasefire for 10 days as a
goodwill gesture. Our fighters will not attack security personnel and
government installations." However, he added that the militants would
hold their positions and defend themselves if attacked. The deal has drawn much
criticism both at home and abroad.
So what lies
behind the deal? Will it bring lasting peace to Swat?
Answer:
This is not the
first time TNSM has entered into a deal with the Pakistani government to bring
about Sharia law to Swat. Similar accords have been signed between the TSNM and
the Pakistani government in 1994, 1999 and 2007. But the longevity of each
agreement has proved short-lived, and the Pakistani government has used each
accord to serve its own interest. This time, it appears that the government has
no intention of honoring the accord, but wants to use it to achieve a number of
objectives.
First, the Pakistani army does not want to be embroiled in a
situation where it is heavily involved in fighting militants in Swat and
simultaneously waging war against Al-Qaeda and Baitullah Mehsud's
Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in FATA. Hence striking an agreement at this
stage, allows the Pakistani army to regroup and shift resources elsewhere if
required.
Second,
the Pakistani government plans to
use the accord to divide the so called Taleban of Swat and those Taliban allied
with Al Qaeda. While explaining why Islamabad made a pact with the militants,
Husain Haqqani, the Pakistani ambassador in Washington said, "We are
attempting to drive a wedge between Al Qaeda and the militant Taliban on the
one hand, and Swat's indigenous movement that seeks to restore traditional law
in the district. This is part of a pragmatic military and political strategy to
turn our native populations against the terrorists, to isolate and marginalize
the terrorists."
Third,
and more importantly, the US is
planning a fresh spring offensive in Afghanistan and has sent an extra 17,000
troops to the country. The extra troops will increase the U.S. military
presence in Afghanistan by more than 40 percent. The new forces will include a
Marine expeditionary brigade of some 8,000 troops and an Army brigade of 4,000
soldiers equipped with Stryker armored vehicles, plus 5000 support staff.
These troops will
be used to curtail a surge in fighting-which usually peaks in the summer
months- improve security in provinces surrounding Kabul, protect the ring-road
that girdles the country's capital and, above all, to reinforce NATO's
faltering effort in southern Afghanistan ahead of the upcoming presidential
elections scheduled for August 2009.
Fourth,
to aid, America's plan to stabilize
Afghanistan, America has instructed the Pakistani army to strike a deal with
the militants in Swat as a temporary measure and refocus its energies on FATA.
To ensure that Pakistan is fully onboard and not distracted by its border with
India, America told her loyal agent Rehman Malik the Interior advisor to the
prime Minister to admit partial culpability of Mumbai attacks.
A few days before
the Pakistani government's announcement, BJP's Chief Minister of Gujarat
Narendra Singh Modi poured scorn on Congress Party's attempts to increase
tensions with its neighbors. He said, "If we single out that one
incident (of Mumbai attacks) and ask any person in this country, even with
basic information and knowledge they will say that such a big terror attack on
India cannot take place without any internal help from the nation itself."
Both of these
American agents helped cool tensions between the Zardari government and
Congress led government in India, which was pushing for military action against
Pakistan. The stage is now set for a joint operation between the US and the
Pakistani in FATA area.
Fifth,
regarding the mixed American
statements on the Swat deal, it is noteworthy that the deal was announced soon
after Holbrook's departure. It is inconceivable that the US was unaware of the
deal and it happened without its knowledge. Furthermore, the initial statements
from US officials were favorable as opposed to statements from NATO and
Britain.
The US State
Department's, deputy spokesman Gordon Duguid echoed what Pakistani officials
had said while defending the Swat agreement. He said, "The Islamic law
is within the constitutional framework of Pakistan. So I don't know that that
is particularly an issue for anyone outside of Pakistan to discuss, certainly
not from this podium."
When a reporter
described the agreement as a peace treaty between the Taliban and the
government of Pakistan, Mr Duguid said: "I'm not sure about your
characterization of what has gone on in Pakistan. I refer you to the government
of Pakistan for a better readout of that."
This was in stark
contrast to the statement from Britain's High Commission in Islamabad which
said: "Previous peace deals have not provided a comprehensive and
long-term solution to Swat's problems. We need to be confident that they will
end violence, not create space for further violence."
Sixth, the stern remarks from Holbrook and other officials are
intended to assuage the concerns raised by NATO, India and other countries. At
the same time they also underscore Washington's desire to send a strong message
to the Pakistani army that the militants in Swat will have to be eventually
uprooted and America will not stand for a repeat of 2006, when similar pacts
was used by militants in FATA to regroup and wage cross-border incursions. For
this purpose the PK army didn't withdraw his force from swat in spite of the
agreement.
or,
see this link:
No comments:
Post a Comment