Pakistan in a quagmire: Resurgence of terrorism along with its relations with Afghanistan

January 5, 2023
By Safwan Ali


When Taliban took over Kabul in August 2021, a large faction of the Pakistani society including mainstream politicians amused the fact that reins of Kabul had become in control of Taliban. One obvious reason for this felicitation was the much awaited perceived stability in neighboring Afghanistan which had direct impact on Pakistan. The other reason for jubilation in some factions was about the solidarity with regards to the identity of Afghan people. As brotherly nation, perseverance of Afghan people against the scourge of prolonged war, that too against the strongest military alliance, was a matter of inspiration for many in Pakistan. However, the formal response of the government was very much aligned with the global response. Islamabad did not officially recognize the interim government of Taliban. The eventful month of August, 2021 was followed by some key developments.

Considering the geo-political change in the neighboring Afghanistan, Pakistan started to rethink its strategy at the western border. Through a backdoor channel, Islamabad approached the Taliban government to ensure the security of its western border from the hideouts of TTP living in Afghanistan. In short, Pakistan wanted the Taliban government to take strong action against TTP. However, in response to that, Kabul with TTP onboard, came up with a “quid pro quo plus” approach. It urged the Pakistan’s government to have a formal agreement with TTP which later on proceeded through a back door channels. In the agreement, TTP agreed for so called cease-fire along and inside Pakistan’s territory in exchange for cessation of Pakistan’s military operation against TTP. Moreover, the strangest of demands that Pakistan agreed to, was providing, the previously expelled TTP associates, with permission to come back and reside in districts of the tribal area. On the other hand, second critical development following the fall of Kabul, was Pakistan’s stance in the international community with respect to humanitarian concerns in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s foreign minister repeatedly urged the International community to establish a meaningful dialogue and engagement with the fragile state of Afghanistan to help the people of Afghanistan. He frequently argued that alienation of a rouge actor prompts even harsher human rights violation by that actor. Hence the world should not neglect Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan Rather, it should accept the reality and engage with Afghanistan.

However, it is extremely unfortunate to write that, both the aforementioned developments, gave rise to a Pro-Taliban sentiment vis-à-vis Pakistan. Nevertheless, the same sentiment has often been misrepresented in the western literature, and the same narrative has also been used to demonize Pakistan at the international forums. However, in reality Pakistan had been the most affected country by terrorism and it had been fighting against the scourge of terrorism since over a decade now. What is even more unfortunate is that in the recent past, TTP announced to resume its nefarious terrorist activities in Pakistan. As a result, a spike in terrorist events specifically in KPK province has been witnessed. The December 21st,2022 military operation is a testament to aggravating law and order situation in the country, in which a group of 25 TTP associated terrorists had been killed, while holding a CTD compound, hostage in Bannu.

Because there is a resurgence of terrorism coupled with the international criticism due to perceived relations with Afghanistan under Taliban. “Pakistan is appeared to be in a quagmire.”

Now, what Pakistan can pursue to undo this, is to redevise a comprehensive plan of action against terrorism in KPK and former FATA. It should also formulate a clear strategy at the western border not to tolerate any presence as well as influx of militants from Afghanistan. Moreover, for future, the state of Pakistan should also learn from the abysmal agreement that it went in with a Non-State Actor (NSA). For NSA’s an agreement is nothing more than a concealing tool for a limited survival. It is because of the three reasons. First, an agreement is always done between two responsible actors; terrorist group like TTP has no burden of responsibility neither in a domestic setting nor at the international level. Whereas, a sovereign state has immense responsibility at the domestic and international level. Second, an agreement between two states holds significance because of the perceived repute in the international system, Whereas, for a non-state actor like TTP, International reputation never comes into the equation as such groups are already infamous for their terrorist agenda. Third, States are mostly bound to stick fast to their bilateral or multilateral agreements, because of the fear of diplomatic and economic sanctions once they pull back from the agreement. Whereas in case of Non-state actors, there exist no such incentive to remain in the agreement.

Considering all the three reasons, it is quite evident that engaging with TTP for so called ceasefire agreement was neither viable nor will it ever be, particularly because, as a state, Pakistan would have to offer a lot in exchange to absolutely nothing. Moreover, because of such an agreement, Pakistan would itself invite criticism from the already skeptical international community. Hence for Pakistan, no tolerance policy against terrorism is the only option possible in order to lower domestic and international cost simultaneously.

Say It Ain't So

Afghanistan is falling back into the hands of the Taleban, a report by an international think-tank has claimed.

The Senlis Council has blamed international forces for failing to achieve stability and security.

The Senlis Council, which provides advice on foreign policy, security and development, claims nothing has been done to address widespread poverty in Afghanistan.

Its report, Afghanistan Five Years Later: The Return of the Taleban, says that the Taleban have a strong psychological and de facto military control over half of the country.

"Nato is caught in a trap in a way. They are faced with a deteriorating situation, they cannot do the core job of helping reconstruction," Emmanuel Reinert, executive director of the Senlis Council, said.

Opium war 'making enemies

British and US efforts to decimate the opium industry in Afghanistan have "hijacked" nation-building attempts in the country, and are driving support for the Taliban, a report said today.

The highly critical study of the five years since the US-led invasion found that Afghans are starving to death despite international donor pledges and that the foreign military presence was "fuelling resentment and fear" among the local population.

The report, by the Senlis Council, an international policy thinktank, said that the US-led international community had "failed to achieve stability and security" in the war-torn country and that attacks were perpetuated on a daily basis.

Of course Opium helps fuel that armed resistance.......as it did with the War against the Soviet Union.....

Commentary: Pakistan fuels Taliban's resurgency

Some of the opium bounty greases the relays for Taliban to operate in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, which Pakistan also denies despite having lost at least 700 soldiers fighting Taliban and their al-Qaida allies in these same areas.
Since the liberation of Afghanistan in November 2001, the area under opium cultivation has grown by almost 60 percent to 400,000 acres. And this despite draconian eradication campaigns by Britain and the United States. Now well over half the country's GDP is derived from narcotics trafficking. Warlords and drug lords -- frequently one and the same -- are represented surreptitiously in President Hamid Karzai's central government, which also includes a minister for "counternarcotics."
Taliban's resurgency in southern Afghanistan has impacted five provinces where crop substitution was abandoned to the exigencies of counter-guerrilla operations. Taliban also encourages poppy farming for levied protection.

And why is that....perhaps because the Taliban and bin Laden Inc. are hiding in the terrorist state next door...

General Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, will also visit Kabul on Wednesday for anti-terrorism talks with Karzai. Fighters cross between Afghanistan and Pakistan through their porous 2,450-km-long border. The two neighbours routinely accuse each other of not doing enough to stamp out attacks along the frontier where Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda and Taliban fugitives are believed to be hiding.

And of course he will bring good news with him.....that the Pakistani government has negotiated a truce with the Taliban..in the Northwest....allowing the Taliban to reinforce their troops in the Southeast of Afghanistan......yep NATO is screwed......

The Pakistani government and pro-Taliban fighters have agreed a deal aimed at ending five years of conflict in Waziristan on the Afghanistan border.
Hundreds of Pakistani troops and pro-Taliban fighters have been killed in the government's attempt to assert its authority in Waziristan as part of the US-led "war on terror". Under the agreement, the pro-Taliban forces have agreed to stop attacks both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan.

Pakistan Backs Taliban, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan: ANP

He said with agreement the Taliban operative in tribal areas were given free hand to carry out disruptive acts in Afghanistan. After the agreement, the Taliban would boldly launch insurgencies in Afghanistan. He said: "Pakhtun of Pakistan will never accept such series of current violence should be on in Afghanistan."

Also See:

Pakistan

Afghanistan

War

Opium





Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai,
NDP, liberals, Afghanistan, PB, BT, Canada, Progressivebloggers, bloggingtories, blogs, blogging, bringthetroopshome, Layton,NDP, Layton, TroopsOut, Afghanistan, War, Harper, Conservatives, Liberals, Canada, politics, military, NATO, peacekeeping, Karzai, Graham, Liberals, Canada, Soldiers, Death, Injury, Afghanistan, Government, Politics, values,


Tags
Canada
USA
War
Friendly Fire
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO

Pakistan Taliban warn of more attacks against police after compound raid

KARACHI, Feb 18, 2023 (BSS/AFP) - Pakistan's Taliban warned Saturday of more attacks against law enforcement officers, a day after four people were killed when a suicide squad stormed a police compound in Karachi.

The police are often used on the frontline of Pakistan's battle with the Taliban and frequently a target of militants who accuse them of extra-judicial killings.

Last month, more than 80 officers were killed when a suicide bomber detonated an explosive vest at a mosque inside a police compound in the northwestern city of Peshawar, sparking criticism from some junior ranks, who said they were having to do the army's work.

"The policemen should stay away from our war with the slave army, otherwise the attacks on the safe havens of the top police officers will continue," Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) said Saturday in an English-language statement.

"We want to warn the security agencies once again to stop martyring innocent prisoners in fake encounters otherwise the intensity of future attacks will be more severe."

On Friday evening, a Taliban suicide squad stormed the sprawling Karachi Police Office compound in the southern port city, prompting an hours-long gun battle that ended when two of the attackers were shot dead and a third blew himself up.

Two police officers, an army ranger and a civilian sanitary worker died in the attack, officials said.

The tightly guarded compound in the heart of the city is home to dozens of administrative and residential buildings as well as hundreds of officers and their families.

- Fierce gun battle -

Interior minister Rana Sanaullah told Samaa TV the assailants entered the compound after firing a rocket at the gate before seizing the main Karachi Police Office building and taking refuge on the roof.

The sound of gunfire and grenade blasts echoed through the neighbourhood for hours as security forces slowly made their way up five floors to end the siege.

The bullet-riddled stairwells gave evidence of the fierce gun battle that unfolded.

The TTP, which is separate from the Afghan Taliban but with a similar fundamental Islamist ideology, emerged in Pakistan in 2007 and carried out a horrific wave of violence that was largely crushed by a military operation launched in late 2014.

But attacks -- mostly targeting security forces -- have been on the rise again since the Afghan Taliban seized control of Kabul in August 2021 and a shaky months-long ceasefire between the TTP and Islamabad ended in November last year.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has vowed to stamp out the violence.

"Pakistan will not only uproot terrorism but will kill the terrorists by bringing them to justice," he tweeted late Friday.

"This great nation is determined to end this evil forever."

Condemning the attack, State Department spokesman Ned Price said the United States stands "firmly with the Pakistani people in the face of this terrorist attack. Violence is not the answer, and it must stop."

Investigators blamed an affiliate of the Pakistan Taliban for the January blast at the Peshawar police compound.

Provinces around the country announced they were on high alert after that attack, with checkpoints ramped up and extra security forces deployed.

"There's a general threat across the country, but there was no specific threat to this place," Interior Minister Sanaullah said of Friday's Karachi attack.

In their statement, the Taliban called the raid "a blessed martyrdom" and warned of more to come.

"This attack is a message to all the anti-Islamic security agencies of Pakistan... the army and police will be targeted at every important place until the way for implementation of the Islamic system in the country is paved," it said.

Targeting girls education: Pakistan’s tribal areas suffer under Taliban influence

Schools are the best weapon against extremism, that’s why the militants fear them.

A mass awareness campaign for girls education with the help of local leaders in the tribal belt should be launched (Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images)

SYED FAZL-E-HAIDER
Published 14 May 2024 

The long, rugged border running along Pakistan’s northwestern tribal areas that separates Afghanistan provides no barrier to the influence of the Taliban and its radical policies against women.

A private girls school was blown up on 8 May by unidentified militants in North Waziristan district, the former stronghold of the outlawed Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), or Pakistani Taliban. It reflects the impact of the Taliban’s policy of banning girls' education in neighbouring Afghanistan. It was the only private girls school in the area. The school administration had received multiple threatening letters from the militants.

This was not the first attack on a girls school. Attackers targeted two government schools for girls in North Waziristan last year.

Since the takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, the Taliban has banned girls from attending school beyond the sixth grade and banned women from university. Pakistani Taliban, who are ideologically closer to Afghan Taliban, are trying to enforce the a similar anti-education and theocratic agenda in Pakistan’s tribal areas by force.

Before the all-out military operation launched by Pakistan’s security forces in 2014, the TTP carried out hundreds of attacks on girls schools in the tribal areas and settled districts of the northwestern province Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from its stronghold in Swat district. Education was a casualty of the conflict between the militants and the state. The youngest ever Nobel laureate, Malala Yousafzai, was shot in the face at 14 by TTP gunmen in 2012. Malala was from Swat – her crime was that she wanted to pursue her education.

The military offensive may check the militants, but it cannot combat the growth of radical attitudes in the Pakistani tribal areas influenced by cross-border extremism.

More than 1,100 girls’ schools were destroyed in the tribal areas between 2007 to 2017, with teachers and young students also targeted. As a result of the military crackdown, TTP militants fled to Afghanistan and began to orchestrate cross border attacks from their new sanctuaries. The Taliban takeover of Kabul has emboldened the TTP, which is fighting to regain control of its strongholds in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The 8 May bombing provoked strong condemnation from UNICEF, with the local country representative Abdullah Fadil calling the attack a severe setback to national progress. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif last week ordered that the girls school be immediately rebuilt and vowed to provide women with equal opportunities for education. But securing education for girls in the tribal areas has proven nigh to impossible, compounded as the Talibanisation of the region continues.

Pakistan’s security forces are carrying out operations against the militants in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa almost on a daily basis and have even launched airstrikes targeting TTP hideouts. But inside Afghanistan, the Taliban has ignored Islamabad's repeated requests for a crackdown on the TTP. Besides, the military offensive may check the militants, but it cannot combat the growth of radical attitudes in the Pakistani tribal areas influenced by cross-border extremism.

The government needs to adopt a broader approach. For instance, a mass awareness campaign for girls education with the help of local leaders in the tribal belt should be launched. Religious scholars could play a key role by highlighting the importance of girls education and the empowerment of women from Islamic point of view.

Those within the Taliban movement who stand apart from the Taliban’s anti-education and anti-women policies need to be encouraged and deserve international appreciation. For example, Abdul Salam Zaeef, a former senior Taliban official in Kabul, onetime ambassador to Islamabad, an early member of the Taliban, and former prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, has criticised the Taliban’s ban on female education. “Those who oppose modern education or invent arguments to undermine its importance, they are either completely ignorant or oppose Muslims under the garb of Islam,” he wrote on X on 5 March.

It is not the Taliban, but Talibanisation that is the real threat. Education is the most powerful weapon against such extremism. That’s why the extremists on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghan border are pursuing an anti-education agenda.

PAKISTAN
THE ROOTS OF THE RAGE AGAINST AMERICA

Zahid Hussain
Published May 1, 2022 


LOANG READ

The crowd of Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) supporters at the Islamabad rally on March 27 was already charged — their party leader seemed to be on his way out, and various other politicians and stakeholders had clearly banded together to ensure his ouster.

The crowd wanted to know what their leader had in store for them. Imran Khan had promised them a revelation, and he surely delivered.

The then prime minister pulled out a paper that would further electrify this crowd. He brandished before them a ‘letter’, evidence of an ‘American-sponsored conspiracy’ to oust his government. What came next was all too familiar to anyone who has lived in, or observed, Pakistan over the decades. Chants of ‘down with America’, and a doubling down of the foreign conspiracy mantra.

Given deep-rooted anti-American sentiments in Pakistani society, the public response to the conspiracy narrative has not been surprising. The narrative of a ‘foreign conspiracy’ may have failed to prevent the unravelling of the former ruling coalition, but a populist, ultra-nationalist rhetoric has galvanised Khan’s supporters.


Weeks after former Prime Minister Imran Khan first claimed an American conspiracy to oust his government, he and his party continue to stick doggedly to the narrative — even in the absence of evidence. What do politicians hope to gain from inflaming anti-American sentiments? And why does this narrative continue to resonate in Pakistan?

Interestingly, as is now clear, the allegation has been built around a cable from the outgoing Pakistan ambassador to Washington, based on his conversations with senior-level US State Department officials. It is simply a diplomat’s analysis of the existing views in Washington regarding the Khan-led government.

A file photo shows an anti-US and anti-Israel protest in Karachi | White Star

Imran Khan’s move to weaponise this and whip up nationalist sentiments has dangerously polarised the country. It has not been uncommon in Pakistan’s power game to use the ‘anti-state’ label against political rivals. Almost every political leader in the country has, at one time or the other, been branded a traitor.

But Khan has taken this to a new level. He has declared himself the sole defender of national interests, while painting all his opponents as ‘American agents’.

It is not only the opposition. Journalists and members of the civil society have also been constantly targeted in this ongoing campaign orchestrated by the party’s top leadership. Even social interactions with foreign diplomats have been labelled as anti-state. (Khan’s own recent meeting with a US Congresswoman has been an exception, of course).

Khan is back on the proverbial container, marking the beginning of what he describes as a “freedom struggle” against a “foreign conspiracy of regime change.” He vows to bring down the so-called “imported government”.

The long history of external involvement in Pakistani politics — particularly the decades-long Pak-US relations rollercoaster ride, which has certainly had its ups and downs — has made it easier to whip up anti-American sentiments.

This is what makes the ‘imported government’ narrative such a powerful tool.

The National Security Committee has recently reiterated that there was no foreign conspiracy to topple the Khan-led government. But it hardly matters. PTI supporters and the party leadership have stuck to the narrative.

The distrust towards America strengthens this narrative. Indeed, this distrust has built up over decades. Here we journey back to see why.

DISENCHANTED ALLIES

A 2006 file photo shows US President Bush with President Pervez Musharraf

 at the Oval Office | AFP



The history of US-Pakistan relations is full of paradoxes. After gaining independence, Pakistan decided to join the US-led Western alliance against the Communist bloc. And in 1954, Pakistan and the US signed a Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement. In the same year, Pakistan also joined the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (Seato), a US-sponsored security alliance.

Because of its geostrategic location, Pakistan became an important cog in America’s regional security strategy to contain communism.

Although there was no assurance for Pakistan of the alliance coming to its help against any aggression from its arch-enemy India, the military aid it received from the US helped strengthen its defence. The US financial aid also provided economic stability to the country. In 1955, Pakistan also joined the Baghdad Pact, later known as the Central Treaty Organisation (Cento).

A new cooperation signed between the two states in 1959 was perhaps the most significant up until that time. Under the treaty, the US was required to assist Pakistan if the country was attacked by any regional power. Pakistan’s decision to join the US-led defence pacts was justified on the grounds that the country faced threats from India on its eastern borders and Afghanistan on the west. But it was mainly meant to improve the country’s defence capabilities against India.

The US supplied a wide range of military hardware, including Patton tanks, artillery, helicopters, bombers, high-level long-distance radars, frigates and submarines. Pakistan also received substantial US aid for infrastructure development. On the other hand, the defence pacts allowed the US to set up a secret intelligence base under the cover of a communication centre at Badaber, near Peshawar.

This centre also served as the base for high-level U-2 ‘spy in the sky’ surveillance aircraft for illegal flights over the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Pakistan, however, paid a heavy price for this alliance. It antagonised the Soviet Union. And it also fuelled anti-American sentiments at home.

Then the Sino-Indian War in 1962 drastically changed regional geopolitics. As the US sided with India, it heralded a new period in Pakistan’s relations with China. As Pak-China relations strengthened, there was a steep increase in US military and economic aid to India.

Finally, the 1965 war between India and Pakistan lent a serious blow to Islamabad’s relations with Washington. Instead of helping Pakistan, the US stopped all military assistance to the country. The US action was regarded as a stab in the back.

CHANGING TIDES

Then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif greets visiting US Secretary 

of State John Kerry in 2013 | White Star


The 1971 war brought further Pakistani resentment and US restrictions on Pakistan. A popular feeling of the time was that while the nearby American Sixth Fleet could have intervened in the East Pakistan fighting against India, it did not. This compelled Pakistan to review its foreign and security policy, which was heavily tilted towards the US. There was a realisation among Pakistani policymakers that they could not rely on the US for their nation’s security.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who took over power in the truncated Pakistan after the 1971 war, pulled Pakistan out of the defence pacts. He diversified Pakistan’s foreign policy by improving ties with China and the USSR.

In February 1975, following the Washington visit of then prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the US administration lifted its embargo on the supply of arms to Pakistan.

But the Pakistan-US relationship started to deteriorate once again in 1976, when the Ford administration exerted unprecedented pressure on Pakistan to abandon the negotiations concerning the purchase of a nuclear reprocessing plant from France. In 1979, President Carter cancelled American aid to Pakistan, having successfully pressed France to break this nuclear deal.

Pakistan’s nuclear programme, started by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1975, remained a major point of conflict between Islamabad and Washington. But two key regional developments in 1979 — the Islamic revolution in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — compelled the US to review its policy towards Pakistan. The two erstwhile allies got back together to stop the Soviet advance.

The international response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was sharp and swift. US President Jimmy Carter, reassessing the strategic situation in the region in his State of the Union Address in January 1980, identified Pakistan as a “frontline State in the global struggle against communism.” Setting aside the sanctions imposed on Islamabad for its nuclear programme, the US offered massive military and economic aid to Pakistan.

The Soviet invasion ended the decade-long estrangement between the two erstwhile allies and brought them together to help the Afghan ‘Mujahideen’ fight the occupation forces. Pakistan once again became the linchpin in the West’s battle against communism. The American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) collaborated in conducting the biggest covert war ever in global history.

The Afghan War placed enormous resources at the ISI’s disposal. Weapons provided by the CIA were channelled to Afghan fighters through the ISI.

By the mid-1980s, every dollar given by the CIA was matched by another from Saudi Arabia. The funds, running into several million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to the ISI’s special accounts in Pakistan. The backing of the CIA and the funnelling of the massive amounts of US military aid helped Pakistan expand its defence capabilities. The ISI-CIA covert operations eventually forced the Soviet forces to leave Afghanistan in 1989.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1990 also gave birth to a new world order. The US walked out of the region after the Soviet forces pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989. And Pakistan was no more as important for the US, which had emerged as the world’s sole superpower.

Relations between the two countries went into deep freeze after the US clamped multiple sanctions against Pakistan once again for developing nuclear weapons. More sanctions came after Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in 1998, in response to India’s tests. Pakistan was further punished after the 1999 military takeover of Gen Musharraf.

From being a close ally in the 1980s, Pakistan had become a pariah nation. The sanctions had hurt military to military relations the most, which had been the pivot of the relationship between the two countries.

This marked yet another period of separation between the two Cold War era partners, causing a deep sense of betrayal in Pakistan. During the 1990s, Pakistan suffered banishment from American favours.

From Pakistan’s perspective, the legacy of the country’s relations with the US during the Cold War has been generally negative. The left in Pakistan had always viewed the state’s tilt towards imperial America with hostility, since they saw US support as bolstering dictatorships such as that of Gen Ayub and Gen Zia. But now a similar hostility also began to be expressed within the establishment and by its allied conservatives. A sense of bitterness and distrust towards the US began to pervade Pakistani society. And clearly, this bitterness continues to persist.

AFTER SEPTEMBER 11

The 9/11 attacks again changed the world. Within hours of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers, the Bush administration declared a war against Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. Rarely had the world witnessed such unanimous international support. Nations stood behind President Bush in what he had described as the ‘War on Terror’. A UN Security Council resolution bound all nations to support the US action.

The events of 9/11 also, once again, ended Pakistan’s international isolation.

Gen Musharraf had realised, within hours of the September 11 attacks, that the US would accept nothing short of complete compliance from his government on the US war plans. Denying support did not seem like a viable option. Musharraf was apprehensive that the Pakistani military could be completely destroyed in a confrontation with the world’s greatest superpower. His other fear was that the country’s weak economy would not be able to withstand international sanctions. His greatest concern, however, was about US forces using Indian bases in case of Pakistan’s refusal to cooperate.

And just like that, Pakistan and the US were back together after a decade of estrangement.

Pakistan’s policy volte-face after 9/11 was more of an expediency. Ironies abounded in the new relationship. After having spent the past seven years helping the Taliban, Pakistan was required to help the US dislodge the hardline Islamist government that was seen by Pakistan’s military establishment as critical to the country’s security.

Pakistan’s vast cache of intelligence information on Afghanistan was seen as crucial by the US for taking military action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But the turnaround was not easy.

It was the most difficult moment for Gen Musharraf when, in an address to the nation on September 19, 2001, he tried to explain why he had decided to side with the US in the so-called ‘War on Terror’. He justified his decision to support the US saying it was necessary to save the country’s strategic assets, safeguard the cause of Kashmir and prevent Pakistan from being declared a terrorist state.

Gen Musharraf was, perhaps, more concerned about the reaction within the military than the general public. He had a tough time in convincing his generals of, once again, getting into a partnership with the US. At least four commanders, including the Vice Chief of Army Staff General Muzaffar Usmani, were opposed to abandoning the Taliban. Musharraf had to walk a very difficult tightrope.

A strong argument in support of the change of policy direction was that the US could obliterate Pakistan if it did not cooperate. India had already offered logistic support and use of all their military facilities to the US. And India had even cleared its air base at Farkhor, near Dushanbe in Tajikistan close to the Afghan border, for American forces to operate from. The fear of an American-Indian alliance, that could lead to Pakistan being declared a terrorist state, finally swung the decision.

Nevertheless, antipathy towards the US ran deep in Pakistan. It was the beginning of an extremely uneasy relationship. There was deep distrust of the US.

This distrust was at the very foundation of this relationship. This new phase of the US-Pakistan partnership was seen as a good opportunity to join the international community, but there was also a vote of caution.

It was another war in Afghanistan that became the pivot around which the new US-Pakistan partnership was built. The circumstances of the two unisons were, however, very different. While there was a strong convergence of interest that had bound the two nations in a strategic relationship in the 1980s, the alliance that emerged after 9/11 was more out of expediency and compulsion. Although it was projected as a strategic partnership, in reality it was a transactional relationship from the outset.

While Pakistan’s support was critical to the US’s war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the new partnership brought an end to Pakistan’s international isolation. The removal of multiple sanctions revived the flow of US financial and military aid to Pakistan. It almost felt like the country had returned to 1979, when the Soviet invasion had ended the estrangement between the two erstwhile allies.

AN INCONVENIENT PARTNERSHIP

A 2019 file photo shows US President Donald Trump with then

 Prime Minister Imran Khan in New York | AFP

The post 9/11 US-Pakistan partnership remained full of ironies. While the cooperation between Washington and Islamabad against Al Qaeda remained extremely effective, that understanding was missing when it came to taking action against the Taliban leadership residing in Pakistan’s border regions.

Meanwhile, the sanctuaries in Pakistan and support from their allies among Pakistani Islamist groups helped the Taliban reorganise. Within a few years, the Taliban had turned into a formidable resistance force challenging the occupation forces.

Increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan was one of the reasons for the Pakistani security agencies not acting against the Taliban safe havens on its soil. The Pakistani military establishment viewed the expanding Indian presence in its ‘backyard’ as a serious threat to the country’s own security. The expanding Indian presence in Afghanistan had compounded Islamabad’s fears of being encircled.

Some of Pakistan’s security concerns were legitimate, but the fears of encirclement verged on paranoia. It also resulted in Pakistan’s continuing patronage of some Afghan Taliban factions, such as the Haqqani Network, which it considered a vital tool for countering Indian influence, even at the risk of Islamabad’s relationship with Washington.

Worsening US-Pak relations had also seriously affected America’s war efforts in Afghanistan. A series of incidents in 2011 had brought an already uneasy alliance to a breaking point.

The Raymond Davis episode in January 2011 exposed the CIA’s secret network operating in Pakistan. The scandal revealed the widening trust gap between the two allies. The crisis was deescalated by both sides taking a step back, but the damage had already been done.

The unilateral raid by the US Special Forces on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011, further strained the relations between Washington and Islamabad. The US action on Pakistani soil was seen as a national humiliation. But the fact that the world’s most wanted terrorist was living in a garrison town close to the Pakistan Military Academy had put Pakistan in a very embarrassing position.

Pakistan faced many questions. Was this just an intelligence failure? Or was there anything more to the presence of the Al Qaeda leader in a high security zone?

But the most serious blow to the alliance came on November 29, 2011, when US Air Force jets bombed a Pakistani border post at Salala in the Bajaur tribal region, killing several soldiers. It was an inflection point in the rocky relationship. The Obama administration’s reluctance to even offer an apology to the killing of soldiers of an allied country made things worse.

For seven months, Pakistan closed down the vital ground supply line to Nato forces in Afghanistan. The stalemate was finally broken after Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said the magic word: sorry.

But by now the cracks in the alliance had become irreparable. The Salala incident led to a resetting of the relationship. Now there was not even a pretence of a strategic alignment.

There was nothing much left in the partnership, wrecked by allegations of double games and deceit. Almost all US military aid to Pakistan had been stopped and only a trickle of civilian assistance continued.

Yet, a complete rupture was not a choice for either side. Pakistan was still critical for the US to extricate itself from its longest war. While the illusion of any strategic convergence has been absent for long, the mutual interest in ending the war in Afghanistan kept relations alive.

END OF THE WAR

With the end of America’s war in Afghanistan, the post post-9/11 US-Pakistan relations have come full circle.

There is no indication yet of any major shift in Washington’s policy towards Pakistan. The cold response from the Biden administration and some unnecessary rhetoric from Pakistani leaders has made it difficult to move forward.

Indeed, Khan’s attempts to get Biden on the phone last year yielded no results. And surely, the former prime minister’s insistence on igniting anti-US sentiments has not gone unnoticed internationally.

Nonetheless, for the past several years, Washington has seen Pakistan purely from the Afghan prism. There is no indication that the Biden administration will be deviating from that policy approach.

Meanwhile, changing regional geopolitics have created a new alignment of forces. The growing strategic alliance between the US and India on one side, and the China-Pakistan axis on the other, reflect these emerging geopolitics. Pakistan’s growing strategic relations with China and the escalating tension between Washington and Beijing too cast a shadow over future US-Pak relations.

The changing regional geopolitics and consequent realignment of forces have brought China and Pakistan closer. The cooling of Pakistan’s relations with the US, and the rising tensions with arch-rival India, have given further impetus to Pakistan to lean towards China.

BREAKING A PATTERN

Historically, the engagements between Washington and Islamabad have been narrowly framed, dictated either by short-term security interests or the imperative to deal with a common challenge. Resetting the relationship would need this pattern to be broken.

Pakistan says it seeks to have a broad-based relationship with the US. Now that the US military mission is over, there is a need to build a relationship beyond counterterrorism and Afghanistan.

For Pakistan, the US remains an important trading partner. The US is Pakistan’s largest export market and a major source of foreign remittances. Pakistan certainly needs US support to achieve economic stability. The country also has a growing technology sector that could be developed with US support.

But resetting the relationship will not be easy.

Public opinion in Pakistan about the US is not favourable. This is backed by a decades-long history — a history not only of the volatile relations between the two countries, but how these sour relations have been leveraged within Pakistan for political mileage.

Khan may be the latest politician to decry a foreign conspiracy, but he is far from the first. And in all likelihood, he will not be the last to invoke this tried-and-tested narrative.

The writer is an author and journalist.
He tweets @hidhussain

Published in Dawn, EOS, May 1st, 2022

US interests in Af-Pak now just ‘transactional’. People can fight their own battles

US drone attack that killed al-Qaeda chief al-Zawahiri shows America can still challenge the Taliban and remain a player in the Af-Pak security discourse.

AYESHA SIDDIQA
8 August, 2022 

Opinion
US Special Forces and NATO troops in Afghanistan | Representational image | Commons
Text Size: A- A+


The United States just sent a message to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region and South Asia—it may not have its boots on the ground, but it is still engaged with the region and keeps an eye out for any threat to its security and interests.

Al-Qaeda supremo Ayman al-Zawahiri’s recent killing in Kabul seems to have changed the scene in the region from how it seemed in August 2021, when Washington completely withdrew its forces. Then, there was a sense that the US would lose all its capacity to engage with Afghanistan, which in turn would add to the value of the Taliban. Not that the anxiety caused by the US’ withdrawal doesn’t remain among segments of the Afghan civil society. However, the recent attack on Zawahiri indicates that the US can still challenge the Taliban and remain a player in the Af-Pak security discourse.

Of course, we are reminded of the new pattern of American security planning for the region and, to a large extent, the rest of the world – Washington will not deploy its forces on the ground. It expects countries — and people — to fight their own battles. Of course, resources will be provided depending on which territory is more relevant for American security. Afghanistan no longer falls in that category. However, this does not mean that Washington will not invest in operations related to its own security interests.

Also read: Taliban won’t give up al-Qaeda, not after US killing al-Zawahiri. Kabul’s a safe haven
All that’s in store

Af-Pak is not a priority for the US but the region still being a hub of terror will make Washington keep watching over it. It explains why the US never gave up observing Af-Pak after Osama bin Laden was eliminated in a highly covert operation in Pakistan’s Abbottabad in 2011. I am reminded of the echo at that time, when Zawahiri was still missing, that he would not be too far away from OBL. This means that a search for the al-Qaeda number two was going on for all these years until he was found and killed on 31 July. Surely, Pakistan handing over Zawahiri’s wife and children, who were in its custody in 2019, must have been watched.

This raises the other important point regarding rumours of complicity of regional State and non-State players in the operation. Fingers are pointed at both Pakistan and the Taliban despite reports claiming that it was entirely an American operation or that the drone took off from a base in Kyrgyzstan. Despite Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs categorically denying its country’s involvement or use of air space, this conjecturing has not been put to rest. But, of course, the doubt will remain until some definitive and reliable information comes out from Washington, which may not be very soon. The Zawahiri operation reminds one of similar finger-pointing during the OBL operation. American journalist Seymour Hersh had published a story then, suggesting the involvement of top Pakistani army sources.

Many like India’s Lt. General (retired) Ata Hasnain or prominent Pakistani-American journalist Wajid Ali Syed do not buy into the complicity argument. While Hasnain says that the US could not afford to trust Pakistan, Syed seems to go by the American claim of having developed across-the-horizon (ATH) capability, making Pakistan dispensable. But the story of Pakistan’s involvement is not going to go away mainly because it is essential for both civil and military players in the country.

Given the ongoing political turmoil in the country, former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his supporters would definitely like to believe or spread the rumour that the army chief, Qamar Javed Bajwa, was somehow involved in the operation. The idea is to make Bajwa appear more unpopular among the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) supporters and the General’s army.

However, notwithstanding the negative implications of this story, Bajwa can still benefit from it. US policy may have pivoted towards the Indo-Pacific, but Bajwa can create the impression that he, as Pakistan’s top man, can pull some tricks to engage the Americans.

Indeed, the media’s linking of the Zawahiri attack with General Bajwa’s call to the US State Department, followed by the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) statement suggesting the approval of funds for Pakistan, adds to the General’s credit.

Also Read: Hard-nosed, practical—why India has revived relations with Kabul, and why Taliban is welcoming

A transactional relationship

People would certainly like to believe that the phone call to US Secretary of State Wendy Sherman was made to remind their government of a trade-off. This is the story of the continuing transactional relationship between Pakistan and the US. Throughout the war on terror, al-Qaeda terrorists were caught in exchange for resources. Rawalpindi’s biggest problem is that transactions have become very limited, especially after 2011. To reiterate, the rumour benefits Bajwa indirectly in building up his reputation among the echelons.

Indeed, Pakistan’s possible complicity in a small or big way is a better story compared to the idea that Washington went solo in this operation. Nevertheless, the development is full of problems for Pakistan. If the US went totally independent of Pakistan or had no local help in Afghanistan, it means more problems for Pakistan. The US will now be very unhappy with Sirajuddin Haqqani, who seems to have aided and abetted Ayman al-Zawahiri. The al-Qaeda terrorist was living in a property associated with the Haqqani network.

Though the Taliban issued a statement accusing the US of breaking promises of non-intervention in the Doha Agreement, the fact remains that it is the former that broke the promise of denying their territory to al-Qaeda and Islamic State/Daesh terrorists. The links between the Haqqani Network and Pakistan are a known secret, which means that in case the US punishes this Taliban faction, it would complicate things for Pakistan as well. The rumour will not bode well for the ongoing negotiations between the Pakistani State and the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) that are being conducted with help from the Haqqani Network.

The longer-term lesson of the US drone attack in Kabul is that America still has the capacity to take out terrorist targets in the Af-Pak region. It will eliminate those threatening its peace but maintain a hands-off approach to counter-extremism, which would be a regional problem to solve.

(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)

Pakistan in Crisis After PM Imran Khan Dissolved Parliament & Accused U.S. of Plotting Regime Change

STORY

APRIL 05, 2022

GUESTS
Munizae Jahangir
Pakistani writer and journalist, editor-in-chief of Voicepk.net and a council member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

LINKS
Munizae Jahangir on Twitter
Voicepk.net
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan

Pakistan is facing a constitutional crisis after Prime Minister Imran Khan dissolved the country’s National Assembly and called for new elections in an effort to block an attempt to remove him from power. Khan was facing a no-confidence vote in Parliament that would have unseated him, but his allies blocked the vote from happening. Pakistan’s Supreme Court is now hearing a pivotal case on whether it was within the authority of the speaker of the National Assembly to reject the motion for a vote of no confidence, says Pakistani journalist Munizae Jahangir.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: Pakistan is facing a constitutional crisis after Prime Minister Imran Khan dissolved Pakistan’s National Assembly and called for new elections in an effort to halt an attempt to remove him from power. Opposition MPs were planning to hold a no-confidence vote in Parliament, but Khan’s allies blocked the vote from happening. Opposition lawmakers have accused Imran Khan of carrying out an “open coup against the country and the Constitution.” Pakistan’s Supreme Court is now weighing whether Khan’s moves were legal.

Imran Khan has defended his actions, saying they block what he described as a plot by the United States to remove him from power. This is Imran Khan speaking last week.


PRIME MINISTER IMRAN KHAN: [translated] This is a big conspiracy, not against Imran Khan but against Pakistan itself. Slowly people have started realizing what a big conspiracy has taken place, and it has been hatching since October by all these traitors who have been robbing the country for the past 35 years. They were doing it in league with external forces. Now, let me openly take the name of America. This conspiracy has been carried out in connivance with America. But I want to know: What does America have against me? I have never been anti-American.

AMY GOODMAN: Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, speaking last week. The Biden administration has denied the allegations.

We go now to Islamabad, where we’re joined by Munizae Jahangir, a journalist and host of a political talk show on Pakistan’s leading news network, also editor-in-chief of the digital media platform Voicepk.net. She’s the daughter of the pioneering Pakistani human rights activist and lawyer Asma Jahangir, who died in 2018. Munizae is on the board of the Asma Jahangir Foundation and a council member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

Munizae Jahangir, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s an honor to have you with us. Can you start off by just laying out, especially for an audience not familiar with Pakistani politics, how significant what is happening in Pakistan is right now?

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: Well, firstly, thank you so much for having me on your show. It is a real honor to be here.

Now, to tell you what exactly is happening in Pakistan — and it’s always very difficult to describe to people what is happening in Pakistan — Imran Khan was elected in 2018. He was widely accused by the opposition at that time that he was “selected.” They called him the selected prime minister because it was an accusation that the military had actually brought him in, that they had rigged the election and brought him in.

Now, during the time that he has been in power, there has been very high inflation in Pakistan, 13 to 15%, a double-digit inflation. Unemployment has been on its rise. And what he has really done is, you know, have corruption cases against — lodged corruption cases against most of his opponents. And none of these corruption cases could be, you know, in a way that when they went to court — when the corruption cases went to court, they could not really prove that these people had committed corruption, and therefore, the cases just remain there.

Now, during this time, the opposition got together and got the allies of Imran Khan, Imran Khan’s government, together, as well, because he was not having such a smooth relationship with his allies, and his government was a thin majority cobbled together with different allies. The allies came with the opposition, and they filed a no motion — a vote of no confidence, a motion of vote of no confidence, in the National Assembly. After that, the speaker allowed the vote of no confidence to move forward. But on the day of the voting, the speaker did not appear in the National Assembly, which is our main house — it’s like the Congress — and it was, in fact, the deputy speaker who came in and said all of those who are in the opposition — and there were 198 of them, including the allies — that they have been disloyal to the state of Pakistan.

And they quoted an Article 5, and they quoted — well, it was being widely understood and the prime minister had talked about this cable that had been received by the Pakistani ambassador in Washington, saying that they had a meeting with the U.S. under secretary of state, in which he said that if Imran Khan wins the no-confidence motion, then there will be dire consequences for Pakistan. And therefore, Imran Khan went on and said to the public that there is an American conspiracy against my government, and the person who is behind the Americans’ conspiracy and is with the Americans is, in fact, Nawaz Sharif, his main opponent in the Punjab.

So, after having said that, the Assembly was dissolved by the prime minister. Now the entire issue has gone to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. And the question before them is that whether it was in the jurisdiction of the speaker to, firstly, reject the motion of no confidence — how can he reject the notion of no confidence when it was there to be voted upon, either yes or no? — and, secondly, whether the prime minister in fact enjoyed the confidence of the very house that it dissolved. So, that is really the question before the Supreme Court today.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Munizae Jahangir, I wanted to ask you — in terms of the role of the military, the military in Pakistan has always played an outsized role, often intervening in the political life of the country. If you’re saying that he was perceived as a candidate of the military, where does the military stand right now?

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: Well, it’s very interesting, because one of the things that the opposition kept saying when they were moving the vote of no confidence, and even before they moved the vote of no confidence, they kept saying the allies will come to us, will back us, once the military becomes “neutral.” Now, we do not know whether the military in fact has been neutral or has not been neutral, but it is very certain that those allies, who have always aligned with the military, have now joined the opposition, and the military is now being seen by the opposition as being neutral.

But on the other hand, the courts in our country have a very terrible history. They have always sided with the military. They have been a rubber stamp on all kinds of dictatorship and military intervention in Pakistan, except for the famous Asma Jilani case — you mentioned my mother — where one of the military dictators, Yahya Khan, was declared a usurper, and therefore, whatever came later was considered illegal. Whatever he did his entire rule was considered illegal. Now, that is considered the glorious moment of the Supreme Court. But if you set that aside and you look at the history of the courts in Pakistan, they have traditionally sided with the establishment.

Therefore, all eyes are now on the Supreme Court of what the Supreme Court decides. Whether it will restore the assemblies, before the prime minister dissolved them, and allow the vote of no confidence motion to go through, that is something that we will have to wait and see. But certainly, the Constitution of Pakistan is very clear, which is that the prime minister, who doesn’t have the majority in the house, who has lost the majority in the house, he cannot dissolve the Assembly, because he doesn’t command the majority of the house, in which case there were 198 legislators that went against him, when in fact they only needed 172.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you mentioned the political role of the court. On Monday, Imran Khan named the former Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed for the office of caretaker prime minister. What’s behind that action of his?

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: Well, I think that he has just — this is the outgoing chief justice that he named, and he probably wanted to have some kind of influence with the Supreme Court, and therefore, he mentioned one of them, one of the outgoing Supreme Court judges. I think that is the reason why he named that particular chief justice. And that is how it is being seen here.

But having said that, there has also been talk of a technocratic government in Pakistan, that the politicians will be pushed out and there would be a technocratic government in Pakistan. So, people in Pakistan and politicians in Pakistan are very skeptical of what is really going to happen, whether there will be early elections, whether the assemblies will be restored, whether in fact another setup will come which will be of technocrats, and they will do as the military pleases.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about Pakistan’s relations with Russia? I mean, the Prime Minister Imran Khan met with Vladimir Putin on February 24th in Moscow at the Kremlin on the same day Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine. Talk about the significance of this and the fact that all this is taking place against this backdrop of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: Well, absolutely. That’s one of the things that Prime Minister Imran Khan has said. He has said that “the reason that I am being ousted is because the Americans are upset with the way my country has aligned itself to China, with the way my foreign policy has aligned itself to Russia, and therefore, I am being ousted. And with the collaboration, with the conspiracy of the opposition, the Americans are moving this no-confidence motion.” He even went as far as saying that the dissidents who have deflected from his party to the opposition have met people within the American Embassy. So, he is building that narrative that he is anti-America, that he is pro-Russia, that he’s pro-China, that he’s aligning closer to these powers, and therefore, his country — his government is being voted out.

Now, regarding the meeting, he said something very important, as well. He said that “We had discussed this,” because he’s very close to the military. So, he said, “I had discussed my trip with the military of Pakistan, and they both — the civilian side and the military side both agreed that this was the right time to go to Russia. And after that is when I went to Moscow.” So he says he got the greenlight from the military, in fact, to travel to Moscow at the time that he did.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Yeah, I wanted to ask you, in terms of — last August, after the Taliban overthrew the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan, Imran Khan said that the change in regime had, quote, “broken the shackles of slavery.” What did he mean there? Could you talk a little bit about the tortured relationship and the murky relationship between Pakistan and the Taliban throughout the period of the War in Afghanistan?

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: Well, I think that one of the things that perhaps Imran Khan and the military agree with, and their thinking is around the same, is that they do believe that the Taliban in Afghanistan — and they see them as a legitimate political entity in Afghanistan, and the Americans are obviously seen as invaders. And Imran Khan has always seen it that way, and that now that the Americans have gone and the Taliban have moved in, that the genuine people have moved in and taken control from the Western foreign invaders. And that is why he said that.

So, there has been — I know Pakistan has been accused of having links with the Taliban, and, of course, they have had those links. And now Pakistan is being used to even talk to the Taliban. So, Imran Khan’s reasoning really is that Pakistan is being used to talk to the Taliban and everybody else is also talking to the Taliban, then why should we not say that these are the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan? So I think he is saying it in that context.

But to give you a little bit of a background, Imran Khan has always been accused by his opponents of being called “Taliban Khan,” simply because he has not only supported the Taliban in Afghanistan but also has provided justification for the violence that they have leashed out in our country, in Pakistan. And he is seen to be conservative-minded. He is seen to be somebody who has supported the right-wing agenda in Pakistan. And he’s seen to be somebody who has always talked about the — and more and more, he’s done so more and more — about Islam in the state. So, he’s talked about Islam in politics, and he increasingly talks about Islam in politics. And he refers to all kinds of Islamic injunctions when he’s giving a speech. So, therefore, he is somebody who’s seen to be now more right-wing.

AMY GOODMAN: Last minute we have with you, Munizae, if you can talk about what you predict will happen? The Supreme Court adjourned until Wednesday the hearing to decide the legality of the prime minister’s blocking of the opposition ousting him, a dispute that, of course, has led to political turmoil in your country, in the nuclear-armed Pakistan. Either way it goes, what will happen?

MUNIZAE JAHANGIR: It’s very, very difficult to predict what is going to happen in Pakistan. But having said that — and I would just like to add one more thing. Also, Imran Khan’s views on women are very similar to the views the Taliban have on women. So he does believe most of the things that the Taliban say about women. And we’ve seen, you know, a manifestation. We’ve seen that when he’s given interviews to the Western press, as well.

But coming back to what is going to happen in Pakistan, well, if they follow the law and the Constitution, then what the speaker did, which was throw out the motion for vote of no confidence, would be deemed illegal and unconstitutional, in which case the assemblies will be restored. And we will go back to the situation which was before the 3rd of April, where the vote of no confidence was submitted before the house to be voted upon. That is one scenario.

The second scenario really is that they will take a middle ground, that they will say the speaker, whatever he did was unconstitutional and illegal, but they will move towards early elections, and they will allow the country to have early elections, and not say anything about what will happen to the assemblies.

And, of course, the third is that they say that whatever the speaker did was part of his — was allowed to him under his jurisdiction, and therefore, you know, we move towards elections.

So, either which ways, we are looking at elections in the next couple of months. In Pakistan, there was discussion before the vote of no confidence was thrown out that there is going to be an interim setup. And after that interim setup, there will be a caretaker and then elections. Now, in that interim setup, there would be everybody, all allies, except for Imran Khan’s party. And they would make some electoral reforms that are very necessary to hold free and fair elections in Pakistan, and then move on to a caretaker and then to elections. So, it’s anybody’s guess in what will happen in Pakistan.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Munizae Jahangir, thank you so much for explaining it, journalist and host of a political talk show on Pakistan’s leading news network, also editor-in-chief of the digital media platform Voicepk.net. She also serves on the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.DONATE

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.