EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

Fresh tensions

Reports in the Media on the eve of ISI chief Gen Pasha`s visit to the US for talks with his counterpart at the CIA have painted yet another grim picture of ties between the two spy agencies, and by extension the two states. Apparently, Pakistan is demanding the withdrawal of an unspecified number of CIA operatives, US Special Forces troops and American security contractors from Pakistani soil. The demand appears to be linked to the Pakistan Army`s desire to route more American intelligence through the ISI, thereby limiting the US `footprint` in Pakistan. In addition, Pakistan is believed to be demanding a scaling back of the drone-strike programme in Fata, limiting it perhaps to parts of North Waziristan Agency. In the murky world of Pakistan-US ties on security issues, little can be said for certain. For example, why was the American footprint allowed to grow to an `undesirable` size in the first place? And if it is an open secret that drones are allowed to operate with Pakistan`s permission, then why the need to resort to public pressure to change the programme`s parameters?

Two theories are doing the rounds. One, during the Musharraf era the Americans used the `one-window operation` to exact concessions from the Pakistani state and the present army leadership is keenly trying to roll back. According to this theory, because Gen Musharraf was wearing the twin hats of army chief and president and because of the army`s strict adherence to the chain of command, concessions considered not in the state`s interests were made to the US without much internal debate. The other theory is akin to the camel`s nose under the tent. According to this theory, cooperation between Pakistan and the US on security issues was never spelled out with any specificity that either side could later refer back to in the case of a disagreement. The reason presumably was that ambivalence and vagueness suited both sides, allowing them to adjust their tactics as the relationship between the two countries ebbed and flowed. But that ambivalence has led to the Pakistan side fearing that the entire American camel, as it were, is now trying to enter the Pakistani tent.
Can the chronic tensions between the two countries be tamped down at present? Perhaps not unless the modalities of the security cooperation becomes slightly more transparent. Some `sunlight` on the drone-strikes programme, for example, would reduce the possibility of either side spinning and dissembling on what has been agreed to and what hasn`t. The danger with trying to `manage` tensions, as both sides seem to be doing, is that those tensions could unintentionally spin out of control.

Grim scene in Syria

THE turmoil in Syria is not getting the attention it deserves from the world media despite the rising death toll there. Libya`s civil war and the deteriorating situation in Yemen have overshadowed the gravity of the Syrian scene. Since March 18, when the pro-democracy protesters took to the streets, more than 200 people have been killed. There may not yet be bloodletting of Libyan proportions, but the Baathist regime has been no less ruthless, with government partisans and policemen firing from rooftops on unarmed civilian protesters. The Syria chapter of the Baathist regime has been in power now for five decades, and it has survived because it has perpetuated itself by means more ruthless than those employed by the Iraq party, which collapsed in April 2003 because of the US-led invasion. Let there be no mistake — Bashar al-Assad can prove more cruel than Muammar Qadhafi.

Syria`s strategic position and the fact that it is considered Israel`s most implacable enemy rule out either a full-fledged foreign invasion or a UN-authorised Nato intervention of the kind in Libya. The Nato strikes are already controversial, with the Arab League criticising the Atlantic alliance`s air missions, having itself earlier called for imposing a no-fly zone. An intervention of that kind in Syria would be enormously risky, open to misgivings as to its motives and considered by most Arab and Muslim people as being done for Israel`s benefit. This could serve to strengthen the Baathist regime and help it crush the pro-democracy protesters by branding them as foreign agents. In fact, the regime is already labelling them as such. This is perhaps why the Arab League has maintained a discreet silence on the Syrian situation. It is now time for President Assad to wake up. Force failed to save Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak, and Yemen`s President Ali Saleh appears desperate now. The least the Syrian president can do is to implement the promised reforms, including the lifting of the 1963 emergency. Failing to concede something to the democracy activists will only lead to more bloodshed and make his own position more vulnerable.

French niqab ban

FRANCE`S controversial ban on face veils in public is now in force, and those violating it can be ordered to police stations for identity checks and will be fined or asked to take French citizenship classes. Two points must be noted here. First, what is alarming about the ban is not just its prejudice against Muslims. That can be found in many western countries, especially since 9/11, ranging from discrimination in everyday life at the hands of majority communities to dangerous precedents such as last month`s congressional hearings in Washington about extremism among American Muslims. What makes this latest development particularly disturbing is the institutionalisation of prejudice that it represents. By creating a formal ban through an act of legislation, France has given legal cover to discrimination. This is a slippery slope, and Europe would do well to contain the spread of such laws before it creates irreparable divides within populations that are already struggling to incorporate Muslim immigrants.

Second, it is reported that there are only about 2,000 women who cover their faces in public in France out of a Muslim population of five million and a total population of over 62 million. The integration of Muslim immigrants into the country is already a controversial issue riddled with prejudice. Given this context, the ban comes off as a political manoeuvre by the current French administration to play to right-wing sentiments rather than an intelligent piece of legislation designed to address the real issue. Was it necessary to ban an item of religious clothing and inflame opinions on both sides of this delicate divide because of a relatively insignificant number of individuals? The effect this disproportionate action could have, unfortunately, is simply to inflame extremist sentiment and widen the worrying gulf between Europe and its Muslim immigrants.