There are a couple of interesting items in the media at the moment on Pakistan. One is the an Al Jazeera report (Pakistani Taliban urges sharia rule) stating that the government there is allowing sharia law in the Swat valley of the NorthWest province.

Of course there are differing accounts. A Taliban spokesperson claims that the government agreed to "the complete enforcement of the sharia laws", while a government official said that an Islamic scholar will assist secular courts. The plaintiff decides whether to use the secular or the Islamic law. Anyone see the potential for a misunderstanding there?

The deal involved the militants halting attacks, handing over weapons, shutting down training camps and many other points that I'm clueless about. In return the government troops pull out and the sharia law is 'enforced'.

The British, Americans and Afghans have been critical of such deals, as they apparantly result in increased violence on the Afghan side of the border. According to the BBC report (Pakistani army fights militants ) the Americans have fired into Pakistani territory, killing at least 13 people. Many Pakistanis saw it as an effort to sabotage the peace talks.

The BBC report highlights the sort of bloodshed that precedes these peace talks. As is the age-old custom, talks were preceded by a massive military operation designed to give the government as much leverage as possible.

Quote :

General Tariq says some 200,000 people fled the area before the fighting.

A walk through one of the ghost towns shows evidence that they departed in haste - unmade beds, a hand-painted trunk left in the pathway. Crops and animals have been untended for months.

Some of the houses have also been demolished because they were used by the militants, again part of the colonial-era punishment designed to "get the tribes to take collective responsibility for what happens on their territory," says Brigadier Abbas.

He acknowledges, though, that this might also trigger resentment and a desire for revenge, especially as some - if not most - of the locals were forced to support the Taleban, or face beheading.

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/asia/afghanistan/afghanistan.html

I posted this link on the Neutrality thread earlier this morning, as it gives a feeling of what it is like to be 'collectively punished'.

BBC - Britain doubles aid to Pakistan
The British announced thast they are doubling aid to Pakistan in an attempt to stem Islamic militancy ion the area. This money will be used to engage with the tribal areas - through education for example - rather than the preferred American (endorsed, I understand, by Obama) policy of lobbing bombs at them. Could this signal a split betwenn the British and the Americans on how to deal with the Pakistani problem? Or is it just effective Pakistani lobbying?

Time to reconsider what is the strategic importance of Afghanistan?

You cannot win in Afghanistan without controlling Pakistan and to a lesser extent Iran. So we could be there a very long time. Pakistan is not a stable country so our position in Afghanistan is tenuous.

I am utterly weary of seeing endless innocent victims of US military might. It is plain that from a US perspective the lives of these people must count for nothing.

From a foreign policy point of view we need a complete reappraisal. We are creating hatred against us and this is a problem that will come back to haunt us. It is people response to us that is creating many of the problems. The USA is hated in most countries from Morocco to India.

What are our objectives in that region, real and publicly pronounced.

Maybe the British remember their own previous experience in Afghanistan, in which they were comprehensively beaten.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/26/afghanistan.military

cactus flower wrote:

Maybe the British remember their own previous experience in Afghanistan, in which they were comprehensively beaten.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/26/afghanistan.military

This quote from the article is a common view in many countries. Just substitute 'Taliban' with whoever the local group is.

"The Taliban want to clear our territory of infidels, and why not?" said shopkeeper Abdul Ali Maiwandi. "At least when the Taliban are in power your property is safe, your family is safe, and you are safe."

Currently we are losing public opinion and support and alienating millions of people. This runs counter to 'hearts and minds'.

Well never mind Afghanistan. Pakistan is going down the hearts and minds road (though recently it looks more like carrot and stick). It's a well trodden road for them, they've tried peace deals and accomodation before and got nothing but grief for it. The Americans are right to be cynical about this approach, though the full-on military approach is worse.

President Pervez Musharraf came to power after a military coup in 1999. Generally governments in that country do not last the 5 year term though i believe the last one did.

The problem is that the extreme effectively use every atrocity committed by the US and associates to generate both anti western sentiment and anti government sentiment in Pakistan. A more extreme form of Islam is as much a badge a statement of solidity and a renunciation of western values. Seen from a village in Pakistan Western values amount to occupying other peoples' lands, plundering and murdering. Seen from their point of view we regulary bomb peoples' homes and kill women and children and attacks against us in the west is taking the war and suffering to us.

For 'hearts and minds' to work you have to alienate the terrorists (freedom fighters) from their support base. To do that you need to effectively produce propoganda that damages them. But that is exceedingly difficult as on most measures for the average male in rural Pakistan the Taliban and similar offer stability and an effective end to the drugs trade and corruption. To make progress we first need to clean up our act.

( Have just seen a headline on BBC website about a suicide bombing in Islamabad today, 10 dead I think )

Hope you don't mind me posting a rather lengthy article by Tariq Ali from last year, the 60th anniversary of Pakistan. I don't always agree with his politics and shudder at some of the company he keeps, though he actually cuts quite the figure of the dashing "man of letters" these days.

Anyway, among a number of interesting points, he emphasises the absence of any idea of social justice in the country. I think the BBC article mentioned above also points to the Br. Govt's acceptance of the importance of this, especially education. As a British taxpayer, I very much care about Pakistani matters because it has and can again impact on us here. Today is 7/7 to use that awful Americanism and I personally shall rem. again how I came within about ten minutes of being in the wrong place at the wrong time that morning.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n19/ali_01_.html

( More later, got to get up in a few short hours )

Glad you're still with us, Atticus.

Did I read somewhere that the Pakistani leader is considered locally to be merely a puppet for the West? Not much hope of winning hearts and minds if that is the case...

Kate P wrote:

Glad you're still with us, Atticus.

Did I read somewhere that the Pakistani leader is considered locally to be merely a puppet for the West? Not much hope of winning hearts and minds if that is the case...

None whatsoever; and that would be my understanding of sentiment. If you lived in Pakistan you would probably agree. The west is slowly losing and lose here and Afghanistan becomes untenable. Over and over again we seek allies among the dubious and prop up or create rotten regimes. We end up in this position because we understand money and its ability to corrupt and consider fairness and equitable standards to be a potential threat to our vested interests. When did the West last stand purely on the side of the right or for the rightness of a cause? Suppose when did any power?

Which leader are we talking about, President Musharraf or prime-minister Gillani?

Musharraf lost favour in the West a while ago and is a lame duck anyway. I don't know much about Gillani, here's aprofile from the BBC: Profile: Yusuf Raza Gillani

I didn't spot anything overtly puppetish in it. He was a Bhutto loyalist, and that has pro-Western connotations, but it doesn't make him a puppet. Gillani's main coalition partner is Sharif, who looks more to Saudi Arabia then to America for his views.

The Pakistani efforts to control the Northwest badlands are aggresive, there is a lot of stick. But they're far less aggressive than the Americans would like; indeed the Pakistanis are quite angry because of occasional American attacks on Pakistani soil. They don't seem to be kowtowing to the west all that much (though it seems Britain support their carrot policy in the region).

well, the first thing you have to take as given is that the ISI ( the Security agency) still basically rule the roost. Add the military of course, who own all the good houses and the new businesses in this military-capitalist, neo-feudalist (I throw that last one in based on the Pakistanis I know personally) society.

Borders, as we all know only too well, bear no relation to reality, so the Pashtun tribal area (Pakistan / Afghanistan) was split by that twat British civil servant who spent six weeks in Delhi or wherever poring over maps and drawing lines in 1947, so Mountbatten could be "dynamic" (and get the British govt. out of a deep financial hole, quick).

For me, one of the images of 2007 was that of besuited Pakistani lawyers protesting on the streets in favour of the rule of law. I treasure those images. I presume therefore that there is a middle class of sorts beginning to stir which will surely have huge consequences in years to come, whether the US or the current feudal forces like it or not. After all, what is the BJP in India if not an emergent middle class, whether we like their views or not?

Pakistan is truly an important country for all of us, esp. here in the UK. For geo-strategic, religious and political reasons.

I could bore everyone to tears on this, but I feel strongly about it and am trying to read as much as possible on it over the last few months.

One quick anecdote instead of a boring retread of issues already well known -

One Pakistani acquaintance of mine today (yesterday?!) was telling me of a dinner with some other friends of his in the last week or so, all were couples who had emigrated to Britain in the 70s. All well off people, kids have been put thru private school, followed by LSE / Oxbridge / other good Unis. He said the main topic of conversation at the dinner was the shared utter bewilderment at how their kids - all British born and with British passports - were turning out. Yes, well educated, polite, blah blah, BUT soooo much more religious and traditional than their parents' generation. My friend said that the first thing he did upon arrival in the UK in 1975 was to meet up with another Pakistani contact and head for the pub, with a burger afterwards!!
Their kids, however, are observing 5-a-day prayer times, strict halal eating, growing discrete beards, a few have started to berate their female family members for not wearing the veil etc etc. This was the main topic of discussion of about 20 of the genuinely most prosperous members of the Pakistani community in London in the last week. They are completely bewildered by their children.

( apologies, 905, if i'm diverting this thread to the UK - i'll get back on track in the next few days. )

More goings on in Pakistan: Musharraf is all set to be impeached.
Al Jazeera - Deal reached to impeach Musharraf

It's not clear exactly how successfull this will be but it's a step in ther right direction. Certainly it's nice to see the government agreeing on something.

There was a great poster called Asi-Irish on P.ie some months ago based in Pakistan but heis like many more gone. Mussharif had a son going to school near me here and he used to visit every now and then. The security was greater than given the president with the highway completely cleared with on ramps blocked. Everyone else just zipps past with sirens pushing the traffic to one side.

He cancelled the visit to the olympics.

Some believe that a faction run by Brezinski is calling the shots here. If that is true then the gameplan is to allow Iran to proceed and to break up Pakistan and stir up trouble for China. Pakistan is a big ally of China at the moment but if it were broken it would be 100 million muslims to help their cousins in north west China

Any developments that would contribute to the encirclement of and disruption of China could be blamed on that or similar quarters. A US backed group shot some Chinese police only last week.

What bemuses me is where does all the money come from for all this? The US National Debt ?

Atticus wrote:

well, the first thing you have to take as given is that the ISI ( the Security agency) still basically rule the roost. Add the military of course, who own all the good houses and the new businesses in this military-capitalist, neo-feudalist (I throw that last one in based on the Pakistanis I know personally) society.

Borders, as we all know only too well, bear no relation to reality, so the Pashtun tribal area (Pakistan / Afghanistan) was split by that twat British civil servant who spent six weeks in Delhi or wherever poring over maps and drawing lines in 1947, so Mountbatten could be "dynamic" (and get the British govt. out of a deep financial hole, quick).

For me, one of the images of 2007 was that of besuited Pakistani lawyers protesting on the streets in favour of the rule of law. I treasure those images. I presume therefore that there is a middle class of sorts beginning to stir which will surely have huge consequences in years to come, whether the US or the current feudal forces like it or not. After all, what is the BJP in India if not an emergent middle class, whether we like their views or not?

Pakistan is truly an important country for all of us, esp. here in the UK. For geo-strategic, religious and political reasons.

I could bore everyone to tears on this, but I feel strongly about it and am trying to read as much as possible on it over the last few months.

One quick anecdote instead of a boring retread of issues already well known -

One Pakistani acquaintance of mine today (yesterday?!) was telling me of a dinner with some other friends of his in the last week or so, all were couples who had emigrated to Britain in the 70s. All well off people, kids have been put thru private school, followed by LSE / Oxbridge / other good Unis. He said the main topic of conversation at the dinner was the shared utter bewilderment at how their kids - all British born and with British passports - were turning out. Yes, well educated, polite, blah blah, BUT soooo much more religious and traditional than their parents' generation. My friend said that the first thing he did upon arrival in the UK in 1975 was to meet up with another Pakistani contact and head for the pub, with a burger afterwards!!
Their kids, however, are observing 5-a-day prayer times, strict halal eating, growing discrete beards, a few have started to berate their female family members for not wearing the veil etc etc. This was the main topic of discussion of about 20 of the genuinely most prosperous members of the Pakistani community in London in the last week. They are completely bewildered by their children.

Is it not a bit like our Lisbon No vote - people just don't like to be pushed around?

If anyone saw the documentary on Islam on Channel 4 a few weeks ago, they will see that this is a trend amongst all the Muslim World and not just those children of immigrants.It made the point that during the reign of the secular governments of Nasser and Sadat in Egypt, it was uncommon to see women veiled and this was not a result of government decree. It was just not popular. However, today one has the odd arrangement of unveiled mothers standing in horror at the idea that their daughters should choose to wear the hijab. I imagine the recent kerfuffle over the hijab in Turkey is also a result of this same international trend. However, one must remember that such trends are like tides, they ebb and flow, and are far from irreversible. Sometimes it's best to let these things run their course rather than fight them and by doing do fossilize them.

Atticus wrote:

Borders, as we all know only too well, bear no relation to reality, so the Pashtun tribal area (Pakistan / Afghanistan) was split by that twat British civil servant who spent six weeks in Delhi or wherever poring over maps and drawing lines in 1947, .......

While "that twat British civil servant " could well be to blame for splitting Kashmir between India and Pakistan in 1947 since both were part of British India, it's hard to see how he could be to blame for drawing the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

905 wrote:

More goings on in Pakistan: Musharraf is all set to be impeached.

As an ex-General he might not want to be impeached.

Not sure the British are entirely to blame regarding Kashmir. Hari Singh the Maharaja of Kashmir and Jammu was expected to decide to join with Pakistan but delayed and a Pakistan supported Muslim insurgence broke out. Hari Singh appealed to the British for help and this was given on the basis he choose India.

There was supposed to be a plebiscite under UN supervision to decide the future of Kashmir. It never happened.

Squire wrote:

Not sure the British are entirely to blame regarding Kashmir. Hari Singh the Maharaja of Kashmir and Jammu was expected to decide to join with Pakistan but delayed and a Pakistan supported Muslim insurgence broke out. Hari Singh appealed to the British for help and this was given on the basis he choose India.

There was supposed to be a plebiscite under UN supervision to decide the future of Kashmir. It never happened.

I suppose Atticus was referring to the Treaty of 1893 in which the the British bribed the Amir of Afghanistan to agree to a demarcation line which was called after the Foreign Secretary of the Indian government, Sir Mortimer Durand. While the Afghans complain about the boundary, I'll bet they never discussed reimbursing the Brits.

Lestat wrote:

Squire wrote:

Not sure the British are entirely to blame regarding Kashmir. Hari Singh the Maharaja of Kashmir and Jammu was expected to decide to join with Pakistan but delayed and a Pakistan supported Muslim insurgence broke out. Hari Singh appealed to the British for help and this was given on the basis he choose India.

There was supposed to be a plebiscite under UN supervision to decide the future of Kashmir. It never happened.

I suppose Atticus was referring to the Treaty of 1893 in which the the British bribed the Amir of Afghanistan to agree to a demarcation line which was called after the Foreign Secretary of the Indian government, Sir Mortimer Durand. While the Afghans complain about the boundary, I'll bet they never discussed reimbursing the Brits.

I read it as "poring over maps and drawing lines in 1947" Anyway real dogs dinner no matter who ALL were responsible.

Squire wrote:

Lestat wrote:

Squire wrote:

Not sure the British are entirely to blame regarding Kashmir. Hari Singh the Maharaja of Kashmir and Jammu was expected to decide to join with Pakistan but delayed and a Pakistan supported Muslim insurgence broke out. Hari Singh appealed to the British for help and this was given on the basis he choose India.

There was supposed to be a plebiscite under UN supervision to decide the future of Kashmir. It never happened.

I suppose Atticus was referring to the Treaty of 1893 in which the the British bribed the Amir of Afghanistan to agree to a demarcation line which was called after the Foreign Secretary of the Indian government, Sir Mortimer Durand. While the Afghans complain about the boundary, I'll bet they never discussed reimbursing the Brits.

I read it as "poring over maps and drawing lines in 1947" Anyway real dogs dinner no matter who ALL were responsible.

Reparations might cover it maybe? or perhaps just ground rent ?

More bad news for Musharraf, the Sindh province (along with the Punjab and the North West Frontier Province)has voted in favour of impeachment. The interesting thing is the party most favourable to him, the MQM, has abstained from the vote, thus helping its passing. Another Musharraf ally has scarpered.

He only has the army left now and there's no reason they should support a lame-duck leader, especially when they're trying to foster popular support for their operations sin the North West.