Institute of Regional Studies – Islamabadirs.org.pk/images/Regional Brief/0809...

IRS Regional Brief August-December 2008 No. 9

India-Pakistan Peace Process Dr. Shaheen Akhtar Research Fellow

Afghanistan Arshi Saleem Hashmi Research Analyst

Institute of Regional Studies – Islamabad

The Mumbai terrorist attacks

On 26 November, a series of terror attacks in Mumbai rocked the India-Pakistan peace process which was already reeling under into Kabul embassy blast. The incident claimed 183 lives and targeted India’s two luxury hotels and other landmarks across the city. It occurred at a time when Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was on a visit to India to discuss important issues relating to the ongoing dialogue process including Kashmir, the Chenab River water dispute and trade ties.

After his meeting with Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee he sounded very positive: “We have this window of opportunity. We must not let it pass. We have challenges... but I am confident we can convert challenges into opportunities.” He said issues such as demarcating a maritime boundary and bringing down troop levels on the Siachen Glacier were “solvable.”(1) There were also indications from both capitals that a breakthrough was expected after the upcoming meeting on Sir Creek maritime dispute scheduled for 2-3 December in New Delhi. Qureshi also said Pakistan wanted meaningful dialogue on Kashmir to settle this issue through peaceful means.

Mukherjee, however, stressed the issue of terrorism. He told reporters “We have to address the menace of terrorism, which affects society in both countries,” He hoped that anti-terror cooperation panel would “show concrete results.” He said, that was a challenge which should be fought jointly.

Against this backdrop, Mumbai attacks pushed peace process to the backburner, while war clouds began to dominate India-Pakistan relations. International and bilateral efforts to defuse the crisis had apparently effected a positive turn towards the end of December amidst uncertainty and many imponderables that may wreck the peace process.

Meanwhile, an aggressive diplomatic offensive that India launched after the attacks for which it has blamed elements inside Pakistan is going on with full vigour. India is making all-out effort to garner the international community’s support to put further pressure on Pakistan to dismantle what it calls infrastructure of terror in Pakistan.

Indian reaction: Blame game begins

Immediately after the Mumbai incident, India put dialogue with Pakistan on the hold and handed over a list of 20 people to Pakistan allegedly involved in terror incidents in India. India did not blame the civilian government in Pakistan for being involved in the incidents but accused Lashkar-e-Tayba, (LeT) for perpetrating the attacks. In a televised address, on 27 November, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh blamed militant groups based in India’s neighbours, a thinly veiled reference to Pakistan, for the act. He warned: India will take up "strongly with our neighbours that the use of their territory for launching attacks on us will not be tolerated and that there would be a cost if suitable measures are not taken by them."(2) Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee held 'some elements in Pakistan are responsible’(3) for the attacks while an Indian army Major General, R K Hooda, leading the military operation to flush out the extremists, blamed the attacks on the Pakistan army.

Reacting to the incident, India also postponed secretary-level talks on trade and Sir Creek and called off a planned cricket tour of Pakistan. The meeting of India-Pakistan Joint Commission

The India-Pakistan Peace Process August-December 2008 Dr. Shaheen Akhtar

IRS Regional Brief

http://www.irs.org.pk/PublRegionalBrief.htm

2

on Environment was also called off. Other meetings put indefinitely on the hold are those between the defence secretaries on Siachen and water secretaries, the commerce secretaries and the culture secretaries. India tightened visa procedures for Pakistani nationals with processing time for visa applications increased from 15 to 30 days. A new visa form has also been introduced, effective from 15 December. India also suspended the much hyped cross-Line of Control (LoC) trade between the two sides of Kashmir. A local news agency reported that on 3 December, the Indian army refused to open the gates at Chakan da Bagh on Poonch-Rawakalot road in IHK.(4)

India blamed a Pakistani based outfit, the Lashkar-e-Tayba for the attacks and called on Pakistan to crack down on the militant groups allegedly operating out of Pakistan. Even before the security forces’ operation was over, on 28 November, the Maharashtra police investigators stated they had evidence that operatives of the “LeT carried out the fidayeen-squad attacks” in Mumbai.(5) On 9 December 2008, the Mumbai police released the names, hometown and identification of nine terrorists involved in the attacks — all belonging to Pakistan. An unidentified official said the information was based on the interrogation of the only terrorist captured alive, Mohammad Ajmal Amir “Khasab.”(6) Lashkar-i-Tayba however denied any involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

On December 1, India handed over two demarches to Pakistan. The first one was issued to Pakistan’s High Commissioner in New Delhi, Shahid Malik, by the Indian External Affairs Ministry, while the second one was delivered at the Foreign Office by Indian High Commissioner Satyabrata Pal in Islamabad. In the first demarche, India accused “elements from Pakistan” of carrying out the terrorist attack in Mumbai and said it expected Islamabad to “match its sentiments with deeds by taking stern action against the groups that could have been involved in the attack.”(7) The second demarche was more specific and sought the extradition of three wanted people — Maulana Masood Azhar, Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim. It also urged action against the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD).

India upped the diplomatic ante arguing that the attacks be treated as part of the global war on terrorism which required global response. India put in a formal request to the UN Security Council (UNSC) seeking a ban on the Jamaat-ud-Dawaah (JuD). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in a speech in the Parliament on 12 December called Pakistan “the epicentre of terrorism” and said the international community must deal with the problem. “We have to galvanise the international community to deal with the epicentre of terrorism, which is located in Pakistan.” He declared, India had exercised “the utmost restraint so far” but added that it should not be “misconstrued” as a sign of weakness. He observed that India “cannot be satisfied with mere assurances on an end to terror emanating from Pakistan.” “We have noted the reported steps taken by Pakistan but clearly much more needs to be done.” He stressed that “the infrastructure of terrorism” in Pakistan must be dismantled.(8)

India turned on the heat further by asking Pakistan to follow up on its promises with action, even as it ruled out military action for the time being. On 16 December, Pranab Mukherjee said Pakistan should fulfil its commitment on not allowing its territory being used for terrorist activities against India. He said India wanted the assurances, given twice in the past at the highest level, to be fulfilled with the “terrorist infrastructure dismantled”. He added, “words must be followed by action.”(9) On 17 December, he asked Pakistan to implement in the letter and spirit of the UN Security Council resolution, imposing sanctions on the Jamaat-ud-Dawaa, and declaring its four top leaders terrorists.(10)

To increase diplomatic pressure on Pakistan, on 19 December, Pranab Mukherjee in his message to the international conference on “Sub-regionalism Approach to Regional Integration in South Asia: Prospects and Opportunities” warned that India would “consider all options” if Pakistan failed to deliver on its promise of not supporting terror activities. He stated: “Terrorism remains a scourge for our region. If a country cannot keep the assurances that it has given, then it


3

obliges us to consider the entire range of options that exist to protect our interests and people from this menace.”(11) He also hinted that the state agencies of Pakistan might have provided assistance to the terrorists, whom he described as non-state actors, in carrying out the attack. Mukherjee said: “The infrastructure of terror remained unchallenged in Pakistan and so did the logistical support to anti-Indian terrorists from multiple hands due to emergence of multiple centres of power.”(12)

On 21 December, stepping up the pressure on Pakistan further, Mukherjee said Islamabad had been provided enough evidence regarding the Mumbai attacks and now the neighbouring nation must deliver results by acting against the terrorists who masterminded the attacks. He demanded that Pakistan pursue the evidence and take action against terrorists under their country’s law and stop use of their soil for subversive activities against India.(13) Congress president Sonia Gandhi also adopted a belligerent tone. On 22 December, addressing an election rally in IHK she asked Islamabad to crack down heavily on those who had been attacking India. “If that does not happen, we have the capability to give a befitting reply.” She added, “Our desire for having peace should not be treated as our weakness.”(14)

In the last week of December, India continued building up diplomatic pressure on Pakistan, insisting that the later was not doing enough in bringing the perpetrators of the attacks to justice. Simultaneously, New Delhi heightened its war preparedness asserting that it was keeping all options open. Ironically, India did not even bother to officially respond to the two specific proposals made by Pakistan to set up a joint commission co-chaired by the National Security Advisers of the two countries to assist in investigation of the Mumbai attacks and to send a high-level political delegation to New Delhi to defuse the tension. The proposals were, however, welcomed by the international community but ignored by India.(15)

Internal dimension

The Mumbai attacks have an inextricable internal dimension which not only raised eyebrows in India but also led to diversionary tactics by the Indian officials backed by the Indian media, lambasting Pakistan for its perceived connection with the alleged terrorists responsible for the attacks. The incident was the worst ever terror attack in India. The two luxury hotels, Taj Mahal and Oberio, and a Jewish centre, Nariman House, were the main targets of the attacks. It was a sophisticated and well-planned attack and the security forces operation went on for well over 60 hours. Those killed included 22 foreigners, two NSG commandoes, 15 Maharashtra police personnel, one RPF constable and two Home Guards. Initially, an organisation calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen claimed the responsibility for the attack.

The incident implied utter intelligence failure. An Indian intelligence report claimed that the terrorists who attacked Mumbai came via the sea route from Karachi in Pakistan.(16) Chief Minister of Maharashtra Vilasrao Deshmukh also endorsed that the terrorist came by boats.(17) No one — police, intelligence services, RAW or ATS or CBI — had the slightest inkling of what was afoot. All systems failed. The Navy chief, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, admitted that it was a “systemic failure.”(18) Ironically, no action was taken to pre-empt the attack despite the fact that the US passed on credible intelligence to India on 18 November that a terrorist assault was likely from the sea, and two five-star hotels were to be targeted. As all of India’s intelligence agencies failed to prevent the attacks, the UPA government in New Delhi, facing a barrage of internal criticism over intelligence failures, security lapses and an inability to bring the situation in Mumbai under control even 60 hours after the attacks, launched a concerted campaign to point fingers at Pakistan, hoping in this way to deflect the criticism and anger directed its own way, from citizens and from its media.

The killing of Maharashtra Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) chief Hemant Karkare along with two other high police officials, in mysterious circumstances also raised eyebrows. Karkare had arrested a serving Indian Army officer, Lt Col Purohit, for terrorist attacks and was already


4

under death threats from Hindu rightwing extremists. He was also probing the Malegaon bomb blast case in which emerging evidence had led the police to arrest Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and two others and subsequently six other people including two army officers, one serving Lt Col Purohit, and the other retired Major. The ATS believed that a couple of top Hindutva leaders and right-wing politicians might be involved in the blast.(19) Union Minister for Minorities Affairs Abdul Rahman Antulay, a former chief minister of Maharashtra, has demanded an inquiry into the cover-up.

With the upcoming general elections in India and the fact that some state elections were already underway when the attacks took place also shaped the response of main opposition Hindu nationality Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Initially, the BJP as well as other parties extended support to the Manmohan Singh government in what they all described as a grave moment for the nation. However, very soon the incompetence of the government and its intelligence agencies came under severe criticism and the BJP tried to make political mileage out of it. As a result Union Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, the chief minister of Maharashtra had to step down.

The BJP soon changed its tack and started putting pressure on the Congress to act tough with Pakistan. The senior BJP leader. L K Advani, and another leader Yashwant Sinha suggested that the Indian government call off composite dialogue with Pakistan.(20) Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi advised the Centre to give a “fitting reply” to Pakistan, which “has already declared a war against India” through its terror attack on Mumbai.(21) BJP’s Gopinath Munde demanded bombing of the terrorist training camps in Pakistan. BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prashad demanded that the ISI should be declared a terrorist outfit.(22) Besides, other Hindu right-wing outfits leaders like Shiv Sena’s chief Bal Thackeray urged the government to attack Pakistan without warning.(23) On 12 December the head of India’s right-wing Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS, National Volunteers Corps) warned that a nuclear war with Pakistan could become inevitable if peaceful means failed to rein in terrorism and voiced the chilling prospect of a Third World War breaking out, which he felt might cleanse the world of evil.(24)

The Mumbai attacks plunged the media in India into the dangerous, old trap in which nationalism trumps responsible reporting. Pop culture personalities and hawkish experts flashed across television screens egging on the Indian government to carry out “surgical,” “pre-emptive” strikes against Pakistan in order to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure there.(25) One retired Indian general advised scrapping the Indus Waters Treaty to turn Pakistan into a desert. With the Indian media turning jingoistic and the public outrage riding high, and the general elections round the corner, the Manmohan Singh government stepped up its tirade against Pakistan.

Pakistan’s response

President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani condemned the Mumbai terrorist attacks in strongest possible terms. Zardari described it as a “detestable act” while Gilani termed them “heinous acts of terrorism”.(26) In their separate condolence messages addressed to their Indian counterparts, they expressed shock and grief over the loss of lives in the attacks. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, while in New Delhi expressed grief and described the attacks as a “horrendous tragedy.” He, however, cautioned India not to “jump to the conclusion” and avoid “knee-jerk” articulations. He cited the Samjhota Express case when too, Pakistan was accused while investigation revealed that of a serving officer of the Indian Army Lt Colonel P.S. Prohet, was involved in the carnage. Lashkar-i-Tayba, the prime suspect in the incidents denied any involvement in the attacks in Mumbai and strongly condemned the incident.(27)

Pakistan offered full cooperation to India in tracking down the culprits in Mumbai. Addressing the media in Chandigarh, India, Qureshi offered a direct hotline between the intelligence chiefs of the two countries so they could share information and cooperate with each other in a more effective manner and stressed the need for strengthening the joint anti-terror


5

mechanism to combat the menace.(28) Islamabad also offered that a joint commission investigate the incident. Briefing envoys in Islamabad on 3 December, Qureshi again offered to set up a “joint investigating mechanism” which could be headed by the National Security Advisers of both countries.(29)

Pakistan reaffirmed its resolve that it would not allow its territory to be used for any act of terrorism. Pakistan maintained that it would act on any evidence that was presented to the government. In an interview to Karan Thapar for The Devils Advocate programme Zardari said “if evidence points to any group in my country, I shall take the strictest action”.(30) On 1 December, he again offered unconditional cooperation to New Delhi in investigating the Mumbai attacks after the Indian government formally accused elements in Pakistan of being involved in the incident. The Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) that met on 9 December reiterated Pakistan’s resolve not to allow its soil to be used for any kind of terrorist activity anywhere in the region or the world. It also renewed the offer of full cooperation to India, including intelligence sharing and assistance in investigation as well as setting up of a joint investigation commission.(31)

Pakistan maintained that the Mumbai attackers were non-state actors who have no links with Pakistan’s external intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). President Zardari in his interview with Karan Thapar said: “We need to look at it as [an] action of non-state actors.”(32) In another interview with Newsweek on 14 December he asserted that the ISI had no links with the banned Lashkar-e-Tayba (LeT) accused of the attacks.(33) This position was maintained by top political leadership and high officials of Pakistan.

Pakistan urged India to provide solid evidence before levelling any baseless allegations against Pakistan. Islamabad assured New Delhi and the world of cooperation in investigations into the Mumbai attacks if provided credible evidence. Simultaneously, it also initiated its own internal investigation. On 9 December, the Indian High Commission in Islamabad was told the government had launched investigations into claims that Pakistan was “involved” in the Mumbai terror attacks. Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir underscored that to push the probe forward, “we require detailed information and evidence”. He reiterated a suggestion for joint investigations and proposed that a high-level delegation from Pakistan visit New Delhi as soon as possible.(34) Similarly, Shah Mehmud Qureshi asserted on 13 December that Pakistan’s investigation could not proceed beyond a certain point without provision of credible information and evidence. The Director of Interpol also stated that like Pakistan, he too had received no evidence from the Indians about the involvement of Pakistani elements in the Mumbai attack.

On 9 December, Pakistan security forces launched a raid on Lashkar-e-Tayba banned in the country and arrested its senior leader Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi besides 12 other activists. On 10 December, a United Nations Al-Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee under UN Security Council Resolution 1267 banned Jamaat-ud-Daawa, al-Rashid Trust and al-Akhtar Trust. The Committee also added four leaders of JuD to a list of people and groups facing sanctions for their ties to Al-Qaeda or Taliban including a freeze in their assets and travel ban. They included Hafiz Saeed, group’s chief, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, the group’s operational chief; Haji Muhammad Ashraf, its chief of finance, and Indian-born Mahmoud Mohammad Ahmed Bahaziq, described as a financer of the group who served as its chief in Saudi Arabia. On 12 December, in the wake of UNSC resolution Pakistan launched a countrywide crackdown on the JuD.(35) Police shut down its offices throughout the country and arrested scores of operatives. Hafiz Saeed was put under house arrest.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said Pakistan would abide by the UN resolution, fulfilling its international obligations. He also observed that Islamabad was taking its own action against groups and people put on a UN terrorist list. However, he pointed out that India had yet to supply any hard evidence of Pakistani links to the Mumbai attacks. Gilani reiterated Pakistan’s position that anyone caught in the country would be tried there and suspects wouldn’t be handed over to India. He also underscored: “We will go according to our own law.” He also set out


6

plans to snap links between Islamic charities and militant groups. He said charitable trusts and schools would be overhauled by the government, new boards of directors formed and their work would be regularly monitored.(36)

President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani underscored that all the actions against the banned militant outfits would be taken under the country’s laws and no Pakistani citizens would be handed over to India or to any other country and they would be tried in the country’s courts of law.(37) Two days after the Indian demarche Zardari in “Larry King Live” programme on CNN stated that Mumbai terror strikes were executed by “stateless actors.” “If we had proof, we would try them in our courts. We would try them in our land and we would sentence them.”(38)

Pakistan also cautioned that peace process should not be allowed to be derailed by Mumbai attacks. Gilani in a speech to European ambassadors said. “While the terrorists may try to derail the peace process between Pakistan and India, we should not allow them to succeed in their nefarious designs,”(39) Pakistan, however, asserted its right to protect its territorial integrity and respond to any Indian threat. On 3 December, a joint resolution of the All Parties Conference (APC), talked of the defence of Pakistan’s honour and dignity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and expressed support for the armed forces in defending the country’s security. The resolution condemned “unsubstantiated” allegations against Pakistan and said it wanted good relations with India “on the basis of settlement of all outstanding disputes.”(40)

Responding to Indian threats, on 22 December, Pakistani political and military leadership made it clear that they were alive to the threat and had the right to defence. Shah Mehmood Qureshi told reporters that Pakistani government and armed forces were fully alive to the situation and had the capability and the right to defend the country and counter aggression, if war was imposed.(41) However, he stressed the futility of war and called for defusing tensions instead of escalating the situation. He said: “It is easy to talk emotionally, but at this time, the whole region needs to act with wisdom and not passion.” He pointed out that “wise people in India believe that the two countries should not suffer the agony of war because of few unwise elements”.... “War cannot offer any solution and the future of both countries cannot be put at stake due to such elements.”(42)

With belligerent Indian statements of ‘keeping all options open’ getting louder, Pakistan also got into defence readiness. On 23 December, Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani apprised the President of the operational preparedness of the armed forces. He observed: “the armed forces are fully prepared to meet any eventuality, as my men are ready to sacrifice for their country.” He also warned that Pakistan armed forces would give a matching response within a few minutes if India resorted to any surgical strike inside Pakistan.(43) President Asif Ali Zardari underscored that Pakistan wanted peaceful and cordial relations with all its neighbours, but the threatening statements of Indian leadership were creating an atmosphere of aggression and harming the regional environment. He underlined: “We do not want any war with India, as that would prove detrimental to both our nations,” but “we have the right to defend our borders in case of any aggression.” (44)

On 24 December, Pakistan’s National Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the Mumbai attacks. But it asked the international community “to ensure that India also dismantles its terror networks affecting peace in the region and stop[s] regional destabilisation moves.” It urged India to “stop hostile propaganda against Pakistan that seeks to cover their intelligence failures” and to end “activities [that] do not serve the cause of peace in the region.” The resolution condemned India’s “unsubstantiated allegations levelled in haste against Pakistan.” The resolution said Pakistan is “united and stands ready to defend its honour and dignity as well as sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity” and said the nation and the armed forces “shall together defend” the country’s security “at all costs.”(45) In the


7

Senate, debate on national security saw members across party lines expressing support for the government and the country’s armed forces against “any kind of aggression” by India.(46)

In addition, President Zardari while speaking at a cadet college in Sindh pledged that the Pakistani nation would defend itself “till the last drop of our blood.” He declared: “Freedom is the country’s ideology and being an independent state its inhabitants will never compromise on the sovereignty of the homeland.”(47) Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi expressed the hope that India would not commit the mistake of carrying out surgical strikes. But “if war is imposed, we will respond to it like a brave nation.” ... “We will be compelled to respond if it happens.”(48) He expressed Pakistan’s desire for peace but pointed out that “contrary to our reasonable, cooperative and non-aggressive attitude, some elements from India were issuing provocative statements.” Qureshi said the nation stood united and knew how to defend the geographical boundaries of the motherland. “We should not be complacent. Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst.” Prime Minsiter Yousuf Raza Gilani ruled out war but maintained that Indian government was trying to find a “scapegoat” to cover up the intelligence failure behind the Mumbai terror attack.(49) PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif in an exclusive interview with Nawa-i-Waqt regretted Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukerjee’s statements saying New Delhi had all options open and maintained “Indian threats are irresponsible.”(50)

Domestic pressure also started mounting in Pakistan. The leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami lashed out against the measures taken against the Jamaat-ud-Daawa and defended it as well as other 'jihadi' forces.(51) The Pakistani media that so far had adopted a sober and mature tone also got into nationalistic mould leading to an aggressive media war between the two countries.

International efforts to defuse crisis

Fearing the emergence of a grave crisis in Indo-Pak relations in the wake of Mumbai terrorist attacks, the US, UK, China and other world players remained in constant touch with Islamabad and New Delhi to avert any possible confrontation between the nuclear neighbours.

The US tried to bring down the pitch by counselling restraint to a belligerent New Delhi and cooperation to a rather harassed Islamabad. Washington expressed strong solidarity with New Delhi and offered full assistance including sending security experts to investigate the attacks.

On 2 December, US President-elect Barack Obama’s also expressed solidarity with India and suggested that New Delhi had the “right to protect itself.”(52) However, he emphasised on the evidence: “I think it is important for us to let the investigators do their job in making a determination in terms of who was responsible for carrying out these heinous acts.” But he assured India: “I can tell you that my administration will remain steadfast in support to India’s effort to catch the perpetrators of this terrible act and bring them to justice, and I will expect that the world community will feel the same way.”

The Bush administration sent senior US officials – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Affairs Richard Boucher, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen — to the region urging India to exercise restraint and counselling Pakistan to cooperate with India in investigations. The US officials maintained that there was still no evidence that Pakistan’s government had a hand in the operation, “but there’s very little doubt that LeT is responsible.” At the same time they urged both sides to exercise retraint. In her visit to New Delhi on 3 December, Condoleezza Rice offered India full cooperation and promised to persuade Pakistan to take “very direct and tough action.” She assured India that the US would work “very closely” to bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice and prevent further strikes of this kind. Even if non-state actors were involved, it was Pakistan’s responsibility to take action if the terrorists were based on its territory. However, she wanted Indian response to be “limited to arresting the culprits and ensuring that no further attack took place.” In response to a question whether the terror attacks warranted Indian military


8

strikes, she wanted New Delhi’s response to be judged by its effectiveness which avoids “unintended consequences.”(53)

In her visit to Islamabad, on 4 December, Condoleezza Rice urged the Pakistani leadership to take “robust” and “quick” action against those involved in terrorism. She also urged Pakistan to take a hard line on terrorism. “The global threat of extremism and terrorism has to be met by all states, taking a very tough and hard line,”(54) She is reported to have told Pakistan that there is “irrefutable evidence” of involvement of elements in the country in the Mumbai attacks and that it needed to act urgently and effectively to avert a strong international response.(55) However, publicly she stated that Pakistan government is “focussed” and “committed” to rooting out terrorist elements. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, visited Islamabad to push the Pakistan government to cooperate with India in getting to the bottom of the Mumbai attacks. On 4 December, the White House said that the US would stay engaged with Pakistan until investigation into terrorist attacks in Mumbai came to the conclusion it expected. At the State Department, deputy spokesman Robert Wood said it was important for Pakistan to do “everything it can, in its power, to cooperate with this investigation and help all of us bring to justice these perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks.”(56) On 3 December, Director of US National Intelligence Mike McConnell directly blamed Lashkar-i-Tayba for the Mumbai attacks, increasing pressure on Pakistan to eliminate the group that the US spy chief said was also responsible for other terrorist attacks inside India.(57)

The US stepped up pressure on Pakistan in the wake of New Delhi’s demands that Pakistan was not doing enough to act against the perpetrators of the attacks, but continued to urge India to exercise restraint. On 8 December, Condoleezza Rice told Fox News that there was evidence of involvement “somehow” on Pakistan soil in the Mumbai terror attacks and pressed Islamabad to act quickly to arrest suspects to ensure there were no “follow-on attacks.” However, she also advised India to exercise restraint so as not to make the situation “worse.” “I think we do believe that there was – there is evidence of involvement somehow on Pakistani soil...even if these were non-state actors, which I believe they were – non-state actors operating on Pakistani soil. It is still Pakistan’s responsibility to respond.”(58)

In another statement, Condoleezza Rice warned Pakistan it must tackle terror, or be consumed by it. On 12 December, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte while supporting Pakistan’s war on terror policies conveyed assurance that India would not indulge in any military adventurism as long as Pakistan maintained verifiable commitment in action against proscribed groups that could have been involved in subversive activities in India.(59) Admiral Mike Mullen made a second trip to Pakistan and made it clear during his meetings with key leaders that more needed to be done to “satisfy” India.(60) On 22 December Adm Mullen met General Kiyani and according to Nawa-i-Waqat/The Nation pressed hard upon the top military brass at the GHQ not to retaliate in case of expected Indian airstrikes. It was reported that Indian Air Force intended to hit certain targets in Lahore and Azad Kashmir during the “next 24 hours” in the same way as the US Air Force was doing in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the sources confided. According to sources Pakistan military leadership refused to accept US pressure and deployed F-7 fighter jets at the Lahore airbase which are fully capable of not only intercepting Indian strikes but also counter-attacking effectively. All the airforce stations were put on high alert and the military leadership made it clear to the US that in case of Indian attack, Pakistan would at once discontinue logistic support to US forces (in Afghanistan) and shift its army from the western border to the eastern front.(61)

The US opposed any military strike against Pakistan or declaring it a terrorist state. Senator John McCain, who led a delegation of US senators comprising Joe Lieberman and Lindsay O Graham to the region and had advocated using military power in the US-led war against terror, said “no” when asked whether repeated terror attacks on India meant that New Delhi should follow the US and attack Pakistan.(62) On 5 December, the White House refused to


9

support calls for punitive actions against Pakistan, insisting that the best way to resolve the current crisis was to stay engaged with both India and Pakistan.(63) On 13 December, after the UNSC declared JuD a terrorist outfit, the US State Department said that neither the United States nor the United Nations had ever considered declaring Pakistan a terrorist state.(64)

On Dec 26, amidst war cries from India, the White House urged both sides to show restraint. Islamabad had cancelled leave for operational armed forces personnel and redeployed troops along the Indian border. US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters at the White House: “We hope that both sides will avoid taking steps that will unnecessarily raise tensions during these already tense times.”… “We continue to be in close contact with both countries to urge closer cooperation in investigating the Mumbai attacks and in fighting terrorism generally.”(65) US intelligence officials, meanwhile, dismissed the possibility of yet another India-Pakistan war. They told reporters they had not noticed any major troop deployment on either side of the border. (66) President-elect Barack Obama in an interview with NBC News Channel, also vowed to build a “close effective” strategic partnership with Pakistan as a way to curb violent extremism as he underscored that the US could not afford to look at Afghanistan in isolation but as part of a “regional problem including Pakistan, India, Kashmir and Iran.”(67)

Britain too came forward to defuse the crisis. Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited Pakistan on 14 December and urged Islamabad to take action against terrorists, as three-quarters of the most serious terror plots investigated by British authorities had links to al-Qaeda in Pakistan. President Zardari assured him that the Pakistan government would take action against those found involved in the Mumbai attacks.(68) Brown also proposed “a series of measures that include the re-invigoration of mechanisms for dialogue and consultation.” He also asked both Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Zardari if they would allow British police to interrogate suspects of the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Pakistan turned down the request saying it will not hand over any of its nationals to a foreign country and will act according to the country's own laws.(69) Brown said his government would work with Pakistan to make sure that terrorists are denied safe havens in Pakistan. In this connection he announced a £6 million programme to tackle the causes of radicalisation and to strengthen the democratic institutions of Pakistan. He described it as the most comprehensive anti-terrorism programme Britain has signed with any country.

China has been the other major international player that stepped in to de-escalate the situation. Beijing contacted both sides and openly counselled against escalating a war of words into a military conflict. It even reportedly offered to be on stand-by for any diplomatic and economic help that Islamabad may need if things get worse. China also assured Pakistan of moral, financial and material support in tackling the Mumbai fallout. In a message, the Chinese government said that it would assist Pakistan in any situation to overcome problems and challenges. Sources close to President Zardari said the Chinese leadership was in constant touch with Pakistan to know the nature of assistance the latter required and ensure its immediate availability.(70)

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Qin Gang urged India and Pakistan to maintain calm and to work together to investigate the “cause” of the terror attack on Mumbai and identify its mastermind. “We hope to see the improvement of Indian-Pakistani relations.”(71) Qin said, the identity of the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks “awaited further investigation by concerned countries.” He called on both sides to “work together through peaceful consultations to investigate the cause of the attacks and combat terrorism.” … “We hope the region will maintain its peace and stability,” Qin said that the improvement and development of the relationship between India and Pakistan, both important nations in South Asia, would help regional peace and stability. China would, as always, support efforts by both countries to improve bilateral relations and safeguard regional peace. He underscored that China had strongly denounced the Mumbai


10

attacks. “We agree that the international community should cooperate to fight terrorism.” On 26 December, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi telephoned Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and called for peace and stability in South Asia emphasising that the escalation of tensions was not in the interest of either India or Pakistan.(72)

Iran and Saudi Arabia also tried to bring down the temperature in the subcontinent. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki spoke to Indian and Pakistan foreign ministers, urging de-escalation of the crisis. He urged India to show calm and restraint. Iran maintained that instability in South Asia would affect the whole region and beyond.(73) Manmohan Singh also spoke to President Ahmednijad and asked him to pressure Islamabad to do more to end cross-border terrorism. The Iranian President urged India and Pakistan to adopt coordinated measures to fight terrorism in the region, while warning them against any action that would have dire consequences for regional countries.(74)

Saudi Arabia also stepped in to defuse the situation. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal visited New Delhi and held talks with Pranab Mukherjee who impressed upon Prince Faisal the need for Riyadh to use its influence on Pakistan to ensure that those behind Mumbai attacks were brought to justice at the earliest. Prince Faisal asserted: “Terrorism is a cancer, we need to cut it out.” He called for the United Nations to set up an international body to deal with Mumbai-like terror attacks. Mukherjee said “terrorism was not an issue between India and Pakistan but a global menace” which should “be dealt with by joint action among all countries.”(75)

The UN also tried to defuse India — Pakistan tension. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the attacks in Mumbai and appealed to Pakistan and India to resolve all outstanding issues through dialogue. In his year-end press conference at UN HQ in New York he stated: ‘They are two big neighbouring countries and they should maintain and improve their relationship through continuous composite dialogue which they have initiated, through mutual respect and understanding.” At the same time, he said that the view of the international community and the UN was very clear that terrorism could not be justified under any circumstances, and stressed the need for all countries to fight the menace unitedly. He added that ‘peace between the two countries will have great implications not only in the Sub-continent, but also throughout the world.”(76)

The looming War Clouds

India, unlike in 2001-2002 when it mobilised its ground forces on the borders, opted for a strategy of diplomatic compellence rather than a military compellence though military threat was kept alive so as to boost diplomatic pressure. This was quite visible throughout the crisis in November and December.

Although Indian and Pakistani political and military leadership ruled out war, yet threats were exchanged accompanied by some posturing and signalling. In the beginning of the crisis Pranab Mukherjee ruled out military option and the Indian defence establishment denied reports that the Indian army was being deployed on the international border with Pakistan, or combat aircraft squadrons were being reached for an attack at any location.(77) However, India asserted its right to protect its territorial integrity. New Delhi also hinted that it might be compelled to take military action against terror networks and training facilities in Pakistan. On 3 December, Mukherjee told journalists, every sovereign nation has the right to protect its territorial integrity and take action as it saw fit. He, however, cautioned against misinterpreting his observation to mean military action.(78)

Tension was however, heightened when on 13 December, Indian warplanes crossed the border into Pakistan’s airspace, over the Azad Kashmir and Lahore sectors. PAF fighters, already in the air as part of Air Defence Alert mission, chased out the intruders. While both New Delhi and Islamabad put the incident down to a “mistake”, the fact that the incursions happened


11

within 24 hours in two separate sectors makes the official explanation not very convincing. The incident raised the fear of a surgical strikes by India as tension was already running high. Defence analysts in Pakistan believed that the violations were deliberate. The PAF spokesperson observed that that the IAF wanted to check the readiness of PAF. At the same time, India also tried to deliver a clear warning to Pakistan, further adding to the pressure on it.(79) Later, PAF planes scrambled over Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Lahore in a show of increased vigilance. Similarly, on 14 December the Pakistan Army confirmed an unusual movement of medium and heavy military artillery vehicles from the cantonment area of Lahore to north of Punjab through the Motorway but the ISPR maintained it was only for winter exercises.(80)

On 16 December, Indian Defence Minister A. K Antony said: "We are not planning any military action... but at the same time unless Pakistan takes action against those terrorists who are operating from their soil against India and also against all those who are behind the Mumbai terrorist attack, things will not be normal."(81) He also denied that India was planning to call off the more than five-year-old ceasefire along the LoC. Similarly, on 17 December, the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad conveyed on behalf of his government a categorical assurance to the government of Pakistan that it had no intention of taking any military action in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Mumbai.(82)

On 22 December, India, urged the international community to press Pakistan to weed out from its soil runaway terrorists otherwise it would take action. Briefing Indian ambassadors from different world capitals, Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said: “We have so far acted with utmost restraint and are hopeful that the international community will use its influence to urge Pakistani government to take effective action.”(83) The same day, India’s top military leadership and defence and foreign ministers discussed the security situation and defence preparedness of the armed forces. They discussed all options with an audit of pros and cons of each possible scenario. A source revealed: “The option of cross-border surgical strikes has not been abandoned. The armed forces, on their part, are maintaining a high-level of alertness to meet any eventuality, as they have been directed.”(84) India also reportedly stepped up vigil along the Rajashtan border.(85) On 24 December, Indian Army chief General Deepak Kapoor rushed to Siachen Glacier and forward areas in Jammu and Kashmir to check the operational preparedness of the troops while both Indian and Pakistani fighter jets continued surveillance flights along the border.(86) The IAF also reportedly carried out precision bombing practice runs to prepare itself for any eventuality.(87) Chief of it’s Western Air Command Air Vice Marshall P. K. Barbora claimed that his command has identified 5,000 targets in Pakistan.(88)

Pakistan took Mukherjee’s statement seriously and asserted that it would counter any aggression. On 22 December, Pakistan Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani made it clear to the US that Pakistan would defend itself tooth and nail should India impose a war.(89) Federal Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar however, said that nuclear weapons would not be used in case of a war and that the armed forces of Pakistan had all the potential to defend the country if India tried to thrust war upon it.(90) Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani also assured the nation of full preparedness of the government and the armed forces to meet any eventuality should a war was imposed on Pakistan.(91) On 22 December, PAF fighter jets again scrambled over several major cities including Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Lahore, in a sign of increased “vigilance”.(92)

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh however, intervened to tone down the rhetoric, saying war was not the issue and urged the international community to persuade Pakistan to put an end to terror. He told reporters in New Delhi: “Nobody wants war.” ...“The issue is not war, but terrorism being aided and abetted by Pakistan. We want Pakistan to make objective efforts to dismantle the terror infrastructure.”(93) The threat of war remained however, and the both sides tried to shore up their defences against each other. On 26 December, Manmohan Singh held a strategy session with his military chiefs and advised Indian nationals to avoid trips to Pakistan. This escalated tension again and pushed the Pakistan military to start pulling out troops from the


12

tribal areas for deployment on the Indian border.(94) Army leaves were also cancelled. India, however, denied any build-up on its western border with Pakistan but repeated its demands. The rising tension led to intensification of US efforts to cool down the situation. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said: “We sincerely hope that both sides will avoid taking steps that will unnecessarily raise tensions during these already tense times.”(95) The US was concerned and wanted to ensure that Pakistani troops were not diverted from operations in the restive North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) bordering Afghanistan against Taliban and al-Qaeda militants.

The US media and think tanks also highlighted the war threats in the region. The US global intelligence service provider, Stratfor, in its report declared that “Indian military operations against targets in Pakistan have, in fact, been prepared and await the signal to go forward.’’(96) Stratfor had predicted that there was a high probability of India using military force against Pakistan after 26 December — the deadline India set for Pakistan to crack down on ‘Islamic militant proxies that threaten India.” “The report said India had spent the past month preparing for military action.(97) US President-elect Barack Obama’s suggestion that India had the “right to protect itself” was also interpreted in India as its right to take military action against Pakistan if it failed to deliver.

Track II/civil society response

During the first week of December, non-official opinion-makers from India and Pakistan met in Singapore for a Track-II dialogue. They stressed the need to contain the fallout of the Mumbai attacks and de-escalate India-Pakistan tensions. They also asked the Pakistani authorities take “visible action, based on conclusive evidence,” against anti-India terrorists.(98) The governments and civil society organisations in both countries were urged to adopt “de-escalation measures.” Further, Pakistan human rights activists, women’s rights activists, teachers, labour leaders and journalists issued a statement that condemned the Mumbai attacks, expressed sympathy with the victims of terrorism whether in India or Pakistan. It observed that although tensions had abated yet the danger of an armed conflict persisted and called upon New Delhi and Islamabad not to take peace for granted. It also pointed out that the media in India and Pakistan had “failed to present Mumbai outrage in a proper context and, instead, used the event to fuel hostility between the two countries. It aided warmongers on both sides to whip up a war hysteria.”(99)

On 6 December the Pakistan-India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy (PIPFPD) condemned Mumbai terrorism and termed it a ploy of the enemy to sabotage peace efforts between the two neighbours. Officials of the Forum’s, Sindh chapter, Mir Sikandar Ali Khan Talpur and Syed Abbasi Ali Jafri said in a statement that no religion or ideology permited massacre of innocent people adding that the development and prosperity of peoplez of Pakistan and India depended on peace.(100)

Amarnath agitation and India-Pakistan relations

The transfer of the Valley land for the Amarnath Shrine pilgrimage continued to rock IHK during August-September 2008 and adversely affected India-Pakistan relations. The controversy sparked pro-azadi cry across the Kashmir Valley which many termed as the second uprising. On 11 August, “Muzaffarabad chalo” call of fruit-growers, supported by the APHC parties, some mainstream leaders and a large number of common people, turned out to be a massive march towards Muzaffarabad across the LoC. The police firing on the march resulted in the killing of five people, including APHC leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz which worsened the situation in IHK. More than 30 people died in subsequent firing. This also led to the suspension of Poonch-Rawalakot and Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus services which were however, resumed later.


13

The deteriorating situation in IHK also led to tension in India-Pakistan relations. Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and the foreign office spokesperson expressed “concern” over the situation in occupied Kashmir and attacks on life and property on Muslims in the state. India described it as a “clear interference in the internal affairs of an integral part of India.”(101) Pakistan Senate passed a resolution expressing concern over the “economic blockade imposed by Hindu extremists against the Muslims of Jammu and the Valley of Kashmir.” India termed the resolution “gross interference” in its internal affairs.(102) The National Assembly also passed a resolution, appealing to the international community to end “atrocities” on the people in IHK in the wake of the Amarnath land controversy. It urged the international community, particularly the UN, the OIC and human rights organisations, to take notice of the “grave human rights violations” in IHK.(103) On 12 September, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani expressed concern over the incidents of violence in IHK and condemned the excessive use of force by Indian security forces against the people of the Valley. At least 40 Muslims and three Hindus died in police shootings and more than 1,000 were injured in clashes with security forces.(104) New Delhi also officially protested and regarded it a clear interference in the internal affairs of India. India’s External Affairs Ministry spokesman described it as Pakistan’s ‘irresponsible behaviour’ which cannot help in “creating the atmosphere necessary for the dialogue process between India and Pakistan to move forward”.(105)

Zardari’s Hindustan Times videoconference

On 22 November, President Zardari addressed a videoconference hosted annually by The Hindustan Times and made several conciliatory gestures towards India. Most importantly, he announced a new “no first use” nuclear weapons policy, overturning years of Pakistan’s deterrence doctrine. Asked why Pakistan would not accept any doctrine against the first use of nuclear weapons, Zardari replied: “We will most certainly not use it first. I don’t agree...to nuclear weapons. I hope we never get to that position.” He observed: “I don’t feel threatened by India and India shouldn’t feel threatened by us.”(106) He suggested a South Asian pact to prevent use of nuclear weapons in a region rife with turmoil and militancy. Zardari also proposed closer people-to-people ties by abolishing the bureaucratic visa regime between the two countries. He also favoured an e-card for travel purposes between them instead.(107) He was also for enhancing trade and economic ties with India.

Chenab water blockade

The Chenab water blockade during August-September 2008 adversely affected the peace process between the two countries. The initial one-time filling of a newly constructed reservoir is governed by specific provisions in the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) under which the filling is to be carried out by mutual discussion, failing which India can proceed to do so subject to two conditions: the filling (in the case of projects on the Chenab) must be done during the period from 21 June to 31 August when the monsoon is at its peak; and the flow in the Chenab Main above Marala headworks should not fall below 55,000 cusecs at any time.(108)

Pakistan allowed India to fill the Baglihar Dam between 10 August and 30 August if levels at Head Marala remained above 55,000 cusecs. However, India violated the IWT while filling the Baglihar Dam and filled it in 10 days instead of completing the process in a period of 60 to 70 days. India claimed that it stopped Pakistan’s water from 19 August to 28 August , while Pakistan maintained that India had stopped water until 5 September.(109) A top Pakistani official of the Indus Waters Commission sttaed that India’s violation of the IWT caused a reduction of flows in River Chenab by 35,000 cusecs a day against the agreed releases of 55,000 cusecs.(110) Pakistan has demanded compensation for the 200,000 acre feet shortfall in Chenab river water caused by


14

the filling of the Baglihar Dam this year.(111) The water shortfall, which was met from Mangla, was experienced in Sialkot and Narowal for 10 to 12 days.

The flow of Chenab was interrupted despite repeated assurances from the top Indian leadership. During the 24 September meeting between President Zardari and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York, Singh had assured uninterrupted flow of water of Chenab into Pakistan. Similarly, on 24 October, Manmohan Singh in his meeting with Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing had observed that India wanted to work seriously to resolve the water dispute with Pakistan and the issue “would not be allowed to affect the peace process between the two neighboring countries”. On 25 October, Gilani and Manmohan Singh met again on the sidelines of the 7th Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit and agreed to resolve the issue in a peaceful manner in line with the IWT.(112) However, quite contrary to the assurances of Indian Prime Minister, Indian authorities were not showing seriousness to settle the water issue. In fact, President Zardari had to make it clear to the Indians that a violation of the 1960 IWT would damage bilateral ties. He stressed that “India should not trade off important regional objectives for short-term domestic goals.”

The issue was taken up at the bilateral level water talks held in October and November but no headway was made. The parties met in New Delhi on Oct 23-24, but there was a wide gap between the statistics produced by the parties to the dispute. During Pakistan’s Indus Water Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah’s visit to India in November, both countries exchanged data about the water flow in the Chenab River, but India objected to the data compiled by Pakistan and asked for a visit to Marala Headworks for inspecting the water flow. Indian delegation visited Pakistan on 29 November and rejected the demand for “compensation”, maintaining that the charge was “unsubstantiated.” The Indian officials maintained, while the outflows were measured, there was no mechanism to measure inflows into Merala barrage.(113) Earlier, on 16 November Federal Minister for Water and Power Raja Pervez Ashraf had stated that India would provide Pakistan 200,000 acre-feet water as compensation for the reduced flow of water in the Chenab River.(114)

Pakistan relies on the Indus River and its tributaries for almost half of its irrigation supplies, and to generate up to half of its electricity and there are fears that India would use various dams as a coercive tool by causing floods in Pakistan through sudden release of dam waters.(115) Jamaat Ali Shah stated that water shortage due to the initial filling of the dam had badly affected the agriculture sector in Pakistan, as farmers could not receive the water to irrigate their fields in time. According to Punjab Irrigation Department Director HM Siddiqui, crops on more than 2.5 million acres have been badly affected in Punjab because of the water shortage resulting from the closure of Chenab River by India and the situation has caused Pakistan Rs.40 billion loss and pushed farmers into a severe financial crisis.(116) On 20 November, Shah asserted that Islamabad would go to the World Bank (WB) to seek compensation from India for reduced water flow in the Chenab River and design defects in Baglihar Dam. Addressing a seminar in Lahore he warned that India would turn Pakistan into a barren country by 2014 by blocking its waters.(117)

Issue of Terrorism & peace process

Even before the Mumbai terror attacks, the issue of terrorism had come to the forefront of India-Pakistan peace process. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his address to the nation on 15 August said that the peace process with Pakistan was in danger of failing because of attacks like the bombing of New Delhi’s mission in Afghanistan. He underscored: “If this issue of terrorism is not addressed, all good intentions that we have for our two peoples to live in peace and harmony will be negated. We will not be able to pursue the peace initiatives we want to take.” “The terrorists and those who support them are enemies of the people of India and Pakistan, of friendship between the two countries and of peace in the region and the world. We


15

must defeat them.”(118) The two leaders also discussed the issue at their meeting in Beijing and pledged to work together for combating the menace of terrorism.(119)

On 24 October, India and Pakistan held a special meeting of Joint Anti-Terrorism Mechanism and exchanged “Information on issues of mutual concern, including the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul.(120) India reportedly raised with Pakistan the issue of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)’s alleged involvement in acts of violence against its personnel and assets, manifested recently in the bombing of its Kabul embassy.(121) According to Indian media sources, India “shared with Pakistan ‘concrete and irrefutable’ evidence that suggested the involvement of the ISI”(122) in the July 7 car-bomb attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul. Pakistan rejected Indian allegations that any of its agencies was involved in the embassy bombing.

The fifth round of meeting of the interior secretaries of Pakistan and India was held on November 26 2008. The issue of terrorism was on top of the agenda as the two sides expressed their resolve to deal with the menace jointly. The Pakistan side voiced its concern over unsubstantiated blame game from the Indian side each time there was an act of terror in their country.(123) During the dialogue, the Indian side had asserted that India's most wanted criminal, Dawood Ibrahim, was in Pakistan. Pakistan denied this and in turn asked India for more details regarding the investigation into the Samjhota Express blast of February 2007. At least 60 people, most of them Pakistanis returning home from India, died in the incident in which an Indian army colonel has now confessed involvement.(124)

The two countries also signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the prevention of smuggling of drugs and narcotics. The two sides also discussed the issue of liberalisation of visa policy to facilitate the people of both the countries. Pakistan voiced its concern over abuse of human rights and use of third-degree torture against the Pakistani prisoners in Indian jails. The two sides also agreed to extend cooperation between the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) of Pakistan and the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) of India, especially to fight against cyber crime.(125) Pakistan released 101 Indian prisoners, most of them fishermen, as a goodwill gesture ahead of the 5th round of the talks. The Indian side reiterated its request that death row prisoner Sarabjit Singh be released which Pakistan turned down.

On 6 December, a quarterly meeting between security officials of the two countries- Indian Border Security Force and Pakistan Rangers — was held. Pakistani and Indian security forces have discussed joint patrolling along the border, construction activities, inadvertent border crossers and demarcation at certain sensitive points.(126)

Pakistan’s National Security Advisor had a very useful meeting with his Indian counterpart MK Narayanan in New Delhi on 14 October.

Cross-LoC infiltration

The issue of cross-LoC infiltration figured in the statements made by high Indian officials but they were at variance. On 29 October, Lt-Gen Mukesh Sabarwal said the number of infiltration attempts from the AJK had come down as compared to previous years. He said militants attempting to sneak into this side were also less this year. Asked if there was any direct input suggesting that the militants would try to disturb the poll process in the valley, the GOC 15 Corps said there was so far no such report.(127) Similarly, on 25 December, Director General of Police (DGP), Kuldeep Khoda, told reporters at the year-end briefing on the security situation in the state that the number of active militants in the state was around 800 according to information coming from various security agencies. “There are around 577 local militants and 231 foreigners operating in the state. These are figures based on information from various agencies working on the ground.” He attributed the drop in the strength of militants to steps taken by security forces to check ‘infiltration’ of militants into IHK from across the LoC.(128) However, earlier in August India had maintained that the number of infiltration attempts by militants into IHK from across the LoC had witnessed a substantial increase, touching over 130 incidents between March and


16

July 2008. Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony had said that though in the last two months, there were over 20 violations of ceasefire by Pakistani forces and infiltration attempts were on the rise, the Indian security forces were foiling these attempts successfully.(129)

Resumption of cross-LoC trade

After much discussion the cross-LoC trade began on October 21 after a 61-year breakdown of trade ties between two sides of the LoC. India and Pakistan agreed to open the route for limited trade at a July 21 meeting of their foreign secretaries. India rushed it through as one way of handling the crisis in the Kashmir Valley that erupted around the Amarnath land controversy, and the subsequent blockade of the Srinagar road by Jammu residents. Two cross-LoC routes linking Muzaffararabad-Srinagar and Poonch-Rawalakot were opened on 21 and 22 October respectively.

On 21 October, the trucks moved across the LoC between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad. A convoy of 13 trucks carrying mostly apples set off from IHK to AJK and 14 trucks packed with Pakistani fruits, onions and spices made their journey in the opposite direction. It has been decided that the trade goods comprising 30 items, including vegetables, fruits, rice and dry fruits will be exchanged twice a week. Under the agreement signed by Pakistan and India, the goods trucks will cross at two points twice a week and no customs duty will be imposed. Traders on both sides of Kashmir will conduct business through barter, as there is no banking facility available.

The move was given much hype in the official circles of IHK and AJk and was much appreciated by the Kashmiris’ on both sides of the LoC and by the Governor IHK, N N Vohra, who described the cross-LoC trade as an important Confidence-Building Measure (CBM) aimed at normalizing Indo-Pakistan relations. He said the people of J&K would benefit from this measure as the trade links would open up new vistas of economic progress in the region.(130) President AJK Raja Zulqarnain described the move as a historic one that would not only benefit Kashmiris but would also strengthen the ongoing peace process between Pakistan and India.(131) AJK Prime Minister Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan termed the opening of trade routes across the LoC the “biggest CBM,” which would help resolve the Kashmir issue.(132) He has also termed LoC as a ‘line of commence.’ The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leadership favoured the reopening of the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road for trade as it would provide an alternative trade route to ensure uninterrupted flow of consumer items into the Valley and for exporting fruit and other items from Kashmir.(133) The opening of trade route, unlike in the past, was not opposed by the militant organisations and Syed Ali Geelani, the senior Hurriyat leader, who had opposed starting of bus service.

The BJP, however, opposed the cross-LoC trade arguing that it would harm the national interests and said the party would oppose any such move by the Centre. State BJP vice-president and spokesperson Hari Om said that “cross-LoC trade will not only help the secessionists to implement their nefarious anti-India agenda, but also adversely impact the economy of Jammu which is Kashmir's economic lifeline and hub of all activities". He said the cross-LoC trade would automatically mean three things — no reliance on Jammu, no reliance on New Delhi and a major onslaught on Jammu's economy as -it would directly impact inter-regional trade.(134) The Kashmir Times described the opening “to be more a symbolic affair, not only in view of the limited items on the list and it being a weekly affair but also for the fact that the ceiling on the number of goods limited the transfer across LoC to the bare minimum, thus robbing it of the potential of making any impact on the economy on either side.”(135)

In less than a month, the cross-LoC trade ran into trouble, with traders even threatening to suspend supplies if the matter was not sorted out. Top on the list is the basic issue of money. Traders are grappling with how to obtain the money for the goods they send across the LoC. Earlier, the chambers of commerce and industry on both sides agreed that trade would be done


17

through part-barter and part-remittances. But no arrangement exists to make these payments. Banks in IHK will not accept remittances from AJK, neither will they send money to the other side, for security reasons. The other problem that traders are facing is the complete absence of communication facilities. There are no telephone links between the two sides of Kashmir. The traders can communicate through e-mail, but they find this inadequate.(136)

On behalf of the Joint Federation of Jammu and Kashmir Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Zulfikar Abbasi, who heads the organisation and is also president of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Chambers of Commerce and Industry, wrote to the Pakistan Foreign Ministry with specific recommendations “to support and facilitate cross-LoC trade.” Among the proposals the two sides have jointly formulated are the opening of three branches of the Jammu & Kashmir Bank in AJK — in Muzaffarabad, Mirpur and Rawalakot — and three branches of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Bank in Srinagar, Jammu and Poonch. Another is that traders be issued multiple entry permits so that they could visit the other side frequently and get to know the buyers and markets there. The traders want to meet every quarter by rotation at Srinagar, Jammu and Muzaffarabad. Included in the list of recommendations is the long-standing demand that the list of tradeable items be expanded so that trade becomes “viable and meaningful.”(137)

Renewal of international interest in the Kashmir issue

The US and the UN have expressed their willingness to support Indo-Pakistan talks to resolve the Kashmir issue. On 21 November, US President-elect Barack Obama observed that he was considering a new diplomatic push on Kashmir, reversing eight years of American silence on the issue. He believed that there could be no peace in Afghanistan without resolving major disputes between India and Pakistan. In a recent interview to The Time Magazine, Obama acknowledged that talks about Kashmir were among the “critical tasks for the next administration”.(138)

Taking the cue from the US President-elect, France too said that it shared the view that peace in Afghanistan was linked to how secure Pakistan felt about its problems with India over Kashmir. Eric Chevallier, special adviser to the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, who is also the spokesperson for the French Foreign Office, told journalists that the renewed interest and the new international push to solving the longstanding Kashmir dispute ‘makes sense’. According to this line of thinking, he said, with reduced tension on the Pakistan-India border with Kashmir, the Pakistani security apparatus could put enhanced efforts in securing the porous border Pakistan shares with Afghanistan.(139)

Similarly, on 18 August, a UN spokesman stated that UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon was prepared to use his good offices in helping to resolve the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir provided both — India and Pakistan — agreed to his role as a mediator.(140) Similarly, on 30 October, Ban Ki-moon while delivering the 9th Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Lecture in New Delhi hailed the opening of the cross-LoC trade and urged both sides to build on it. He underscored a broad, inclusive dialogue between India and Pakistan to resolve their fundamental disagreements implying the Kashmir issue.(141)

Kashmir & India – Pakistan Peace process

Elections to the IHK state assembly and India-Pakistan tension dominated the Kashmir issue. In their election campaign in IHK, Indian leadership highlighted the issue of terrorism. On 14 December addressing an election rally in occupied Kashmir, Manmohan Singh said he hoped relations between the neighbours could be “normalised,” but this could not happen until “our neighbour stops allowing its territory to be used for acts of terrorism against India.”(142) Mukherjee also visited IHK and stressed “We expect that good sense prevails on the neighbouring country and it fulfils the assurances,” given by Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari


18

to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York on 24 September and by former Pakistan President Pervez Musharaff on 6 January 2004.(143)

Meanwhile, fresh tensions between India and Pakistan have scared residents living along the LoC in IHK.

Pakistan on the other hand emphasized the urgency of aresolution of the Kashmir dispute. President Zardari in a meeting with AJK President on 28 October, made it clear that no compromise would be made on the Kashmir dispute and that he would continue to support Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC through thick and thin. He maintained that Kashmir issue would be solved peacefully and in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Kashmir.(144) On November 22, President Zardari in a Hindustan Times video conference advocated the inclusion of Kashmiri people in efforts for the solution of the dispute.(145) APHC chairman Mirwaiz Omar Farooq welcomed the statement and observed: “We feel that Pakistan’s approach on Kashmir is positive and India should reciprocate it.” He said if Kashmiris were included in the peace process, they could serve as bridge to bring India and Pakistan closer.

State Assembly elections in IHK

Seven-phased elections were held to the State Assembly in IHK from 17 November to 24 December 2008. The pro-freedom groups led by Kashmir Coordination Committee, comprising both factions of APHC boycotted the elections. On the other hand, National Conference, People’s Democratic Party, BJP and Congress party participated in the elections.

India claimed high turnout in the polls which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh termed as ‘vote for democracy and national integration’ while Congress president Sonia Gandhi also termed it ‘victory for democracy.’(146) According to Election Commission of India there was 61.23% average turnout in 2008 assembly elections. According to South Asia Terrorism Portal, the turnout was 55% in Kashmir Valley and 60 % in Jammu. Ladakh registered a turnout of over 68%. Although officially there has been a high turnout, the electoral process lacked credibility and transparency. According to the Kashmir Times, defective voters lists and failure of Election Commission of India to provide electors photo identity cards (EPICs) ‘deprived the state of a chance for fair elections.(147) The very first phase of the polls held on 17 November showed its implications for the fairness of the elections. Kashmir Times observed: “Complaints have already poured in from various constituencies.... about large-scale bogus voting and faulty voter lists with names of minors, many of whom proudly admitted that they went to vote, included in the lists.” Many voted more than once, especially in the constituencies of the Valley. KT felt that “it appears there is a deliberate design in doing so either to suit certain political parties or to facilitate the process of bogus voting which automatically inflate the figures of total votes polled, especially in the face of boycott threat.” Besides, “by imposing curfew in the entire valley, barring constituencies that went to vote, restricting movement of independent national and international observes...the ECI has created serious doubts in the minds of the people about genuineness of the ongoing election process.”(148)

In fact, the elections were held against the backdrop of massive presence of security forces, undeclared curfews and a decision to keep all APHC leadership under house arrest or in jails. All efforts were made to suppress the boycott announced by the Hurriyat leadership. While, the militants decided not to obstruct the electoral process, New Delhi ensured to manipulation of the turnout through pre-poll administrative tactics and highhandedness of the security forces.

The poll result showed that NC secured 28 seats while its archrival PDP won 21 seats. The Congress Party could capture 17 seats. The BJP showed spectacular victory by raising its tally from one in 2002 assembly elections to 11, all from the Jammu region. The National Panthers Party won three seats and the Communist Party of India-Marxist, the People’s Democratic Front and the Democratic Party (Nationalist) one each. Independents won in four constituencies. Forty-four seats is the majority mark in the 87-strong House. NC is slated to form


19

the government in coalition with Congress and Omar Abdullah is all set to become the next chief minister of IHK.

Pro-India groups

India-Pakistan peace process and its relevance to Kashmir conflict became the focus of election campaign. National Conference President Omar Abdullah said that India lost a chance to sort out the Kashmir issue in 2005-06 with General Musharraf.(149) Addressing public meetings in Budgam and Baramulla, Omar Abdullah asked India and Pakistan to work together to remove the air of suspicion and mistrust, stressing the need for developing a joint mechanism to tackle the menace of terrorism. He cautioned against elements bent upon destabilising the two neighbouring countries by creating turmoil in the subcontinent. He urged both countries to jointly identify and isolate such elements as either country being unstable was not good for the other. He observed that the NC was the only party that could be a bridge between Indian and Pakistani political leadership and assist both in creating a congenial atmosphere for better bilateral relationship.(150) Similarly, PDP patron Mufti Mohammad Sayeed talked about the party’s self-rule vision turning into a reality and subsequently Jammu and Kashmir acting as a bridge between India and Pakistan. “... our self-rule proposal would also materialise one day and we will act as a bridge between the two neighbouring countries of India and Pakistan.”(151) Addressing election rallies in Srinagar, Mufti Sayeed said the leadership of India and Pakistan should “exercise restraint and show maturity in handling the current crisis.” He said: “Kashmir has been at the receiving end of the hostility between India and Pakistan and therefore it will always be to our disadvantage to allow the revival of the cold war”.(152)

Pro-freedom groups

APHC leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq warned that “India’s heavy-handed crackdown on protests could renew a violent upsurge in the long-running freedom struggle”. He asserted that “if India pushes us too hard to the wall, tomorrow you can’t really ignore the fact that the youth might be angered and forced to resort again to arms.”(153) Mirwaiz maintained that elections in IHK offer no solution for the resolution of the dispute. “Kashmiris have not offered unmatched sacrifices for the elections or change of government — they are struggling to get their right to self-determination.”(154) Kashmiri leader Muhammad Yasin Malik underscored that in the given circumstances the people of Kashmir had no reason or logic to participate in election under the Indian constitution.(155) Senior Kashmiri leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani also advocated a boycott of the polls which did not offer a solution of the Kashmir issue. In an interview with a private television channel, he pointed out that the UN had accepted the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination through a plebiscite but it had failed to fulfil its commitment.(156)

Notes and References

1. “Siachen, Sir Creek issues solvable: FM”, The Nation, Islamabad, 27 November 2008. 2. “Group from outside behind Mumbai blasts: PM”, The Indian Express, New Delhi, 28 November 2008. 3. “Attack on India Pakistan is wholly to blame”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 29 November 2008. 4. “India suspends cross-LoC trade”, Daily Times, Lahore, 3 December 2008. 5. Praveen Swami, “Three Lashkar fidayeen captured”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 28 November 2008. 6. The Times of India, New Delhi, 10 December 2008. 7. Baqir Sajjad Syed , “Pakistan’s response to India’s demarche likely in a couple of days, Dawn, Islamabad, 8

December 2008. Ramesh Ramachandran, “Pak envoy gets a stiff warning, The Asian Age, New Delhi, 2 December 2008.

8. “More needs to be done: Singh”, The News, Islamabad/Rawalpindi, 12 December 2008. 9. Ehsan Fazili, “Pranab Mukherjee tells Pakistan: Fulfil assurances on terror”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 17

December 2008. 10. Ashok Tuteja, “Pranab to Pak: Implement UNSC resolution”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 18 December 2008. 11. “India to consider all options, warns Pranab”, The News, 20 December 2008. “We are obliged to consider full

range of options: Pranab”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 20 December 2008.


20

12. “India to consider all options, warns Pranab”, The News, 20 December 2008. 13. “Enough proof for Islamabad to act: Pranab”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 22 December 2008. 14. Shujaat Bukhari, “India capable of giving fitting reply: Sonia”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 22 December 2008. 15. Qudssia Akhlaque “Aggressive Indian postures undermine fledgling peace process”, The News, 22 December

2008. 16. “Terrorists came from Karachi via sea to Mumbai”, The Indian Express, 28 November 2008. 17. Ibid. 18. “Straight talk: Yes, it was a failure, says Admiral Mehta”, The Tribune, 3 December 2008. 19. Anupama Katakam, Terrorism: Of Suffron Variety”< Frontline 22 November 2008. 20. “Call off talks with Islamabad: Sinha”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, December 21, 2008. 21. “Give fitting reply to Pakistan, says Modi”, The Hindu, New Delhi, December 26, 2008. 22. Neena Vyas, “Get ISI declared a terrorist outfit: BJP”, The Hindu, New Delhi, December 28, 2008. 23. Daily Times, December 23, 2008. Thackeray for attack on Pakistan without warning 24. Jawed Naqvi, “RSS chief says India should be ready for nuclear war”, Dawn, December 13, 2008. 25. Happymon Jacob, “26/11 and India’s Pakistan dilemma”, Date: 05/01/2009 URL:

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/01/05/stories/2009010555110800. 26. “Zardari, Gilani condemn”, The News, 28 November 28, 2008. 27. “Lashkar-i-Tayba denies role”, The News, 28 November 2008. 28. “Let's stop blaming each other, suggests Pak FM”, The Kashmir Times, Jammu, 28 November 2008. 29. Nirupama Subramanian,”Pakistan offers “joint investigating mechanism” The Hindu, New Delhi, 3 December

2008. 30. “Zardari: If evidence points to any group in my country, I shall take the strictest action”, The Hindu, 30

November 2008. 31. DCC pledges not to allow use of Pak soil for terror attacks, reviews border situation”, The News, 9 December

2008. 32. “Zardari: If evidence points to any group in my country, I shall take the strictest action”, The Hindu, 30

November 2008. 33. Daily Times, 14 December 2008. 34. “Pakistan hands demarche to Indian envoy” , Daily Times, 9 December 2008. 35. “Govt goes after Daawa for UN”, The News, 12 December 2008. 36. The News 14 December 2008. Gilani sees India ties normalising over time, 37. Asim Yasin, “Pakistanis will not be handed over to India”, The News, 13 December 2008. 38. Zardari rules out returning fugitives”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 4 December 2008. 39. Peace process must not be derailed: Gilani, Dawn December 6, 2008. 40. Nirupama Subramanian, “Defend Pakistan’s honour: all-party meet”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 3 December 2008. 41. “Pakistan capable of thwarting aggression”, The Nation, Islamabad, 22 December 2008. 42. “Mumbai Heat: Pak fully prepared to defend itself: Qureshi”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 22 December 2008. 43. “Kayani pledges matching response in no time”, The News, 23 December 2008. 44. Ibid. 45. Nirupama Subramanian, “Hostile propaganda, alleges Pakistan”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 25 December 2008. 46. Nirupama Subramanian “We’ll defend Pakistan till the last drop of our blood: Zardari”, The Hindu, 25 December

2008. 47. Ibid. 48. “Pakistan not to tolerate surgical strikes: FM”, The News, 26 December 2008. 49. Mumbai Heat: India wants to make us a scapegoat to cover its security failure: Gilani”, The Tribune,

Chandigarh, 25 December 2008. 50. “Nawaz terms Indian threats irresponsible”, The Nation, 21 December 2008. 51. “Pakistan's plight”, The News, 24 December 2008. 52. “India has right to protect itself: Obama”, The Tribune, 3 December 2008. 53. Sandeep Dikshit, “Rice: we’ll insist on direct, tough action by Pakistan”, The Hindu, 4 December 2008. 54. Shaiq Hussain, “India must stop finger-pointing”, The Nation, Islamabad, 5 December 2008. 55. Baqir Sajjad Syed, “Rice tells Pakistan to act ‘or US will’, Dawn, 6 December 2008. 56. “Pakistan needs to act with resolve: US”, Dawn , 5 December 2008. 57. Dawn December 4, 2008. US official blames Lashkar for attacks 58. The Hindu, New Delhi, December 8, 2008. “Rice: evidence of involvement ‘somehow’ on Pakistani soil”, 59. Syed Irfan Raza & Baqir Sajjad Syed “US backs Pakistan’s terror war policies”, Dawn, Islamabad, 12 December

2008. 60. Baqir Sajjad Syed , “More should be done to satisfy India: US”, Dawn, December 23, 2008. 61. “IAF plans to hit targets in 24 hours”, The Nation , 23 December 2008. 62. Sandeep Dikshit, “Pranab rules out military action”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 3 December 2008. 63. “White House opposes punitive strikes: Engagement advocated”, Dawn, 7 December 2008. 64. Anwar Iqbal, No move to declare Pakistan a terrorist state: US”, Dawn, 14 December 2008. 65. Anwar Iqbal White House counsels caution, Dawn, 27 December 2008. 66. Ibid. 67. “Pak-US ties at stake: Rice”, The Nation, 8 December 2008. 68. “Brown tells Pakistan it’s time to take action”, Daily Times, Islamabad, 15 December 2008. 69. “India not planning military action against Pak: Antony”, The Indian Express, New Delhi, 16 December 2008. 70. Syed Irfan Raza, “Zardari offers India unconditional help,” Dawn, 2 December 2008. 71. “Singh tones down rhetoric: Mastermind of Mumbai attacks remains to be identified: China”, Dawn 24

December 2008.


21

72. Mariana Baabar ,“Chinese FM phones Qureshi”, The News, 27 December 2008. 73. Ibid. 74. “Ahmadinejad urges India to calm situation”, The Nation, 28 December 2008. 75. “Terrorism a global, not bilateral, problem: Mukherjee”, Dawn 27 December 2008. 76. “Ban for Pak-India talks”, The Nation, December 18, 2008. 77. “No mobilisation of troops along LoC”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 1 December 2008. 78. Sandeep Dikshit, “Pranab rules out military action”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 3December 2008. 79. “PAF chases away Indian warplanes”, The News, 14 December 2008. 80. Babar Dogar, Army movement causes scare”, The News, December 14, 2008. 81. “No plan to attack Pak: Antony”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 17 December 2008. 82. Ahmed Hassan, “Govt not involved in attacks: India”, Dawn, 18 December 2008. 83. Sandeep Dikshit, Pakistan back to its old ways: Pranab”, The Hindu, New Delhi, December 23, 2008. Jawed

Naqvi, “India threatens to act if world doesn’t “, Dawn, 23 December 2008. 84. “Indian officials meet to discuss strike”, The News, 22 December 2008. 85. “India steps up vigil along Rajasthan border”, Daily Times, 23 December 2008. 86. “Indian Army chief visits Siachen as surveillance flights continue,” Daily Times, 24 December 2008. 87. “IAF conducts precision bombing practice runs”, The Sentinel, Guwahati, 25 December 2008. 88. “Indian armed forces in operatioanl readiness”, The Kashmir Times, Jammu, 26 December 2008. 89. “Pak to defend if war imposed”, The Nation, 23 December 2008. 90. “Mukhtar rules out nuclear war with India”, Daily Times, 23 December 2008. 91. “Pakistan ready to meet any eventuality: PM”, The News, 23 December 2008. 92. “PAF flexes its muscles”, The News, 23 December 2008. 93. Vinay Kumar, “Nobody wants war: Manmohan”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 24 December 2008. 94. Mushtaq Yusufzai, Pak troops move from Afghan to Indian border”, The News, 27 December 2008. 95. “Defuse tension, US urges India, Pak “, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 28 December 2008. 96. “Indian officials meet to discuss strike”, The News, 22 December 2008. 97. Baqir Sajjad Syed & Iftikhar A. Khan, “Diplomatic moves stepped up to defuse tension”, Dawn, 27 December

2008. 98. P.S. Suryanarayana Track-II calls for positive Pakistan response The Hindu, New Delhi, 7 December 2008 99. Nirupama Subramanian, “Pakistan’s civil society urges government to come out of denial”, The Hindu, 5

January 2009. 100. “Pakistan, India urged to exercise restraint”, Dawn, 7 December 2008. 101. Ashok Tuteja, “ India objects to Pak meddling”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 13 August 2008. 102. “India resents Pakistan’s interference”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 13 August 2008. 103. Ashok Tuteja, Keep off J&K, India to Pak”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 14 August 2008. 104. “Kashmir warning”, Dawn, 9 September 2008. 105. “Keep off: Pakistan should mind its own business”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 15 August 2008. 106. Jawed Naqvi, “Zardari suggests accord to avoid nuclear conflict in S. Asia”, Dawn, 23 November 2008. 107. Jawed Naqvi, “Zardari suggests accord to avoid nuclear conflict in S. Asia”, Dawn, 23 November 2008. 108. Ashfak Bokhari, “Water dispute takes serious turn”, Dawn, 8 December 2008. 109. ‘India to make Pakistan barren by 2014’, The News , Islamabad, 24 November 2008. 110. “Indian team to inspect Marala Headworks on 30th”, The News, Islamabad, 24 November 2008. 111. “Indian team due on 29th”, Dawn, Islamabad, 24 November 2008. 112. “Gilani, Singh agree on resolving Chenab issue”, The News, Islamabad, 25 October 2008. 113. Gargi Parsai, “India rejects Pakistan’s demand for compensation”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 7 December 2008. 114. ‘India agrees to compensate for Chenab water’ Daily Times, 16 November 2008. 115. Farhana Shakir, “Revisiting Baglihar controversy”, The Post , 22 November 2008. 116. ‘Consequences’ of Chenab closure”, Dawn, 8 December 2008. 117. ‘India to make Pakistan barren by 2014’, The News , Islamabad, 24 November 2008. 118. “Peace process with Pakistan under threat, warns Singh”, The News, 16 August 2008. 119. “Pakistan and India see terror common enemy”, The Nation October 25, 2008. 120. “India, Pakistan discuss Kabul bombing”, Dawn, 25 October2008. 121. Sandeep Dikshit, “India raises ISI issue”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 25 October 2008. 122. “ISI behind Kabul embassy bombing, India tells Pak”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 26 October 2008. 123. Mobarik A Virk Pakistan asks India to stop blame game”, The News, 26 November 2008. 124. “United against terror”, The News, 27 November 2008. 125. 1 Mobarik A Virk Pakistan asks India to stop blame game”, The News, 26 November 2008. 126. “Joint patrol discussed with New Delhi”, Dawn, 7 December 2008. 127. “Infiltration from PoK down: Gen”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 30 October 2008. 128. “Number of militants drops below 1000: DGP”, Daily Excelsior, Jammu, 26 December 2008. 129. “Ceasefire should be maintained, India tells Pak”, The Kashmir Times, Jammu, 27 August 2008. 130. “Vohra flags off trucks at Salamabad”, The Kashmir Times, Jammu, October 22, 2008. 131. “Cross-LoC trade gets another route”, Dawn, 23 October 2008. 132. ‘Kashmir issue moving towards solution’, The News, 27 October 2008. 133. “Hurriyat for early opening of trade route”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 22 August 2008. 134. “BJP opposes move on cross-LoC trade”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 9 September 2008. 135. “Limited gains: Trade begins across LoC but is more a symbolic event”, The Kashmir Times, Jammu, 24

October 2008. 136. Nirupama Subramanian , “Cross-LoC trade runs into problems”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 19 November 2008. 137. Nirupama Subramanian , “Cross-LoC trade runs into problems”, The Hindu, New Delhi, 19 November 2008.


22

138. “Obama weighing new Kashmir plan”, Dawn 22 November 2008. 139. Jawed Naqvi, “Peace linked to Kashmir, says France: Qureshi, Mukherjee meet”, Dawn, 27 November 2008. 140. “Ban offers help to resolve Kashmir dispute”, Dawn, 19 August 2008. 141. Jawed Naqvi, “Pakistan-India trade can build trust: Ban”, Dawn, 31 October 2008. 142. “Singh wants ties with Pakistan normalised”, Dawn, 15 December 2008. 143. Ehsan Fazili, “Pranab Mukherjee tells Pakistan: Fulfil assurances on terror”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 17

December 2008. 144. “Kashmir solution not far off, says Zardari”, The Nation, 28 October 2008. 145. “APHC hails Zardari’s comments on Kashmir”, Dawn, 23 November 2008. 146. “Jammu and Kashmir turnout a vote for democracy: Manmohan Singh”, December 28th, 2008 - 1:15 pm ICT by

IANS – http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/jammu-and-kashmir-turnout-a-vote-for-democracy-manmohan-singh_100135758.html accessed on 31 December 2008.

147. “Neither free nor fair”, The Kashmir Times, Jammu, 21 November 2008. 148. “Neither free nor fair”, The Kashmir Times, Jammu, 21 November 2008. 149. Mariana Baabar, ‘India lost chance on Kashmir’, The News, 8 September 2008. 150. Ehsan Fazili, “Omar for joint Indo-Pak mechanism to rein in terror”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 3 December

2008. 151. Perneet Singh, “J&K to act as Indo-Pak bridge one day: Mufti “, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 13 November 2008. 152. Ehsan Fazili, “Revive peace process, Mufti asks Pak, India”, The Tribune, Chandigarh, 23 December 2008. 153. “Kashmir on the boil and our reaction”, Daily Times, 9 September 9, 2008. 154. ‘UN has failed to fulfil commitment over Kashmir’ The News, 22 October 2008. 155. ‘UN has failed to fulfil commitment over Kashmir’ The News, 22 October 2008. 156. ‘UN has failed to fulfil commitment over Kashmir’ The News, 22 October 2008.

Afghanistan is faced with a difficult situation, though it may not be termed as an alarming security crisis. This however does not mean that the era of disillusionment and frustration is over in Afghanistan. This is instead time for the Afghans and international community to redouble their joint efforts in a spirit of partnership. There are problems of corruption, unaccountability, drugs and an excess of warlords challenging the writ of the government. Nevertheless, one can be cautiously optimistic about the future for a couple of reasons. First, the marked improvement in relations with Pakistan particularly since President Zardari took oath and invited President Karzai on the occasion; also, significant reduction in opium cultivation(1) and the commitment to improve sub-national governance.

Troops mount pressure on militants in Jamrud

The Pakistan military’s involvement in dealing with the militants in the northern province and tribal areas is getting intense. On 31 December 2008, on the second day of a military operation being carried out in the Jamrud area of Khyber Agency, the security forces demolished dozens of houses and arrested a large number of people for having supported or shielded militants. Two army helicopters hovered over Jamrud almost the whole day, attacking militant hideouts and houses of Kukikhel elders in Ghundi. Tanks and artillery were also used to pound areas where militant commanders were reported to be hiding.(2)

Khyber Agency’s Political Agent Tariq Hayat Khan claimed that the troops had destroyed houses of at least 19 militant commanders and Kukikhel elders. He said that the elders had failed to flush out criminals from their area and also provided shelter to militants. Action against them had been taken under the collective territorial responsibility clause of the Frontier Crimes Regulations. The elders whose houses have been demolished include Malak Attaullah Kukikhel, Senator Nasar Khan, Najibullah Katiakhel, Khan Zeb Sherkhankhel, Utman Zeb Sherkhankhel, Hazrat Shah, Hamid Khan, Mohammad Noor Abdulkhel, Taimoor Khan and Haji Momin.(3) Three members of Malak Attaullah’s family were among the 116 persons arrested during the operation.

Paying the price for standing against militancy

Even if the desire to stand against militancy is deep and serious, the price innocent people have to pay for this courage is enormous. Numerous people don’t get any “publicity” after their courageous stand against the militants; only a few do. One such incident that was reported in the press, where Taliban militants executed a man on 31 December 2008 in a restive tribal region near the Afghan border after accusing him of “spying for the United States.”(4) The bullet-riddled body of 28-year-old Mohammad Nawaz was found dumped on a roadside in the town of Mir Ali in North Waziristan. He was kidnapped in November after a US missile strike killed some local and foreign militants.

Rash of bombings in Afghanistan

Taliban have again taken all the credit for the attacks on Kabul. The region bordering Pakistan saw 16 people including 13 school children dead as a result of suicide bombing. Later, a new rash of bombings shook different areas of Afghanistan on 29 December 2008, killing two civilians north of Kabul and two more in Kandahar Province.(5)

Despite the overall drop in the number of bombings, suicide attacks around the country have become more technically sophisticated and have grown in scale.

Afghanistan August-December 2008 Arshi Saleem Hashmi

IRS Regional Brief


2

Similarly, in November 2007 in Baghlan Province, north of Kabul, a suicide bomb laced with ball bearings killed more than 70 people, including six members of Parliament, and wounded more than 100, mostly children.(6)

Mullah Omar rejects reports of peace formula

The Taliban’s supreme leader rejected reports that he had sent a letter to the Saudi king proposing a formula for ending the war in Afghanistan and conditions for talks with the Afghan government.Mullah Mohammad Omar, who carries a bounty of $10 million announced by the United States for his capture, also denied reports saying members of the Taliban's resurgent movement had held talks with pro-Afghan government officials on ending the conflict.(7)

There had been news in the media about power-sharing between Hamid Karzai and Taliban and replacing NATO-led troops by soldiers from Islamic nations. The Iranian Press report had also said that Mullah Omar had sent a peace formula to the Saudi King.(8)

However, this was all denied by the Taliban terming it propaganda by the vested interests. Interestingly, in the statement, Omar did not repeat the Taliban's past line that they would fight to the last to expel NATO-led troops from Afghanistan, nor mention under what terms the Taliban might engage in talks.(9)

An Afghan aid disconnect

The principal provider of American economic assistance, the US Agency for International Development, is severely constrained in Afghanistan by security rules that tolerate no risk for its Foreign Service officers. They are rarely allowed outside the fortress-like US embassy in Kabul. When they get out, to attend a meeting or visit the site of a project financed by USAID, they are often surrounded by heavily armed security personnel who make it virtually impossible for them to interact with the Afghan people they are helping.(10)

If civilian US agencies do not change the ways they deliver economic assistance, they jeopardize their chances for success and risk alienating the Afghan people.

In the words of a former US State Department official, for USAID to design effective projects, its officers must work closely with the Afghans who know what works best in their difficult environment. Those officers must have access to the project sites to ensure that the intended results are being produced. USAID prides itself on having experienced officers in the field, in the most difficult environments, to ensure strong design and oversight. It owes no less to American taxpayers and the Afghan people.(11)

There is a serious need for the US State Department and the USAID to engage a team of outside experts to conduct an objective assessment of the security rules and their impact on US economic assistance programme in Afghanistan.

The US military is changing its tactics in Afghanistan, focusing more on counterinsurgency and arguing for more troops on the ground. Civilian US agencies must reassess their tactics, too, and accept the reasonable risks that go along with more effective economic assistance.(12)

NATO to engage Afghan tribes in fighting Taliban

Though the possibilities of engaging tribal elders were discussed and even availed in some instance by the Pakistani government in its tribal area in the past, the Afghan government has come up openly only now to engage Afghan tribes as a way of countering the growing influence of Taliban insurgents.(13)

While on the one hand, the US prepares to send up to 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, engaging with leaders in rural areas of Afghanistan is part of a new NATO and US strategy. It is aimed at promoting traditional methods of local rule and curbing the lawlessness that feeds the intensifying Taliban insurgency.

Recently, the deputy minister for policy at the Interdependent Directorate of Local Governance (IDLG), Barna Karimi, said that the only way you could bring peace and stability to this country is to revive the traditional rule of people within the community in governance and security.”(14) The IDLG is an Afghan government department which leads community outreach to elders in rural areas where their word is respected and often determines local law.


3

Karimi further said that the shura would sign a memorandum of understanding on how the government should work and how the community should help the government by not sheltering insurgents in their houses, not feeding them, not housing them, not helping them."(15)

However, not everybody is satisfied with the idea of local elders given so much importance, Afghan parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai told Reuters that there was a lot of inter-fighting and internal disagreements between local tribes, and if they would start abusing the same weapons they were responsible for, it would be a big threat to the community.(16)

Karzai says US, NATO created 'parallel' government

President Hamid Karzai’s usual deviation from his past attitude towards the west appeared when he criticized the US and other foreign countries for creating a "parallel government"(17) in the countryside during a blunt overview of Afghanistan's problems before a UN Security Council delegation.

Karzai called for the international community to set a timeline to end the war in Afghanistan and asked why, given the number of countries involved and the amount of money spent, the Taliban remain so powerful.

Karzai is trying hard to come to terms with the Afghan tribes and even ‘moderate’ Taliban to ensure his success in the upcoming elections. He made it very clear that if the west was unable to come up with a deadline for completing it operation, the Afghan government had the right to find another solution for peace and security, which was negotiations. He further said that in a diverting play, the presence of the international community had created a parallel government to that of the Afghan government. The “international forces have become in certain parts of the country a parallel structure to the governor of the province," he said.(18)

Karzai believes that rather than conducting the war against terrorism and the sanctuaries, the coalition began to conduct the war in the villages of Afghanistan where there were “no terrorists’.(19) Karzai said Afghanistan was burning because of "a war which is unclear what it is for, and what we are doing."(20)

President Karzai said that the allies neglected the question of sanctuaries, allowed them to train, equip, motivate and to fund and send them to Afghanistan to kill Afghans and kill the international community, to attack reconstruction. He hoped that the international community would pay more attention to the question of sanctuaries.(21)

Karzai added that civilian casualties was an extremely serious matter, forceful entry into the house of Afghan people by the coalition forces is an extremely serious matter for us. Therefore, there has to be change. Change means: enable the Afghan People to run their own affairs. In security, give them a better army, give them resources to have a better army, enable them to have a bigger police force and a better police force, stop aerial bombardment of our villages.(22)

The UNSC fact-finding delegation was headed by Ambassador Giulio Terzi of Italy and comprised representatives from 14 other countries including the US envoy at the UN, the Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad. The delegation’s tour was taking place in the wake of increasing Taliban-related insurgency and Afghans’ complaints that both Afghan government and the international community have failed to ensure security and alleviate poverty in the post-Taliban state.

A statement released after the meeting said Karzai had told the 15 UN ambassadors and representatives that Afghans were “not hopeful for the future” because of the poor security situation.(23)

— presses US military on strategy

President Hamid Karzai pressed America’s top military leader on the US strategy in Afghanistan and preparations to pour up to 30,000 more troops into the country, reflecting Karzai's concerns over civilian casualties and operations in villages. Karzai asked Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, what kinds of operations the newly deployed troops would carry out and told him that the Afghan government should be consulted about those missions.(24)

President Karzai doubted that the idea of sending more American forces into Afghan villages would help curb the insurgency. Karzai told Mullen that US troops must take more care during operations in villages and stop searching homes. He asked Mullen to investigate allegations that U.S. forces killed


4

three civilians in a raid in Khost province, a reflection of increasing concern about civilian casualties. The US says three militants were killed.(25)

President-elect Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of ending the war in Iraq and refocusing American military efforts on the Afghanistan region.But with Karzai casting doubt on how many US troops should operate in the country, it's not clear whether the two leaders will share a vision over the matter.

Violence in Afghanistan has risen sharply over the last two years. More than 6,100 people, mostly militants, have died in insurgency-related violence in 2008, according to an Associated Press count based on figures from Afghan and Western officials.(26) The US has carried out more than 30 missile strikes since August 2008 in Pakistan's lawless, semiautonomous tribal areas, targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.(27)

— wishes he could down US planes

In an apparent show of disgust and anger, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that he would “bring down US planes bombing villages if he could.”(28)

In November only, Karzai repeatedly blamed the West for the worsening security in Afghanistan, saying the NATO failed to target Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan and calling for the war to be taken out of Afghan villages.

Afghanistan has suffered its worst violence this year since US-led troops and Afghan forces overthrew the Taliban in 2001, with at least 4,000 people killed, around a third of them civilians, despite the presence of 65,000 foreign troops backing 130,000 Afghan security forces.

Security squabble halts lorries serving forces across Khyber Pass

Militants have staged several attacks on the route in the past month, torching 260 vehicles.(29) A dispute over who should pay to protect Nato and US military supplies crossing Pakistan is hampering efforts to secure the main lifeline for foreign troops in Afghanistan. The Pakistan Government wants the shipping companies carrying the supplies to pay for the extra security on the main route from the port of Karachi via the Khyber Pass to Afghanistan.

The shipping companies, suffering from the global credit crunch, are reluctant to hire guards for the convoys, which account for 75 per cent of US supplies in Afghanistan and a smaller proportion of Nato's.Nato and US officials say the recent attacks have not affected their military operations.(30)

The dispute, however, highlights the fragility of the Pakistan route, which has closed several times this year, forcing Nato to accelerate efforts to open a “northern corridor” through Russia.It also illustrates the risks of subcontracting vital military logistics operations to an extent where it is unclear who is responsible for basic security.The recent attacks have destroyed 200 of the 700-800 long vehicles available to carry heavy military equipment.(31)

The recent attacks were apparently carried out by militants and criminal gangs from neighbouring regions who have upset the traditional tribal structures controlling the Khyber Pass.

Meeting on Afghanistan in Paris - 14 December 2008

The Paris conference (32) which was held on 14 December 2008 was an effort to try to persuade the states around Afghanistan, in particular Pakistan and Iran, to play a more positive role in supporting Kabul’s attempts to regain control. Afghanistan and its neighbors discussed security issues, fight against terrorism and illicit drug trafficking and regional cooperation at the meeting at the La Celle Saint Cloud Castle near Paris.

Besides foreign ministers of the neighboring countries and India, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the secretary-general of the United Nations, Germany, Italy which hold the rotating presidency of the G-8, and High Representative for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana attended the meeting.

Iran on the other hand, remained out of the picture, despite the promise to send its foreign minister to the meeting.


5

French-Iranian relations were strained after the foreign ministry in Tehran summoned the French ambassador to express the Islamic Republic’s ‘strong objections to the recent interfering comments by the French president.’ Sarkozy had said that it was ‘impossible for me to shake hands with someone who has dared to say that Israel should be wiped off the map,’ and that he would not ‘sit at the same table’ as his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

(33)

Pakistan-Afghanistan talks in Turkey

Turkey on 5 December 2008 hosted three-way talks with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to bring the two troubled neighbours closer. President Abdullah Gul chaired the meeting with his counterparts, Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan.(34) The meeting was the second of its kind after an initial summit in Ankara on 30 April 2007, in which Karzai and then Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf pledged to step up joint efforts against militants and take measures to boost mutual confidence.

The already tense situation on the border has been further inflamed in the past several months as the United States launched missile attacks on targets inside Pakistan, killing dozens of people. Drawing on its traditionally close ties with both Afghanistan and Pakistan, NATO ally Turkey hoped that it could encourage the two neighbours to resolve their disputes peacefully. The 5 December summit was preceded by a meeting between business people from the three countries to discuss broader economic cooperation including joint projects. Outgoing US President George W. Bush telephoned Turkish President Gul to thank him for Turkey's efforts to promote closer ties between the two countries. Turkey has 860 soldiers as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan fighting a rising Taliban insurgency alongside the US-led coalition troops and Afghan forces.(35)

Afghan security at seven-year low

The Canadian government in a statement in Parliament concluded that the "Numbers of insurgent incidents and casualty rates among civilians and soldiers reached levels higher than in any year since the Taliban regime was overthrown in 2001. It further said that Security conditions in this quarter were worse than in the previous quarter, and worse than a year ago.(36)

New Democratic Party (NDP) foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said the government’s assertion that its reconstruction strategy remains “on track” in the face of record violence is not credible. “The situation is getting worse. Civilian casualties are up. Mr. Karzai yet again is saying NATO, particularly the United States, is doing more harm than good. These guys come out and say, ‘everything is on track’, everything is not fine.”(37)

UN reports that Taliban are stockpiling opium

According to the head of UN drug office, Antonio Maria Costa, Afghanistan has produced so much opium in recent years that the Taliban are cutting back poppy cultivation and stockpiling raw opium in an effort to support prices and preserve a major source of financing for the insurgency.(38)

The report, released by the UN drug office, showed that poppy cultivation had gone down in much of the country and was now overwhelmingly concentrated in the 7 of 34 provinces where the insurgency remained strong, most of those in the south.(39) Mr. Costa suggested an emphasis not on eradication of poppy crops once they are planted, but on disrupting the trade by hitting the open-air markets where opium is bought and sold, the convoys that transport it and the labs where it is processed into more potent drugs, primarily heroin.(40)

Without better economic opportunities, poppy will remain an attractive alternative for many in Afghanistan, the source of more than 90 per cent of the world’s opium. Growth has lagged so badly, that the drug trade still accounts for a third of the Afghan economy.


6

Germany to support Staff and Language Training Centre (SLTC) in Afghanistan

Germany has announced plans to help support a training centre in Afghanistan designed to add security to the country through a comprehensive approach. Officials from the German government are planning to deploy personnel to help support the Canadian-led Staff and Language Training Centre in Kabul,(41) the Canadian Department of National Defence reported.

The SLTC is designed to help the Afghan National Army build capacity through a multilevel comprehensive training.(42) Peter MacKay, Canadian minister of national defence, welcomed the support from Germany and said the additional personnel would help the SLTC in its mission to strengthen the interoperability between the Afghan National Army and the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF).

Rocket hits NATO truck depot in Peshawar

Suspected militants fired a rocket that hit a terminal for trucks carrying supplies to NATO and US troops in Afghanistan, underscoring the insurgents increasing hold over parts of northwest Pakistan.(43)

Peshawar, which sits along the supply route from Pakistan to Afghanistan, has seen an upsurge in violence in November, including the slaying of an American working on a US-funded aid project. The rockets are normally fired into the city from hills on its outskirts some 10 kilometres (7 miles) away. Up to 75 per cent of the supplies for Western forces in landlocked Afghanistan pass through Pakistan.

US could okay the "surge" before Obama takes office

Media reports in the US say that before President-elect Barack Obama takes office on 20 January 2009, Defence Secretary Robert Gates could approve plans for a major build-up of US forces in Afghanistan.(44)

Faced with an intensifying Taliban insurgency, US military planners are working to identify a prospective force of more than 20,000 combat and support troops requested by commanders in Afghanistan, mainly for duty in the poppy-growing South, where the need for more Western forces is greatest. Some estimates have called for a US force as large as 30,000 troops.

But current and former US officials have warned that a surge of forces into Afghanistan will not necessarily meet with the same success as the troop build-up in Iraq. According to former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld , "additional troops in Afghanistan may be necessary but they will not, by themselves, be sufficient to lead to the results witnessed in Iraq. A similar confluence of events that contributed to success in Iraq does not appear to exist in Afghanistan."(45)

The United States now has 32,000 troops in Afghanistan, with 14,000 under NATO command and 18,000 under US command. Stephen Biddle of the (US) Council on Foreign Relations believes that United States ultimately would need more than 100,000 troops to stabilize Afghanistan before the Afghan army is ready to take over security. He suspected that to succeed in Afghanistan the scale of the shift would be large, and the time needed to pull it off would be long."(46)

US to boost presence near Kabul

Army Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, said in an interview that a part of the estimated 3,500 additional US troops expected to arrive in Afghanistan in January would be deployed in Logar and Wardak provinces.(47) Neither has been a major centre of US or NATO military activity, even though both provinces are directly adjacent to Kabul and are home to critical transit routes. Schloesser, who spoke at his headquarters at Bagram air base, said he anticipated a rise in clashes with rebels in Logar and Wardak.

As the United States and NATO attempt to stamp out an increasingly potent insurgency on the doorstep of the Afghan capital, the senior US army commander in eastern Afghanistan says he plans to send hundreds of troops to two volatile provinces immediately south of Kabul that have traditionally lacked Western forces.


7

Pak-Afghan Joint Economic Commission decides on overland transit facility

According to reports published in Daily Times, Pakistan and Afghanistan Joint Economic Commission would mull over the land route transit facility for both the countries. Pakistan wants transit facility for export of goods to Central Asian republics (CARs) via Afghanistan while the Afghan side is more interested in seeking transit facility from Pakistan for its imports from India.(48)

Both countries have not been able to hold JEC meeting due to the tension on Pak-Afghan border and increased activities of militants along both sides of the border. This tension had also negatively impacted the bilateral political relations, which resulted in delay in holding JEC meeting bi-annually at Kabul and Islamabad. During the sixth meeting of the JEC, that Afghan side had demanded that Pakistan provide land route transit facility for its imports from India. However, Pakistan has informed the Afghan side that this issue is under discussion with India under bilateral trade talks and suggested that the Afghan side wait for the outcome of these talks.

According to the reports, Afghanistan has also asked Pakistan to remove all the items from its negative list and also remove operational difficulties being faced by Afghan importers in transportation of goods under Afghan Transit Trade Agreement to attract more Afghan imports through Pakistan. At present 75 percent Afghan imports are being routed through Port Bandar Abbas, Iran. Previously the most of these imports were routed through Karachi.(49)

Worsening security situation forces UN to consider new shipping routes into Afghanistan

The UN officials have said that attacks on their food convoys are creating an even more difficult situation than in years past. According to VOA's Barry Newhouse during this winter the United Nations estimates nearly one million Afghans will depend on UN food aid to survive until spring.(50)

UN World Food Programme officials say the attacks inside Afghanistan are only part of their new challenges. About 90 per cent of Afghanistan's food aid is trucked through Pakistan, and World Food Programme’s regional director Anthony Banbury says the convoys are also being targeted before reaching Afghanistan.

Banbury said that for the convoys headed to Afghanistan, the attacks have been very well organized, large numbers of attackers.” And I do not believe it is common criminality — it is much too organized and significant, it's an organized militant group.”(51)

No sign that Taliban want to talk: Boucher

The US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher, has said that there is no sign that the Taliban want to have peace talks, despite reconciliation offer from the Afghan Government.(52) Boucher told the popular National Public Radio in an interview that there was no sign that they really wanted to do that at this point. They were still on there setting off bombs and kidnapping people.(53)

Observing that the enemy had now changed its tactics, Boucher said that Instead of trying to take over the government or take over territory, “they' are just trying to make

people feel unsafe. And they set off bombs and people do feel unsafe. “The only way to stop that is to sort of put a blanket of governance on top of it. So there is need

to do more so that safety, security, governance, schools, all that, throughout Afghanistan should be provided. There is also need to do better in terms of coordinating out of that so that people really get what they need from the government.”

Saudis deny offering asylum to Taliban leader

The Saudi government denied reports that it had offered political asylum to Afghanistan's fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar. The Saudi state news agency SPA reported that the foreign ministry spokesman denied totally the report about political asylum to the Taliban leader by Saudi Arabia.(54) However, the German magazine, Der Speigel, said the offer was the result of mediation and pressure from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and US President George W. Bush as part of efforts to seal


8

a reconciliation.(55) The Taliban have, however, said they would only agree to negotiations if international troops leave Afghanistan.

Obama tells Karzai Afghan security will be priority

US President-elect Barack Obama told Afghan President Hamid Karzai he would make it a priority to fight terrorism and bring security to Afghanistan and the region. Obama has pledged a new focus on Afghanistan. He assured Karzai of more US cooperation with the Afghan government to combat terrorism and bring security.

More than 4,000 people, around a third of them civilians, have been killed in Afghanistan this year as some 70,000 foreign troops backing Afghan security forces struggle to put down a Taliban insurgency that has spawned dozens of suicide bomber, attacks.(56)

Western leaders have grown increasingly impatient with Karzai who has ruled Afghanistan since 2002, saying his failure to crack down on rampant corruption and the drug trade and to govern effectively is fueling the Taliban insurgency. Karzai has hit back saying the killing of dozens of civilians in NATO and US-coalition air strikes weakens support for his government and boosts the Taliban.

Extra troops should go to border: Afghan FM

Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta said that extra foreign troops pledged to fight the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan should be deployed on the border to stop militants arriving from Pakistan. He further said that the troops should also end insurgent control in numerous areas otherwise Afghanistan would have to use its "own traditional ways.”(57)

Afghanistan's partners also recognised that the "nests of terrorism" outside the country needed to be shut down, he said, referring to militant sanctuaries across the border in Pakistan. Asked about the Afghan ways of fighting the violence that he had referred to, Spanta briefly mentioned traditional "self-defence forces", a likely reference to tribal militias.

The possibility of relying on militias to fight the insurgency has been raised in recent months although there are concerns this could extend the influence of warlords and undermine the government.

Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller has said that Denmark plans to send in more troops and police trainers and to double its contribution to Afghanistan's reconstruction and development. He supported talks with Taliban who agreed to the conditions laid down by the government. Moeller said, "We should not Talibanise Afghanistan but if we can civilise Taliban, it is not bad.”(58)

Nato forces kill senior Taliban commander Mullah Asad

Nato forces killed a senior Taliban commander who led up to 100 fighters and was responsible for numerous roadside bomb attacks in a British-held region of Afghanistan.(59)

Mullah Asad was operational commander for the south of Helmand province and said to be behind attacks against both Afghan and international forces. British military sources said he played an "upper middle management" role in the province's widespread Taliban insurgency, which has seen fierce fighting for nearly three years.

Afghan government to revive air force

Afghanistan’s Defence Ministry spokesman Zahir Azimi said in a news conference in Kabul that around 3.5 billion US dollars had been earmarked for reviving the wrecked air force in Afghanistan. He said that in line with building the capacity of the national army, 3.5 billion US dollars have been allocated to rebuild the air force and in this connection, 19 transport planes, C-27, would soon be given to our air force," However, he did not disclose who will provide the funds and only added that the C-27s were manufactured in the United States and Italy.(60)

Gates backs buildup of US troops in Afghanistan

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morell quoted Defence Secretary Robert Gates that he intended to meet the requests of top US commanders in Afghanistan for an increase of four more combat brigades and


9

an aviation brigade, as well as thousands of support troops -- a total reinforcement of "well north of 20,000" in the coming year and a half.(61)

Defence Secretary Robert M. Gates has said that he supports a fresh troop buildup in Afghanistan in the next 12 to 18 months — to fight a growing insurgency and to safeguard the 2009 Afghan elections. But he stressed that in the long run the conflict should be "Afghanistan's war."

The troops would deploy primarily to eastern Afghanistan along the Pakistan border, where the 3rd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division is headed in January, as well as to southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is based.(62) Gates also said that the thinking that things were out of control in Afghanistan and that the coalition forces were sliding towards a disaster was far too pessimistic.

In the long run, Gates stressed, a primary goal must be to accelerate the growth and capabilities of Afghan national security forces. That will require an international investment of billions of dollars, he said, because the Kabul government, with an annual budget of about $700 million, "will never be able to sustain this force."(63)

Interestingly, Gates told the reporters that the idea was that this was Afghanistan's war against a threat to a freely elected Afghan government, and the US was there to help them take on that threat. He further said that this was not a US war, necessarily.(64)

Afghan opposition demands election in April

Afghanistan's main opposition bloc called for presidential polls to be held in April, as laid out in the constitution, rather than in September as scheduled by the election organisers. The elections would be a major test for President Hamid Karzai, whose popularity is waning seven years after US-led and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban regime.

Burhanuddin Rabbani, the main opposition leader, told a news conference that the National Front wanted the upcoming election to be held on time and an illegitimate president would not be required. Any other dates would be against the Constitution.(65) The Afghan Constitution says the elections are to be held between 30 to 60 days before the presidential term is up, meaning they should take place around April next year (2009). But Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission says an agreement was reached between the government and opposition parties, including the National Front, to hold the polls later in the year because of the difficulty of organising elections during the harsh Afghan winter.

The National Front is a coalition made up mostly of parties led by former warlords that led the Northern Alliance that helped US-led forces topple the Taliban government in 2001.

No other prominent candidate has come forward either and the National Front is unlikely to garner enough support to win the presidency as it is mostly made up of parties representing Afghanistan's ethnic Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara minorities from the north rather than traditionally dominant Pashtun majority from the south and east.

France warns Obama of pitfalls on Iran, Afghanistan

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner on 23 November warned US President-elect Barack Obama of the potential dangers involved in his plans to deal more directly with Iran and send more troops to Afghanistan. Obama has made clear he plans a new approach to dealing with Iran and its nuclear programme, including direct talks if needed, a break from the outgoing Bush administration, which pursued an isolation strategy.

Kouchner, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, said he welcomed Obama's plans but urged him to be careful when dealing with the Iranians, who have been negotiating with major powers for years. "We have negotiated at great length. People came to France, we sent people to Iran, we met them and unfortunately this dialogue produced nothing. And so, one must be careful."(66)

Kouchner said he didn’t think sending more troops to Afghanistan would solve the problem. The solution there would be political, not military, he emphasized.


10

CIA warns of increase in ‘western’ terrorists

Michael Hayden, head of the CIA has warned that growing numbers of westerners were travelling to the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan to receive terrorist training. All the threats we had to the west have a thread that takes it back to the [Afghanistan-Pakistan] border.(67) Hayden also said that al-Qaeda was growing in strength in North Africa as well as in East Africa, in particular Somalia, and in Yemen.(68)

Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and ADB sign memorandum for railway project

Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to expand trade and economic opportunities through railway transport.(69)

The MoU, signed on the eve of the seventh annual Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) Ministers' Conference in the Azerbaijan capital Baku, recognizes the potential for growth in railway freight traffic, including transit freight traffic, between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan.

With the MoU, the Afghan government underlined the importance of developing a railway line between the Afghan cities of Hairatan which borders Uzbekistan through Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat. It has requested technical and financial assistance from ADB in order to prepare a pre-feasibility study for the proposed railway project. Uzbekistan will give its full cooperation in the conduct of the study.

TAPI pipeline facing delays

Turkmenistan's failure to offer gas certifications for the Daulatabad pipeline to Pakistan would delay the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline. The planned 1,040-mile pipeline would run from the Daulatabad field through Kandahar to Multan in Pakistan and then on to Fazilka on the Indian border with Pakistan. The Daulatabad field is considered the largest in Turkmenistan, with some 50 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves.

The News International reported that Turkmenistan was scheduled to submit certification of the available gas at the field by Oct. 1, but has long missed that deadline. Pakistani officials speaking on condition of anonymity said the lack of certification not only caused production delays, but also escalated the cost by nearly 130 per cent to $7.6 billion.(70)

The Asian Development Bank is backing the project to bring 3.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from Turkmenistan’s Daulatabad gas field. The bank said in 2005 Turkmenistan had enough gas to meet supply demands through TAPI, but forecast declining productivity from the field. Energy analysts said Turkmenistan might need to exploit other gas fields in order to meet the target capacity of the proposed pipeline.(71)

Taliban's new ‘super-bombs’ threaten US troops, even in pricey MRAPs

Throughout Afghanistan, roadside bombs are increasing not only in number but also in size, with devastating consequences for US troops and beleaguered Afghan truck drivers alike.

Culverts that run under the road to help drain and irrigate surrounding fields in the countryside now regularly conceal powerful improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, with increasingly large charges. Roadside bombs that once weighed 10 to 20 pounds have morphed into multi-gallon drums packed with 200 to 500 pounds of explosives, which insurgents roll into culverts with wheelbarrows.(72)

The enhanced bombs have in some cases destroyed the US military's expensive new Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAPs) vehicles — the product of a multi-billion dollar investment by the Pentagon that features a V-shaped hull to absorb and disperse the impact of roadside bombs. The vehicles were not built, however, to withstand 200-pounds of explosives. "They've flipped MRAPs 15 feet in the air sometimes," says one US officer in Afghanistan. "And they break them in half." US troops inside the overturned vehicles have been crushed and seriously injured by falling equipment.

The new bombs, which US military officials say began cropping up in June, are part of an insurgent effort, to disrupt commerce, create chaos, and strike at the heart of government efforts to bring


11

progress to strategic provinces like Ghazni. Highway 1 runs through the province, which remains home to a number of early Taliban leaders.(73)

Recently a US battalion caught a high-tech intelligence break when an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) spotted a nine-man team planting IEDs near a US forward base and called in an air strike. It was a cell to train Afghan insurgents to build and plant large roadside bombs. With the help of intelligence streams from more UAVs, the battalion was able to track down five IED-planting teams in seven nights, leading to a decrease in roadside bombs in the area,.

According to one US military official, there simply are not enough unmanned drones to go around, and the prospect of US troops checking every culvert they cross is unrealistic. "We need more consistent [UAV] surveillance, because these guys will regroup and come back."(74)

Karzai admits failure in securing Afghanistan

President Hamid Karzai said violence had surged in Afghanistan, admitting that his government's internationally backed efforts to secure the country had failed. Security had even deteriorated since the Taliban regime was ousted in 2001.(75)

Karzai said that since his government took power after the fall of the Taliban, it had achieved major success. But one of the nation's biggest wishes was full security, which had not been brought. It had even dropped, AFP quoted him as saying,

"Our roads are not safe, you can't go to Kandahar, to Herat. You can't take the road from Kabul to Paktia. When we came, life was good, but now it's not," Karzai said. "We are still a nation deeply in pain and misery."(76)

Swedish FM vows to continue backing Afghanistan

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt who was visiting Kabul, reassured Afghans that his country would continue to support them. He said that his main purpose was to affirm the strong support for the government of Afghanistan. His talks with the leaders focused on bilateral issues, war on terror and Sweden's role in the rebuilding process of Afghanistan.

He also assured Afghan government that Sweden would not cut back its financial and military support to Afghanistan.(77) Sweden has pledged to contribute 266 million US dollars to Afghanistan and 50 million US dollars out of the amount is disbursed annually to enable the war-wrecked nation revive health and education sectors.

Nearly 400 Swedish soldiers have been serving in Afghanistan within the framework of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), mostly deployed in the relatively peaceful north provinces.

Taliban rejects dialogue offer by tribal council

Afghan Taliban have rejected dialogue proposal by tribal elders and political leaders from Pakistan and Afghanistan and said that talks could not be held unless foreign troops quit Afghanistan.(78) Tribal elders from Afghanistan and Pakistan emphasized the urgent need for dialogue and negotiations with the 'opposition groups' in both countries to find a peaceful settlement of the on-going conflict.

A joint declaration issued at the conclusion of the two-day meeting of the 'mini Jirga' decided that channels of communication would be open with the opposition groups in the two countries. However, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said that Taliban would not hold talks with the Jirga as it was government Jirga and did not represent the people. He further said that Taliban had made it clear that unless all foreign troops were withdrawn, dialogue was impossible.(79)

Pakistan summons US envoy over missile strikes

Pakistani government spokesman said that Pakistan summoned the US ambassador to protest over missile strikes by pilotless US aircraft on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.(80)


12

The protest came two days after missiles fired by a suspected US drone killed up to 20 militants in the lawless South Waziristan border region. Pakistan Foreign Ministry official stated that it was underscored to the ambassador that the government of Pakistan strongly condemned the missile attacks, which resulted in the loss of precious lives and property.

Frustrated by an intensifying insurgency in Afghanistan, US forces have stepped up attacks on militants on the Pakistani side of the border with more than a dozen missile strikes and a commando raid since the beginning of September 2008. No senior al Qaeda or Taliban commanders have been reported killed in the attacks.(81)

Pakistan, an important ally in the US-led war on terror, is also battling militants on its side of the border but it says cross-border US strikes undermine its efforts to isolate the militants and build support for government policy against them. Pakistan’s Senate adopted a resolution in October condemning cross-border missile attacks by the US drones.

NATO does not rule out Afghan talks with Taliban

General David McKiernan, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, has said the coalition needs more troops for what he said is an increasingly "tough fight" in eastern and southern Afghanistan. The general called for enlisting tribes to help pacify the country and did not rule out reconciliation with ousted Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar.(82)

He further said that until the allied forces got to a tipping point where the lead for security could be in the hands of the Afghan Army and the Afghan Police, there would be a need for the international community to provide military capabilities. McKiernan said that any reconciliation efforts should be led by the Afghan government, but that the military would support it.

McKiernan told a Pentagon news conference that ultimately, the solution in Afghanistan is going to be a political solution not a military one. AFP quoted him as saying, "so the idea that the government of Afghanistan will take on the idea of reconciliation, I think, is (an) approach and we'll be there to provide support within our mandate."

The Afghan national army is supposed to double in size to 134,000 troops in four years, but McKiernan said he did not know how long it would take to reach a point where international forces could shrink in size. Drawing on the US experience in Iraq, however, McKiernan suggested that a rebalancing of power between the central government and the tribes could help provide security at a local level.

8 Central Asian countries band together on trade and transport

Eight countries adopted strategy documents outlining ambitious plans to deepen regional economic cooperation in transport, trade facilitation, trade policy, and energy in Central Asia and neighboring states.(83) Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, the People’s Republic of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Mongolia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan attended the conference. Ministers said in a joint statement that they pledge their commitment to work together to execute these plans in cooperation with our multilateral partners.

Afghanistan seeks Saudi help to talk with Taliban

President Hamid Karzai says he has repeatedly asked Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah to facilitate peace talks with the Taliban. He says Afghan officials have travelled to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in hopes of ending the country's six-year conflict but there have not been any negotiations so far. He says he has sent letters to the king, requesting him as the leader of the Islamic world to intervene for the security and prosperity of Afghanistan and for reconciliation in Afghanistan.

Karzai, speaking at the presidential palace, said his government was trying to encourage militants to lay down arms. He said he had in the past reached out to fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Omar to “come back to your home soil and work for the happiness of the people.”(84)

US officials have not indicated they are ready for any contacts with high-level Taliban leaders, though they (the officials) do encourage fighters to lay down arms and join the government's


13

reconciliation programme. Karzai , on the other hand, has given guarantee that he would personally protect Taliban and other militant leaders from US and NATO troops if they come back to Afghanistan for talks. He was quoted as saying, “Don't be afraid of the foreigners. If they try to harm you, I will stand in front of them.”(85)

Taliban chief pledges 'safe retreat' for foreign troops

Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar offered international forces safe passage if they withdrew from Afghanistan and ordered his fighters to drop certain tactics, such as attacks in mosques. In a traditional message for the Eid al-Fitr posted on a Taliban website, the fugitive former leader of Afghanistan also told his fighters to avoid civilian casualties as they battle Afghan and foreign troops. He said that if US and NATO troops fighting his hardline militia failed to take up the offer of a safe withdrawal, they would suffer a defeat like the Soviet forces did in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The message from "Mullah Omar Mujahed (fighter)" urged Taliban fighters to "stand like steel in front of the enemy" but take care to avoid harming civilians. It also told fighters to stop "action which is not compliant with Islamic law and culture" including bombings in mosques and crowded areas, stealing people's property, and cutting off the ears of people. He also told them to stop burning school books. He further said, "Several years ago, no one thought that Americans and their friends would face such hard resistance, that today the (Afghan) president and his ministers would beg for money, weapons and soldiers while no one gives a positive answer."(86)

A modernized Taliban thrives in Afghanistan

Pamela Constable writes in The Washington Post that Just one year ago, the Taliban insurgency was a furtive, loosely organized guerrilla force that carried out hit-and-run ambushes, burned empty schools, left warning letters at night and concentrated attacks in the southern rural regions of its ethnic and religious heartland. Today it is a larger, better-armed and more confident militia, capable of mounting sustained military assaults. Its forces operate in virtually every province and control many districts in areas ringing the capital. Its fighters have bombed embassies and prisons, nearly assassinated the president, executed foreign aid workers and hanged or beheaded dozens of Afghans.

She writes that the new Taliban movement has created a parallel government structure that includes defence and finance councils and appoints judges and officials in some areas. It offers cash to recruits and presents letters of introduction to local leaders. It operates Websites and a 24-hour propaganda apparatus that spins every military incident faster than Afghan and Western officials can manage.(87)

Waheed Mojda, a former foreign ministry aide under the Taliban Islamic Emirate which ruled most of the country from 1996 to 2001, said, "They are more educated, and they don't punish people for having CDs or cassettes," he said. "The old Taliban wanted to bring sharia, security and unity to Afghanistan. The new Taliban has much broader goals — to drive foreign forces out of the country and the Muslim world."(88)

Afghans doubt US intentions

An Afghan state newspaper, daily Anis, says that Afghans believe the United States knows about al-Qaeda bases in Pakistan, but does not hit them because it wants an unstable Afghanistan to justify its presence for wider regional goals.(89)

This is the first time a state newspaper has published reports showing public opinion against US intentions. Ties between Afghanistan and Pakistan, both major US allies in its war against Muslim militants, have hit new lows with the Afghan government accusing Pakistan of funding and training Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters for cross-border attacks.

The United States always says it would attack the militants wherever they are, but in reality it has not done so, the newspaper says. "The Afghan people have long doubted such claims of foreigners, especially of Britain and America, and their trust about crushing al-Qaeda and terrorism has fallen."(90)


14

Anis say Afghans believe Washington wants to keep Afghanistan unstable in order to justify the presence of its troops there. In fact the US policy is driven by Afghanistan's geographical location bordering Iran and Central Asia’s rich oil- and gas-producing countries.(91)

Russian stance on NATO in Afghanistan

Russian envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said that NATO's defeat in Afghanistan would not be good for Russia. He further said that “there are issues in our cooperation which affect our highest national interests. The first such issue is Afghanistan.” He said the coalition was not doing any good.(92)

Rogozin said that according to Russian information, more than 40% of the cargo was not reaching the NATO troops in Afghanistan. For this reason, the only route that could save the group lay through Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. He said that Russian response would be pragmatic after the events in South Ossetia, nothing would happen abruptly in NATO-Russian relations.(93)

Brown urges Afghan cooperation with Pakistan

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged the Afghan president to cooperate more closely with Pakistan against terrorism. He said that he would be pressing on President Karzai the need for greater cooperation with the Pakistani authorities. He further said that Britain would be pressing on the Pakistanis themselves the need for them “to be involved with us in fighting terrorism.”(94) Brown wouldn't be drawn on whether the absence of Musharraf -- a key Western ally against terrorism -- would hinder the fight against the Taliban. He said Britain worked closely with army chief General Ashfaq Kayani.

Sarkozy tells French troops in Afghanistan to keep fighting

President Nicolas Sarkozy told French soldiers mourning 10 comrades killed by the Taliban that their work in Afghanistan was essential for the "freedom of the world" and must continue. Sarkozy travelled to Kabul with his Defence Minister Herve Morin and Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner for a lightning visit to show support after the 10 were killed and 21 others wounded in a battle with Taliban rebels. Sarkozy told the soldiers that the best way to be loyal to comrades was to continue their work. Your work is to raise your heads, to be professional."(95)

He said that even after the shock of the deadly ambush, about 50 kilometres (30 miles) east of Kabul, he was convinced French troops needed to be in Afghanistan alongside those of other nations in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.(96)

France's contribution of 3,000 troops to ISAF is one of the largest, after those of the United States, Britain and Germany. The French army and ISAF in Kabul meanwhile refused to comment on a report in Le Monde newspaper quoting French soldiers who had survived the ambush saying they came under fire from NATO planes that had come to help them escape. In Brussels, a NATO official said the alliance would "look into the report", while the Pentagon said it had no information that close US air support resulted in French casualties.

Afghanistan on fire

According to New York Times editorial published on 21 August 2008, the United States and NATO casualties were mounting so quickly, that unless something happens soon this could be the deadliest year of the Afghan war. Kabul, the seat of Afghanistan’s pro-Western government, is increasingly besieged. And Taliban and foreign Qaeda fighters are consolidating control over an expanding swath of territory sprawling across both sides of the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

The more territory the Taliban controls, the more money it can raise from narcotics and black-market activities to mount an even fiercer challenge against the foundering civilian governments in Kabul and Islamabad. And the more territory the Taliban controls, the more freedom Al Qaeda will have to mount new terrorist operations against this country and others.(97)


15

The editorial warns that there is no more time to waste. Unless the United States, NATO and its central Asian allies move quickly, they could lose this war. It suggests the following steps to be taken in the coming weeks.(98)

1. Washington must finally make clear to Pakistan’s leaders the mortal threat they face. The Army must turn its attention from India to the fight against the Taliban. Civilian leaders must realize that there can be no separate peace with the extremists. Sending American troops or warplanes into Pakistani territory will only feed anti-American furies. That should be the job of Pakistan’s army, with intelligence help and carefully monitored financial support from the United States.

2. More American ground troops will have to be sent to Afghanistan. The Pentagon’s over-reliance on airstrikes — which have led to high levels of civilian casualties — has dangerously antagonized the Afghan population.

3. NATO also needs to step up its military effort. With Russia threatening to redraw the post-Soviet map of Europe, this is not time for NATO to forfeit its military credibility by losing a war.

4. Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, must rein in his government’s rampant corruption that has all but driven his people into the hands of the Taliban and criminal warlords.

5. More financial aid and assistance to Afghanistan for rebuilding. The Newspaper concluded by saying that Afghanistan’s war was not a sideshow. It is the principal

military confrontation between America and NATO and the forces responsible for 9/11 and later deadly terrorist attacks on European soil. Washington, NATO and the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan must stop fighting it like a holding action and develop a strategy to win.

Notes and References

1. UN Security Council SC/9519, 6031st meeting, 4 December 2008.

<http://www.un.org/News/Press/doc/2008/SC9519.doc.html>. 2. Ibrahim Shinwari, Dawn, 1 January 2009. 3. Ibid. 4. AFP, 1 January 2009. 5. Adam Ellick, The New York Times, 30 December 2008. 6. Ibid. 7. Reuters, 23 December 2008. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Mark Ward, Washington Post, 26 December 2008. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Golnar Motevalli, Reuter’s, 22 December 2008. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. Associated Press, 26 November 2008 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Xinhua News Agency, 26 December 2008 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Associated Press, 22 December 2008 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid. 28. Reuters, 26 November 2008 29. Jeremy Page, The Times, 22 December 2008 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 32. http://www.franceonu.org/spip.php?article3067.


16

33. http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?col=&section=middleeast&xfile=data/middleeast/2008/December/middleeast_December192.xml).

34. AFP, 6 December 2008. 35. Ibid. 36. Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service, Canada, 26 November 2008. 37. Ibid. 38. Kirk Kraeutler, “UN Reports that Taliban is Stockpiling Opium”, The New York Times, 28 November

2008. 39. Ibid. 40. Ibid. 41. UPI, Ottawa, 26 November 2008. 42. Ibid. 43. Riaz Khan, Associated Press Writer, 27 November 2008. 44. David Morgan, Reuters, 25 November 2008. 45. Ibid. 46. Ibid. 47. Candace Rondeaux, Washington Post Foreign Service, 25 November 2008; A08. 48. Sajid Chaudhry, “ The Daily Times, 25 November 2008. 49. Ibid. 50. Barry Newhouse, VOA , Kabul 25 November 2008. 51. Ibid. 52. Lalit K Jha - Pajhwok- 22 November 2008. 53. Ibid. 54. AFP, 22 November 2008. 55. Ibid. 56. Reuters, 23 November 2008. 57. AFP, 23 November 2008. 58. AFP, 23 November 2008. 59. Ben Farmer in Kabul, 23 November 2008. 60. Xinhua, 23 November 2008. 61. Ann Scot Tyson, Washington Post, 22 November 2008. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid. 64. Ibid. 65. Reuters, 23 November 2008. 66. Francois Murphy, Reuters, 24 November 2008. 67. Ewen MacAskill, The Guardian, 14 November 2008. 68. Ibid. 69. http://www.adb.org/Media/Articles/2008/12719-railway-transport-cooperation/. 70. UPI, 31 October 2008. 71. Ibid. 72. Anna Mulrine, US News & World Report, L.P, 31 October 2008. 73. Ibid. 74. Ibid. 75. AFP 29 October 2008. 76. Ibid. 77. Xinhua News Agency, 29 October 2008. 78. IRNA, 29 October 2008. 79. Ibid. 80. Reuters, 29 October 2008. 81. Ibid. 82. Jim Mannion, AFP, 1 October 2008. 83. USA Today, 22 November 2008. 84. Rahin Faiez, Associated Press, 30 September 2008. 85. Ibid. 86. Ibid. 87. Pamela Constable, The Washington Post, 20 September 2008. 88. Ibid. 89. Sayed Salahuddin, Reuters, 21 August 2008. 90. Ibid. 91. Ibid. 92. Interfax-AVN , Moscow , 21 August 2008. 93. Ibid.


17

94. Katherine Baldwin, Reuters, 21 August 2008. 95. Philippe Elfroy, AFP, 20 August 2008. 96. Ibid. 97. The New York Times, 21 August 2008. 98. Ibid.

Institute of Regional Studies – Islamabadirs.org.pk/images/Regional Brief/0809...

Documents

Transcript of Institute of Regional Studies – Islamabadirs.org.pk/images/Regional Brief/0809...