Abbas Nasir
Published March 9, 2025
DAWN
HOW little it takes to please or render two insecure, nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours was evident this week when, in his State of the Union address, US President Donald Trump thanked the government of Pakistan for helping in the arrest and extradition of a man wanted for his role in the Kabul airport ‘Abbey Gate’ bombing.
The suicide bombing in August 2021, during the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan just days after the capital fell to the Taliban, killed some 170 hapless Afghans trying to flee their strife-torn country, but was more ominous with regard to the killing of 13 US military personnel.
Ominous, because we all know that our lives — I mean Afghans, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Sudanese, Palestinians (you can add dozens of others to the list) — count for very little and thousands of us can be violently killed without consequences, but the world responds in a totally different manner when ‘worthier’ lives are taken.
The reason for our plight may well be found in our own attitudes. Just look at the reaction to Donald Trump thanking Pakistan. The Pakistani prime minister tweeted a long message of gratitude to POTUS. One PTI-affiliated handle claimed that the prime minister first tagged Trump but updated his tweet to drop the tag after being criticised.
Pakistan’s dependence on the US and the financial institutions it holds sway over, such as the IMF and World Bank, is not a secret. But India sees itself as a close ally of the US and central to its China-centric policy and a country that is powerful enough to deal with all nations on an even keel.
Predictably, Pakistan was pleased, relieved, and felt loved by Trump’s message.
Admittedly, India’s reaction was not articulated officially. It came in the form of a news report, quoting ‘government (read: security) sources’ which tried to water down the importance of the Abbey Gate bombing suspect’s capture because he was supposed to have played a lesser role in the mayhem. Some of this report’s contents were challenged by a keen chronicler of terrorism in the region.
A Pakistani TV channel and a former CIA official also cast doubts on the significance of this man’s arrest. On the other hand, a Pakistan-based website detailed his role in the bombing, calling him the ISK Abbey Gate bombing mastermind who is said to have planned the attack with the eventual suicide bomber while still in prison. The Taliban freed them when they captured Kabul in 2021.
In an affidavit filed in the Alexandria Court in Virginia, where Sharifullah appeared this week to face charges, the FBI agent who interrogated him spells out exactly the role the suspect was said to have played in scouting the site to be bombed, among other things.
Whatever the exact nature of the suspect’s role and the debate over how significant it was, President Trump claimed it as a big win and thanked the government of Pakistan for helping in the capture of this ‘monster’. Predictably, Pakistan was pleased, relieved, and felt loved by Trump’s message. This seems to have upset India.
Generally, Trump thrives on creating (controlled?) chaos and succeeds in staying ahead of the news cycle. This week, where so much seems to have been squeezed into a mere seven days, was another example of the Trump policy.
When the news of America’s direct talks with Hamas in Egypt broke, and before questions could be asked about the change in policy whereby the US says it ‘does not negotiate with terrorists’, Trump let loose with his threat to Hamas to release all hostages or there would be “hell to pay”. This threat dominated headlines and not the US-Hamas talks.
When the Arab plan for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Gaza was announced, Israel rejected it outright; the White House National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes may not have used the same words as Israel, but said the only plan workable was the Trump plan for Gaza.
Two days later, Trump’s point man on the Middle East and fellow property tycoon Steve Witkoff, who is credited with twisting Benjamin Netanyahu’s arm for the Gaza ceasefire days before the Trump inauguration, surprised journalists during a White House Press gaggle on Egypt’s plan approved by Arab leaders.
“There are a lot of compelling features to it. … We need more discussion about it, but it’s a good faith, first step from the Egyptians,” he said, adding, “The larger point is that what President Trump is now talking about in Gaza, is now encouraging other people in the Middle East to present proactive proposals for what we might consider.”
Witkoff suggested that a goal of Trump’s Gaza takeover plan was merely to push regional allies to come up with alternatives. Asked whether he accepted the Arab plan’s view that the reconstruction of Gaza can take place without displacing the Palestinians, Witkoff responded, “We’re evaluating everything there. It’s a little bit early to comment.”
Reporting on this conversation, an Israeli media organisation reminded its audience that under Trump it is not the CIA or NSC or even the State Department that calls the shots on Gaza, but Witkoff who is the most empowered envoy as he speaks for the president.
This controlled chaos unleashed by Trump continued the rest of the week with Trump withdrawing his administration’s earlier threat to expel tens of thousands of Ukrainians who arrived in the US after the war in their country.
He also seemed to suggest that ceasefire in Ukraine was ‘days away’ as, he said, both Russia and Ukraine were ready for it now. While talking up peace between Russia and Ukraine, he ratcheted up tensions with Canada by making claims over the latter’s territory on top of a trade/tariffs war.
That, in a nutshell, is Trump for you.
It would be foolish to pin hopes of much good on him. At the same time, he is so openly, blatantly transactional that you never know if the Saudi $1 trillion deal over four years that he has talked of may well make him accept the Saudi ‘two-state’ solution condition for normalisation in the Middle East.
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com
Published in Dawn, March 9th, 2025
A new peace accord
Muhammad Amir Rana
PAKISTAN has paid a heavy price for terrorism, not only in terms of losing thousands of lives but also the weakening of its economy, social cohesion, and governance. The crisis has stigmatised its image, and most crucially, society is losing its confidence. While other issues, such as a fragile democracy, the dominance of security institutions in decision-making, and fractured elites, contribute to the crisis, terrorism remains the driving force behind these problems, pushing the country towards an unpredictable future.
Pakistan felt triumphant when US President Donald Trump acknowledged the country’s cooperation in arresting a terrorist responsible for the Abbey Gate attack in Kabul in August 2021, which killed 13 US soldiers. Analysts predicted that Pakistan had found a way to earn the trust of the Trump administration, signalling a desire to strengthen relations with the US. Despite the geopolitical and diplomatic constraints, such narratives created a feeling of warmth in Islamabad, which is trying to find opportunities to win Washington’s trust. However, a few American commentators also saw it as naivety on the part of Pakistan.
One can imagine the collective reaction if the US were to place Pakistan on a travel ban list, nullifying all enthusiasm sparked by Trump’s statement. Media reports would cite security concerns, with the Trump administration believing that several nations, including us, are not fit to live in a free society. It would be an insult to the nation and a failure of state institutions, highlighting the continuous destabilisation that has increased fragility in the country. Development, security, governance, economy, and social cohesion are suffering, touching the bottom of all international indexes. To underscore a statistic quoted in Tariq Khosa’s recent op-ed on these pages, “nearly 40 per cent of Pakistanis wanted to leave due mainly to economic woes, political uncertainty, lack of employment and educational opportunities, inflation, and terrorism”.
Terrorism is a curse that exacerbates other crises that nations face. The Institute for Economics & Peace’s (IEP) latest global terrorism index shows that the countries and regions most affected by terrorism are among those with poor economic and governance indicators. Pakistan stands second in the terrorism index, just slightly below Burkina Faso, which has been at the top for the last three years. Pakistan has been a constant member of the top 10 countries for the last decade and a half, with its best ranking being ninth. Several nations have appeared in the top 10 rankings but have managed to leave within a few years. Israel quickly rose to number two in just one year and now sits at eighth, while Iraq took a little more time to improve its ranking. Afghanistan is currently at ninth, and India at 14th.
There must be greater focus by the state and others on cultivating peace among citizens.
The IEP is a global think tank that measures the correlation between peace and economy, and its methodology to gauge correlation and developing indicators is rooted in the theory of social change, which explains how societies transform and evolve. The IEP has theorised that substantial economic improvements are linked to improvements in peace. The improvement in peace is not enough, as sometimes negative peace can be managed through corrective measures, as in Afghanistan or some other authoritarian regimes, but positive peace is the key, which is defined as the attitudes, institutions, and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies.
Through statistical analysis, the institute gauged that violence has adverse implications for the broader economy, both in the short and long term, as it hinders productivity and economic activity, destabilises institutions, and reduces business confidence. To be brief, violence increases both production costs and security expenditures, reducing the propensity and quality of human resources and products.
It is conceivable that a country ranked among the top 10 for terrorism over the past two decades would have experienced significant societal trauma, especially among those directly exposed to the threat and living in constant fear. Institutions dealing with these threats would have undergone severe conditioning, leading to the stereotyping and stigmatising of their own people and communities.
Psychological and social behaviour studies suggest that under such conditions, the capacity for institutions to think creatively or rethink their strategies is greatly diminished. According to statistics compiled by an Islamabad-based research institute, terrorism-related deaths in Pakistan surged by 73pc last month compared to the previous month, with nearly 62pc of the total fatalities occurring in Balochistan, highlighting the growing insurgency in the province. This pace of increase in terrorism fatalities is alarming. One cannot ignore or escape the numbers; denying them is not an option. The only way to counter these distressing statistics is through positive action to improve them.
State institutions, the clergy, and political and social elites must focus more on cultivating peace among the citizenry and developing zero tolerance for religious and racial hatred. All counterterrorism approaches need to be transformed and must be goal-oriented. For example, setting a goal for the next five years to make Pakistan free from all forms of violence and extremism can produce a solid roadmap to achieve this target.
This may include coercive measures against terrorist networks inside the country and beyond its borders. There should be zero tolerance for extremist groups in Punjab and Sindh, which demoralise societal potential by triggering faith-based hatred. A broader dialogue in Balochistan and reconsidering governance and administrative approaches for Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are also necessary.
In sum, Pakistan needs a plan to reverse the social engineering implemented by power elites over the past several decades. If this happens, Pakistan can develop healthier, more respectful relationships with the world, and its citizens will not face travel embargoes and interact with the global community as normal citizens.
It could be termed as a new social contract or a peace accord, focusing on the collective efforts required to conceive a peaceful Pakistan, regardless of the cost. Importantly, these efforts may not be as costly as they seem, requiring a shift in perspective.
The writer is a security analyst.
Published in Dawn, March 9th, 2025
Muhammad Amir Rana
Published March 9, 2025
DAWN
PAKISTAN has paid a heavy price for terrorism, not only in terms of losing thousands of lives but also the weakening of its economy, social cohesion, and governance. The crisis has stigmatised its image, and most crucially, society is losing its confidence. While other issues, such as a fragile democracy, the dominance of security institutions in decision-making, and fractured elites, contribute to the crisis, terrorism remains the driving force behind these problems, pushing the country towards an unpredictable future.
Pakistan felt triumphant when US President Donald Trump acknowledged the country’s cooperation in arresting a terrorist responsible for the Abbey Gate attack in Kabul in August 2021, which killed 13 US soldiers. Analysts predicted that Pakistan had found a way to earn the trust of the Trump administration, signalling a desire to strengthen relations with the US. Despite the geopolitical and diplomatic constraints, such narratives created a feeling of warmth in Islamabad, which is trying to find opportunities to win Washington’s trust. However, a few American commentators also saw it as naivety on the part of Pakistan.
One can imagine the collective reaction if the US were to place Pakistan on a travel ban list, nullifying all enthusiasm sparked by Trump’s statement. Media reports would cite security concerns, with the Trump administration believing that several nations, including us, are not fit to live in a free society. It would be an insult to the nation and a failure of state institutions, highlighting the continuous destabilisation that has increased fragility in the country. Development, security, governance, economy, and social cohesion are suffering, touching the bottom of all international indexes. To underscore a statistic quoted in Tariq Khosa’s recent op-ed on these pages, “nearly 40 per cent of Pakistanis wanted to leave due mainly to economic woes, political uncertainty, lack of employment and educational opportunities, inflation, and terrorism”.
Terrorism is a curse that exacerbates other crises that nations face. The Institute for Economics & Peace’s (IEP) latest global terrorism index shows that the countries and regions most affected by terrorism are among those with poor economic and governance indicators. Pakistan stands second in the terrorism index, just slightly below Burkina Faso, which has been at the top for the last three years. Pakistan has been a constant member of the top 10 countries for the last decade and a half, with its best ranking being ninth. Several nations have appeared in the top 10 rankings but have managed to leave within a few years. Israel quickly rose to number two in just one year and now sits at eighth, while Iraq took a little more time to improve its ranking. Afghanistan is currently at ninth, and India at 14th.
There must be greater focus by the state and others on cultivating peace among citizens.
The IEP is a global think tank that measures the correlation between peace and economy, and its methodology to gauge correlation and developing indicators is rooted in the theory of social change, which explains how societies transform and evolve. The IEP has theorised that substantial economic improvements are linked to improvements in peace. The improvement in peace is not enough, as sometimes negative peace can be managed through corrective measures, as in Afghanistan or some other authoritarian regimes, but positive peace is the key, which is defined as the attitudes, institutions, and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies.
Through statistical analysis, the institute gauged that violence has adverse implications for the broader economy, both in the short and long term, as it hinders productivity and economic activity, destabilises institutions, and reduces business confidence. To be brief, violence increases both production costs and security expenditures, reducing the propensity and quality of human resources and products.
It is conceivable that a country ranked among the top 10 for terrorism over the past two decades would have experienced significant societal trauma, especially among those directly exposed to the threat and living in constant fear. Institutions dealing with these threats would have undergone severe conditioning, leading to the stereotyping and stigmatising of their own people and communities.
Psychological and social behaviour studies suggest that under such conditions, the capacity for institutions to think creatively or rethink their strategies is greatly diminished. According to statistics compiled by an Islamabad-based research institute, terrorism-related deaths in Pakistan surged by 73pc last month compared to the previous month, with nearly 62pc of the total fatalities occurring in Balochistan, highlighting the growing insurgency in the province. This pace of increase in terrorism fatalities is alarming. One cannot ignore or escape the numbers; denying them is not an option. The only way to counter these distressing statistics is through positive action to improve them.
State institutions, the clergy, and political and social elites must focus more on cultivating peace among the citizenry and developing zero tolerance for religious and racial hatred. All counterterrorism approaches need to be transformed and must be goal-oriented. For example, setting a goal for the next five years to make Pakistan free from all forms of violence and extremism can produce a solid roadmap to achieve this target.
This may include coercive measures against terrorist networks inside the country and beyond its borders. There should be zero tolerance for extremist groups in Punjab and Sindh, which demoralise societal potential by triggering faith-based hatred. A broader dialogue in Balochistan and reconsidering governance and administrative approaches for Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are also necessary.
In sum, Pakistan needs a plan to reverse the social engineering implemented by power elites over the past several decades. If this happens, Pakistan can develop healthier, more respectful relationships with the world, and its citizens will not face travel embargoes and interact with the global community as normal citizens.
It could be termed as a new social contract or a peace accord, focusing on the collective efforts required to conceive a peaceful Pakistan, regardless of the cost. Importantly, these efforts may not be as costly as they seem, requiring a shift in perspective.
The writer is a security analyst.
Published in Dawn, March 9th, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment