Closer to the brink
From the Blog PkColumnist.com: Closer to the brink - AS Nato and US deadlines for withdrawal from Afghanistan have become clearer, our establishment has put its savvy on fine display. Pakistan has re-articulated its long-held geo-strategic goals in the context of the fight against extremism, thereby ensuring that the international community accommodates the country's foreign policy priorities. It now seems that a friendly government in Kabul and pressure on India to resolve the Kashmir dispute are imperatives for Pakistan's counter-terrorism strategy. But take a closer look and it becomes apparent that the government has yet to show any real commitment to eliminating extremism. With regard to close Pakistan-Afghanistan ties in a post-US withdrawal scenario, a counter-terrorism case is easily made: with Kabul's cooperation, Islamabad can better monitor terrorist activity along the Durand Line and ensure that anti-Pakistan militant groups do not find sanctuary in Afghanistan. In the event of civil war, an Islamabad that enjoys influence in Kabul would be well positioned to stem the inevitable tide of refugees that would further destabilise Pakistan. Moreover, Islamabad, or Rawalpindi, can check Indian support for Afghanistan-based, anti-Pakistan separatist or militant groups with Kabul's support. By making the country's future stability contingent on its diplomatic relations with Afghanistan, Pakistan has earned the ear of the international community. A recent report issued by the Pentagon calls for balancing Pakistani and Indian interests in Afghanistan. Kashmir, too, has been brought to the forefront of Pakistan's counter-terrorism strategy. During October's US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, the foreign minister reiterated the resonance of the Kashmir issue with the Pakistani public. And in recent visits to Washington, retired generals Ehsanul Haq and Pervez Musharraf stated that resolving the dispute is necessary for reducing Pakistani terrorism since ongoing injustices in Kashmir spur militant recruitment. These arguments have improved Pakistan's counter-terrorism credentials on the world stage by showing that our leaders are attuned to the multifaceted threat and committed to fighting terrorism in a holistic way. But while an emphasis on Afghanistan and Kashmir furthers military interests and advances the foreign policy agenda, it does not get at the heart of the problem of proliferating extremism, which is primarily societal, and must be addressed through social policy and improved governance. In this approach, the Pakistani establishment is failing miserably in its fight against extremism. This failure is encapsulated by the National Counter-Terrorism Authority (Nacta), which has been plagued by bureaucratic tussles and personnel issues since its inception, and remains dysfunctional. The authority was well conceived with a mandate to coordinate counter-terrorism initiatives with an eye to short-, medium- and long-term goals. But the authority's inability to design an all-encompassing strategy is apparent in the many vital gaps that remain in Pakistan's efforts to contain extremism. One of the widest gaps endures in the form of Pakistan's dismal education sector. One-third of primary age children are not in school, causing Pakistan to rank 163rd out of 177 countries on the UN index of education systems. It is well known that literacy and the employment opportunities it engenders are the best antidote to militant recruitment. But our government has reneged on a commitment to increase education expenditure to four per cent of the GDP (the current level of under two per cent is unacceptably low). Moreover, civil society has been calling for curriculum reform to curtail the circulation of intolerant and divisive viewpoints currently enshrined in national textbooks. On this point, Sir Michael Barber, co-chair of the government-mandated Pakistan Education Task Force, recently acknowledged that institutional emphasis remains on promoting primary education since any push to re-evaluate the curriculum's ideological positioning could stall the entire process. The government has also made little headway in its efforts to change the climate of xenophobia and intolerance in Pakistani society. No doubt, the right noises have been made: Zardari's government is the first to appoint a minister for minorities; it also established the Sufi Advisory Council and the Sindh Education Department is now launching an International University of Sufism at Bhitshah. But all this signifies little in real terms. The recent appointment of Mohammad Khan Sheerani as the chairman of the Council of Islamic Ideology is a case in point. The controversial choice of a conservative cleric with party affiliations (despite the CII's charter of non-partisanship) may be politically expedient, but it is regressive in terms of the fight against extremism. Sheerani's appointment will certainly embolden religious-political parties and, more problematically, make policymaking and parliamentary decrees beholden to the ideological frameworks of religious, rather than progressive, forces. The government's handling of Aasia Bibi's case has also shown its wavering commitment to creating an environment in which Pakistanis can tackle sensitive religious and social issues without fearing an extremist backlash. From the outset, the government insisted that it would be impossible to repeal the heinous blasphemy laws on the basis of Aasia's case. The logic behind this conclusion was that scrapping the legislation could provoke extremists and fuel militancy. In other words, instead of changing flawed legislature to outlaw intolerance, the government has handled the case so as not to offend extremist sensibilities. It is telling that rather than appease the extremists, this tactic has only encouraged them: the Sunni Ittehad Council on Friday threatened 'anarchy' if Aasia received a presidential pardon. Since the extremists seized Swat, civil society activists have been urging the Pakistani establishment to sincerely address the growing radicalism. But that call goes unheeded, and each missed opportunity, such as the few outlined above, brings society closer to the brink. Until now, the establishment has cited the extremist threat only to increase its clout on the international stage, milk the US for more dollars, and bulldoze through foreign policy agendas. What will it take for the powers that be to acknowledge extremism as an existential threat? . Read Full Post
0 comments :
Post a Comment