EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

 

 

Unclear goals

“THE choice facing the Taliban is clear,” said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday, “Be part of Afghanistan`s future or face unrelenting assault. They cannot wait us out.” Except that, now with the American withdrawal a reality, the assault will not be unrelenting and the Taliban could well bide their time. Not that pulling out is a bad idea: Afghanistan`s current violence is a response to foreign occupation. What is troubling is the lack of clarity about America`s goals. President Obama`s speech on troop withdrawals offered little specificity about what the country should look like in three years. Two of three objectives mentioned — “reverse the Taliban`s momentum” and make Afghan forces capable of defending the country — seem beyond reach. Tailored to address domestic concerns in the run-up to an election rather than the more informed worries of international players who have stakes in Afghanistan`s stability, the president`s remarks could easily spark panic among regional governments. Such fears will only hamper America`s ability to depart in three years without leaving an unstable Afghanistan behind.

Statements from American officials also indicate a worrying lack of consensus within the US administration. Military officials had reportedly asked for a slower drawdown, and Adm Mike Mullen has said the timeline is riskier than he would have liked. And various interviews, testimonies and speeches over the last few days have betrayed internal disagreements, as old as the war itself, about what America is trying to achieve in Afghanistan. Adm Mullen used the term `counterinsurgency`, while President Obama said the overarching goal was to deny safe havens to terrorists working against the US or its allies. The same confusion was apparent when the president was devising his Afghanistan strategy in 2009, and it will only encourage regional players to look out for themselves.

Uncertainty also surrounds the reconciliation process, or at least what is publicly known of it. The UK, Germany, Saudi Arabia, America and Pakistan all seem to be involved, despite their public refrain that the process should be `Afghan-owned` and `Afghan-led`. One hopes these various efforts are part of a coordinated international plan. And while it is encouraging that giving up violence, renouncing Al Qaeda and abiding by Afghanistan`s constitution are now “necessary outcomes” of talks (according to Secretary Clinton) rather than preconditions, is it realistic to expect that the Taliban will stop fighting before foreign forces leave, or abide by a constitution they had no role in writing? Like many other aspects of the withdrawal and reconciliation efforts, the answers are unclear and the odds discouraging. The memory of 1989 looms large.

Held up in India

ISSUES involving ordinary Indians and Pakistanis do not need a special background to inspire public sympathy. Even then, there is greater meaning in the emotions that have greeted five young members of a Karachi family on their return home after having been stranded in India for more than a decade. The foreign secretaries of the two countries were meeting in Islamabad on the same day. These youngsters, aged between 12 and 19, couldn`t be brought back to Pakistan for lack of proof of their origin. It is horrifying that it took their father 10 long years to persuade the government there to let them go. Meanwhile, the children were looked after by relatives who could feed them but could not afford to send them to school. Better communication and understanding would have prevented five childhoods from being wasted.

The family was lucky, for it found in the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan an organisation that was willing to pursue their case. Others need help too. Not a single day goes by without a Pakistani crying out about a relative who is missing or imprisoned in India. In February this year, the National Assembly was told that at least 761 Pakistani citizens were being kept in Indian jails. Independent sources put the number much higher and add that hundreds of Pakistanis may be held up in India unbeknown to us. A swap of citizens has been proposed several times, but the idea is lost in the unending labyrinth of official meetings that are marked by mutual mistrust. This must change. No confidence-building measure is more powerful than that which benefits ordinary people. If Pakistan and India cannot provide relief to the small number of these stranded people, there is something fundamentally wrong with their approach to the grand idea of friendly ties.

Intelligent devolution

CONCERNED about their jobs and future, employees of the National Commission for Human Development have petitioned the Supreme Court to save their institution from being disbanded in the wake of devolution. The organisation, set up during the Musharraf regime in 2002 to control drop-out rates primarily by encouraging non-formal education, describes itself as a “support agency providing both the provincial and federal governments with the … experience to achieve both [the] Education for All and Millennium Development Goals”. Many lawmakers, including members of the ruling PPP, have opposed wrapping up the NCHD, saying this would put 16,000 people — mostly on contract — out of work. The petition also claims that 7,000 schools and 500,000 children will be affected by the institution`s closure. The National Education Foundation may also meet a similar fate. That means along with the NCHD, nearly 30,000 people may face job losses. As one treasury MNA put it, it is the government`s “moral and legal obligation” to protect jobs; in such a dire economic climate, this obligation becomes even more pressing. Though Sindh has conditionally agreed to absorb some of the NCHD employees (if granted funds), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab have no such plans. Observers say there has been criticism of the NCHD`s working in Punjab, as fact-finding missions have reportedly been unsatisfied with its performance. Yet some of this criticism may simply stem from the fact that the commission was Gen Musharraf`s brainchild.

The NCHD crisis shows that unless handled properly, devolution can be a risky process. It reflects the government`s lack of ability to plan ahead. The authorities must consider the effects of closing down so many schools. Even if there is no option but to wrap up the organisation, have the rulers considered the socio-economic effects of such a large number of people becoming jobless? Devolution is an excellent idea; however, it must be handled intelligently and a smooth transition is essential. It is the federal government`s responsibility to consult with the provinces to ensure employees of devolved departments are absorbed and not simply put out of work by a stroke of the pen.