An Escalation of the War in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a Very Bad Policy.

by John Maszka
Conservatives and liberals can argue the merits of the surge in Iraq , or the need to deal with terrorism now rather than later (or whether Musharraf's resignation is good for democracy in Pakistan). I want to focus on something else: the impact of the perspective of 1.5 billion Muslims around the world. I’m not implying that it is somehow homogeneous, just relevant; more relevant than my opinion at least.

The extension of the war on terror by the U.S. is bad for a number of reasons: the perspective of the international Muslim community; the fact that a military solution has not worked thus far, so why keep kicking a dead horse ; the delicate balance of power in the immediate theatre and in the broader region; the likely negative reaction of other states; and last but not least, its potential impact on the price and availability of oil.

Pakistan ’s reaction to the Bush Doctrine has been somewhat mixed. Musharraf was caught in the middle between pleasing the U.S. to ensure continued military and economic support, and the preferences of his constituents who resent the U.S. presence there. The region is already unstable because of this tension. The US is applying pressure from the outside and the internal desire of the populace to rid themselves of the unwanted American presence.

We can say the exact same thing about Afghanistan , Karzai is in a very similar position as Musharraf was. In 2006, Karzai had to start rearming the warlords to maintain order. Similarly, in September 2006, Pakistan was forced to recognize the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan - a loose group of Waziristani chieftains, closely associated with the Taliban, who now serve as the de facto security force in charge of North and South Waziristan.

In addition to a multiple-front war, we would be dealing, not with a fallen state as with Iraq , but with two established states. This could possibly work in our favor as long as they continue to remain on our side. But as already mentioned, the tension is high, and there is a very delicate balance keeping Karzai in power. What if Karzai falls to a coup or assassination? And now with Musharraf stepping down, what happens if Musharraf’s successor plays to the popular demands of the people? We could find ourselves fighting the armies of the sovereign states of Afghanistan and Pakistan , in addition to insurgent forces there. If we consider the history of this region, we realize that this is not as far-fetched as it might sound on the face of it.

As we all know, the Taliban was comprised of Sunni Islamists and Pashtun nationalists (mostly from southern Afghanistan and western Pakistan ). The Taliban initially enjoyed support from the U.S. , Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates in the early 1980s to fight the Soviets. By 1996, the Taliban had gained control of most of Afghanistan , but its relationship with the U.S. and most of the rest of the world became strained. Most of the international community supported the Taliban’s rival, the Afghan Northern Alliance .

Still, even after the U.S. began to distance itself from the Taliban in late 1997, Pakistan , Saudi Arabia , and the United Arab Emirates continued to officially recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Even after 9/11 when Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates officially stopped recognizing the Taliban, Pakistan continued to support it. The Taliban in turn, had tremendous influence in Pakistani politics, especially among lobby groups- as it virtually controlled areas such as the Pashtun Belt (Southeast Afghanistan, and Northwest Pakistan ) and Pakistan-administered Kashmir .

Going back to the perception of the international Muslim community … When the U.S. demanded that the Taliban turn Bin Laden over, it initially offered to turn Bin Laden over to Pakistan to be tried by an international tribunal operating according to Sharia law. But Pakistan was urged by the U.S. to refuse. Again, prior to the beginning of U.S. air strikes against Afghanistan , the Taliban offered to try Bin Laden according to Islamic law, but the U.S. refused. After the U.S. began air strikes, the Taliban offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral state to be tried under Islamic law, but the U.S. again refused. This is important because in the eyes of the greater international community, the war in Afghanistan was justified (at least initially). But in the eyes of the international Muslim community, especially given the Taliban’s offer to turn over Bin Laden, it was an unnecessary war. This, combined with the preemptive war in Iraq , has led many Muslims to equate the war on terror with a war on Islam.

Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, an Islamic political party in Pakistan , won elections in two out of four provinces in 2003, and became the third largest political party in the Pakistani parliament – with substantial support from urban areas (not just border regions). This speaks to the tremendous influence Islamic groups enjoy in Pakistan .

This strong influence is fueled by the fact that the Pashtun tribal group is over 40 million strong. The Taliban continues to receive many of its members from this group today. In fact, the Pakistani army suffered humiliating defeat at the hand of these so-called “insurgents.” Finally, in September 2006, Pakistan was forced to officially recognize the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. Many saw the Pakistani government’s acknowledgment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan as not only a military necessity, but also a political one as well – a concession in response to the growing internal pressure on the Musharraf administration from the people of Pakistan who resent the U.S. presence and involvement in the region.

Just consider the many, many public protests against the Pakistani government’s compliance with the United States. For instance, on January 13, 2006 , the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola , Pakistan . Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead killed 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area.

On October 30, 2006 , the Pakistani military, under pressure from the U.S. , attacked a madrasah in the Northwest Frontier province in Pakistan . Immediately following the attack, local residents, convinced the U.S. military was behind the attack, burned American flags and effigies of President Bush, and shouted “Death to America !” Outraged over an attack on school children, the local residents viewed the attack as an assault against Islam. On November 7, 2006 a suicide bomber retaliated. Further outrage ensued when President Bush extended his condolences to the families of the victims of the suicide attack, and President Musharraf did the same, without ever offering their condolences to the families of the dead children.

Last year troubles escalated surrounding the Pakistani government’s siege of the Red Mosque where more than 100 people were killed. Even before Musharraf’s soldiers took the Lal Masjid the retaliations began. Suicide attacks originating from both Afghan Taliban and Pakistani tribal militants targeted military convoys and a police recruiting center.

There are countless more examples; too many to mention in detail. Likewise in Afghanistan ; April 30, 2007 for example, when hundreds of Afghans protested US soldiers killing Afghan civilians. Why can’t the powers that be recognize that we’ve been in Afghanistan for nearly seven years, and in Iraq for over five; a military approach is not working. If we must focus the war on terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan , let’s focus on winning the hearts and minds of the beautiful people of these countries, rather than filling their hearts with bitterness and hatred toward us. With their support, we can offer them the financial and technical assistance that they need to rebuild their infrastructure, their agriculture and their economy. With their support, we can offer them the needed resources to rebuild their human capital and start attracting foreign direct investment. But without their support, we cannot possibly have any positive influence in this region at all; our only influence will be that of brute force, bribery of corrupt officials, and outright coercion. It will be a long, hard, costly and bloody endeavor, and the people of these countries will continue to suffer.

Let’s not forget that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Let’s not also forget that this is a highly Muslim-concentrated area, the Islamic concept of duty to come to the aid of fellow Muslims would no doubt ensure a huge influx of jihadists in this type of a scenario. Why on earth would we want to intentionally provoke a situation that would not only radicalize existing moderates in the region, but could also potentially cause the influx of a concentration of radical jihadists from elsewhere into an already unstable region (that has nuclear weapons no less)? We would be begging for a nuclear proliferation problem.

We like to assume that we would have the upper hand in such a scenario. But we have been in Afghanistan since October of 2001. And we have yet to assume the upper hand. The fight in Afghanistan has the potential to become much more difficult than it already is. Nor would it be unheard of to expect other major powers to back these radical jihadists with economic and military assistance in much the same way that the US backed the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union . Beyond the fact that roughly 1/5 of the world’s population is Muslim (approximately 1.5 billion people- 85% Sunni, 15% Shia, Ibadiyyas, Ahmadis and Druze), we have to remember that Muslims are the majority in 57 states (out of 195). Most of these have Sunni majorities, which gives them added political power.

China has traditionally backed Pakistan . What would China do if the US were to find itself at war with Pakistan.....or the entire world for that matter ?

India has tremendous economic and security interests in the region. Let’s not forget that while India has been in nearly continual conflict with Pakistan , primarily over the Kashmir issue, it has the second largest Muslim population in the world next to Indonesia . What happens if India were to side with the U.S. in a potential conflict with Pakistan ? It will have a very difficult task justifying that position with its very large Muslim population. A U.S.-Indian alliance could also spark more terrorist attacks in the Kashmir region; it could also create added tension to the already tenuous relationship between India and Iran , which has a long history of support for Pakistan . Or, if radicals gained control of Pakistan ’s nuclear arsenal, a nuclear attack against India could spark a nuclear altercation between the two nuclear powers. Or, what if radicals then gained control of India ’s nuclear arsenal?

On the other hand, what happens if India for some reason (either via a coup or due to Muslims gaining the upper hand in the long-running Hindu-Muslim conflict) were to side with Pakistan against the United States ? It seems unlikely now, but not completely unrealistic considering the on-again, on-off relationship between the U.S. and every country in that region. We constantly flip-flop in our foreign policy. An attack on Pakistani soil would be a perfect example of this type of wishy-washy foreign policy, as the Bush administration guaranteed Musharraf that the U.S. would never do such a thing (as much as Karzai wants us to). Speaking of Karzai, what if he is ousted and we find ourselves at war with Afghanistan . What would India do then, given its friendship with Afghanistan ?

Also consider the U.S. position on Kashmir , which has a predominantly Muslim population. Pakistan wants a plebiscite, as called for in a 1949 UN resolution, to essentially allow the people to decide which state the region should belong to. India refuses a plebiscite, claiming Kashmir and Jammu as an integral part of India. The U.S. is arming both sides through billions in aid to Pakistan and selective proliferation to India , but insists Pakistan stem terrorist activities flowing from inside its borders, and at the same time discourages India from attacking Pakistan . Yet an escalation of war in the area could backfire badly.

Beyond all that we still have to consider a slew of other states such as Saudi Arabia , Iran , and Russia – not to mention the central Asian states - all of which have economic and/or political and security interests in the region. How will they react to an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan ?

Finally, what would such a scenario do to oil prices and availability? I’m 100% in favor of America developing alternative energy sources, but again that’s my opinion, and the oil conglomerates have not been listening to me. Unfortunately, the facts are that the oil lobby is a very powerful entity. Even more to the point, our country could not ween itself off of oil overnight, even if it wanted to. We have to consider what such an escalation would do to oil prices, and the overall availability of oil.

The oil embargo of 1974 (in support of Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur war against Israel ), in retaliation against the U.S. for its support of Israel had devastating economic and political consequences on the U.S. and much of Europe . Also, the more recent boycott of Danish products across the Muslim world, in retaliation for the 2005 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, demonstrates the ability of the international Muslim community to act collectively.

Escalating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan would also demonstrate the fickle and hypocritical nature of America ’s foreign policy. We supported the Taliban when it served our interests (to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan ) in spite of clear human rights abuses. But now we condemn the Taliban (and much of the Muslim world) over the very same human rights abuses (against women … etc.), while we also continue to ignore similar or same human rights abuses in China, Saudi Arabia, Israel … etc., when it’s convenient for us to do so. We did the same thing with Saddam Hussein; arming him in spite of clear and egregious human rights abuses when he was our ally, and condemning the same actions when he wasn’t.

The U.S. practices selective proliferation with India , and selective sovereignty with those it chooses (today Pakistan , tomorrow someone other than Pakistan ), while at the same time violating the sovereignty of other states- depending on its whim at the time.

The United States government insisted that the Taliban turn over Bin Laden, but the United States itself has refused on several occasions to return foreign nationals (being held on death row in America) to their state of domicile because the U.S. wanted them to face execution, and the home state did not uphold the death penalty. We also continue to refuse to acknowledge the ICC because we don’t want American military personnel tried in an international court. How is that so different from the Taliban wanting Bin Laden tried in an Islamic court?

Rather than blindly accepting that America holds some God-given moral superiority over the rest of the planet, we need to realize that everywhere, humanity has a God-given right to live, love and prosper. Our children have the right to grow up in an environment free of air strikes and constant assault from an external enemy. They have the right to attend schools without fear of being maimed and killed. And they have the right to be children, instead of orphans. No state has the right to take away our children.


John Maszka is an International Relations scholar primarily interested in American foreign policy and its impact on global terrorism.He is the auther of : Terrorism And The Bush Doctrine - ISBN-13: 9781606100103 Pub. Date: May 2008. The book is available at most bookstores and on the Internet.

Exit Musharraf: A Score for Democracy.

The announcement by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that he would resign “for the sake of the nation” should be a lesson for African leaders who to cling to power despite ouster via the ballot box. Musharaf’s exit marks an important milestone in global democracy. The people will always prevail.

Earlier this month, Mauritania joined the long list of African countries whose failed leadership has led to coups. On 6th August, Mauritania’s General Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz ousted democratically-elected president Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi and declared himself president. Abdel Aziz has since promised to hold elections “soon” and to fight corruption which he says was rampant in the previous regime.

Like the self declared Mauritanian president Abdel Aziz, Pervez Musharraf ascended to power by the gun. He forcefully seized power in 1999 and has ruled Pakistan ever since. He gained some form of international recognition after the 9/11 attack in the U.S. as a key ally in the fight against international terrorism.

Musharaf began to fall out of favor both at home and abroad in 2007 following complains by Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai of purported regrouping of Taliban forces in western Pakistani mountains where Osama Bin Laden is believed to be hiding.

Last December’s assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Ms. Benazir Bhutto reignited animosity against Musharaf by locals blaming him for not providing sufficient security. His party lost the elections that soon followed.

Like all global leaders, Musharaf made many unpopular decisions during his tenure. However, he chose to “put the people of Pakistan first.” In a televised address, he said that he was satisfied with whatever he had done for his country (including the military coup in 1999) and that he hoped justice would prevail following his resignation. “I put myself to the people of Pakistan to decide about my future and they will do justice,” he said.

Considering how he came to power, Musharaf could have chosen the African route by silencing any opposition and declaring a state of emergency. He chose to step down. Yes he may have caved into political pressure to resign, but he had other available options which he gracefully disregarded. He did not do a Mugabe or the recent happenings in Mauritania.

Everything he did as Pakistani president will determine his future as a civilian since he shed his military coat. The people of Pakistan wanted him out. He has obliged and so should other African leaders who have fallen out of favour with the electorate.

Kenya tea loses its flavour in Pakistan

From The Business Daily
May 12, 2008: A tactical manoeuvre by Pakistan into bilateral free trade arrangements with several Asian neighbours is threatening to throw its multi-billion shilling-a-year-tea trade with Kenya into a spin.

For many years, Pakistan has been the single largest buyer of Kenyan tea, taking up more than 28 per cent of its total exports worth an estimated Sh12 billion a year.

But in a surprise twist, the tea trade between the two nations has been on a slump over the last three years with analysts warning that the trend is likely to carry on.

“The trend has been noted over the years and the trade in tea between the two countries is slumping further,” Dr Amjad Iqbal, the head of trade affairs at the Pakistani High Commission in Kenya told Business Daily in an interview.

Statistics obtained from the Tea Board of Kenya (TBK) confirmed the decline, both in value and volume. For instance in 2005, Kenya exported 98 million kilogrammes of tea worth Sh12 billion to Pakistan, but this gradually shrunk to 80 million kg worth Sh10 billion in 2007.

The trend was evident over the first quarter of 2008 when Kenya tea exports to Pakistan dropped 52 per cent, confirming fears that commodity trade ties between the two countries were getting loose.

Analysts trace the weakening to a decision by Pakistan to enter into Free Trade Area (FTA) pacts with several of its neighbours under the ambit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

An FTA is a designated group of countries that have agreed to eliminate tariffs, quotas and preferences on most if not all goods between them.

SAFTA involves the free movement of goods, between countries through elimination of tariff and non-tariff restrictions on the movement of goods, and other equivalent measures.

A section of members of South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) such as India and Sri Lanka directly rival Kenya in the tea business.

Other member nations in the SAFTA pact are Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives and Nepal. The SAFTA pact was signed in Islamabad, Pakistan in January 2004 during the 12th Summit of SAARC. It came into force on January 1, 2006. Member countries have up to January 1, 2016 to comply with the entire SAFTA deal.

Seeking to take an early ride on the FTA, Pakistan and Sri Lanka struck a deal soon after the pact came into force exchanging preferential market access to each others’ exports by way of tariff concessions.

Sri Lanka would be able to enjoy duty free market access on 206 products in the Pakistani market including tea, rubber and coconut. Pakistan, in return, would gain duty free access on 102 products in the Sri Lankan market. These products include oranges, basmati rice and engineering goods.

Pakistan also has an FTA arrangement with China that is also elbowing Kenya out of the vintage position in tea business. The Pakistan-China FTA was signed in November 2006 between Presidents Pervez Musharraf and Hu Jintao with Pakistan winning an overall market access at zero duty on industrial alcohol, cotton fabrics, bed linen and other home textiles, leather articles, mangoes, citrus, fruits and vegetables, iron and steel products among others.

In the deal China also promised to reduce its tariff by 50 per cent on fish, dairy sectors, frozen orange juice, plastic products rubber products, knit wear and woven garments.

In return Pakistan gave market access to China mainly on machinery; organic; and inorganic chemicals, fruits & vegetables, medicaments and other raw materials for various industries including engineering sector, intermediary goods for engineering sectors. As the new FTA arrangements take shape, Kenya’s traditional tea trade with Pakistan is already feeling the pinch.


“It is definite that one would turn to the best partners and the existing FTA arrangements are doing quite well. Much of the business is going to nations with which Pakistan has FTA arrangements,” Dr Iqbal told Business Daily. For instance, statistics from the Sri Lanka Commerce Department showed that the FTA deal had prompted growth in tea exports to Pakistan.

As at 2006, the value of Sri Lankan tea shipments to Pakistan climbed 13 per cent to $8 million, just one year after the free trade pact was penned on to paper.

“The tariff rate quota of 10,000 metric tonnes granted by Pakistan for export of tea at zero duty under the FTA would help Sri Lanka to regain its market share over time,” the Sri Lankan Commerce Department said in a statement. Pakistan is already courting upcoming tea producers in Africa such as Rwanda and Malawi for possible FTA arrangements that would ease trade ties.

“We are in negotiations with Rwanda for an FTA because their tea production is improving both in terms of quantity and quality,” revealed Dr Iqbal “I believe a similar efforts is on going with Malawi”.

He said tea exports from Rwanda to the Pakistani market had climbed impressively and now accounted for about eight per cent of the total market share compared to six per cent three years ago.Malawi today enjoys seven per cent of the total Pakistani tea market share compared to five per cent in 2005. “Kenya should see the sense in this and enter an FTA with Pakistan. Our proposal for an FTA has been pending with the Kenya Government since 2001. Seven years is not a long time and we are hopeful,” Dr Iqbal said.

Analysts however said though Kenya had the provisions to negotiate an FTA with Pakistan it would be difficult to find one that doesn’t infringe on the current FTA it has with other member countries of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (Comesa).

“The WTO does not bar a nation from entering more than one FTA arrangement but any such new arrangements must not be better than the existing ones because that would be tantamount to short-circuiting those already in existence,” a senior official at the Trade Ministry in Nairobi told Business Daily.

But apart from the threats of Pakistan’s new FTA partners, Kenya faces another major hurdle in protecting its prime tea market next year should the East African Community (EAC) change the import duty currently charged on Pakistani rice shipments into the country.

For many years, Kenya and other EAC nations pegged the common external tariff (CET) on rice imports from Pakistan at 75 per and an extra 35 import duty in line with the provisions of the harmonised community description and coding system. But in a surprise move, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda unsuccessfully tried to start charging all rice imports at 75 per cent duty from January 1, 2005.

This drew the wrath of Pakistani rice exporters who then pressured their Government to arm-twist Kenya into deferring the duty or slap them with a reciprocal raise in the import duty of tea.

Faced with a limbo over its tea exports Kenya sweet-talked other members of the EAC into deferring the new import tariff for another two years. The deferment is set to expire by June next year, raising fresh fears that trade between the two countries could be hard hit should the tariff structure for rice change.

Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA) managing director Lerionka Tiampati said urgent consultations were needed between EAC members states to avoid hurting bilateral trade ties like those between Kenya and Pakistan. “If it (changes in rice import tariff) were to happen, it would be really bad on us. I hope it does not happen,” he told Business Daily. Mr Tiampati felt Kenya should negotiate another extension with its EAC partners.

Dr Iqbal said though the EAC import tariff issue was futuristic, failure to address it on time would have great impact on the bilateral pact of Kenya and Pakistan. “We hope that Kenya will ensure regular and sufficient supply of rice to its consumers when this time comes.

Kenya produces about a third of its annual rice demand of 250,000 tonnes with a bulk of the shipments coming from Pakistan alone. Statistics showed that IRRI-6 rice shipments to Kenya accounted for about 70 per cent of the Pakistan market share.