Air Commodore (R) Khalid Iqbal

SYRIA is going through the pangs, which have been a signature tune of the Middle East for over one year. Middle East scenario is viewed by observers from various angles; greater Zionist design, domestic political resurgence against despots, search for identity to return to roots by discarding the unjust geo-political settlement that came about through intrigue woven by TH Lawrence and Sharif Hussein of Makkak and endorsed by the victors of two World Wars. Probably, mosaic has evolved through a combination of all these factors.

President Basher Al Assad is the only Arab leader who inherited the presidency from his father within the framework of a Republican system. At that time, Syrian government saw no harm in overriding constitutional stipulations, and made a fundamental change to the constitutional structure allowing a person below 40 years of age to assume power. President Assad has an inherent disadvantage that he has not had any exposure with commoners. Hence, all his decisions are likely to be based on the advice of opportunist coterie, playing down the uprising and advising its suppression through use of force.

Syria is going through a difficult situation. On the political level, the regime has adopted policies that increased its Arab and international isolation. On the diplomatic level, the regime failed in marketing its pro-Arab policies. It has also failed in the media war. Internally, the country’s economy is in dire straits because of sanctions. However, its ruler has the advantage that unlike his Libyan counterpart, he has international links that could assist him in reaching to a Yemen like solution.

Arab League (AL) has an accepted legitimacy to make an effort to resolve the crises in the Arab countries. The League of Arab States did seize the initiative by deploying its ‘Observer Mission’. On January 28, the League’s observer mission came to a virtual end, as the Syrian government decided to control observers’ access. Arab League lacks appropriate security structures and cannot go beyond a set of diplomatic norms, as a corollary, it has a very low threshold. Hence, it is always in a hurry to refer the matter to UNSC. This, at times, gives an impression of abdicating its responsibility.

Though Arab League refers the matter to the United Nations in good faith, UNSC does not take charge with a mindset to act as an honest peace broker. Unfortunately, UNSC has radiated an impression of degenerating into a tool of propagating American interests. Though the remaining four veto powers share the blame for this, for without their complacency to go along the American way, UNSC could have retained its potency.

The Arab League peace plan called for Assad’s regime to withdraw its military forces from residential areas, stop acts of violence against civilians, release opposition prisoners arrested because of the current unrest, end all fighting and bloodshed, delegate power to the vice president and allow creation of a national government of unity. President Assad had signed a protocol with the Arab League pledging to meet the conditions set in the plan. Arab League took the matter to UNSC when it felt that President Assad had reneged on his promise.

Vetoing of UNSC resolution pertaining to Syria by Russia and China is a pleasant surprise. Hopefully, this will mark the end of unilateralism that followed the termination of cold war and was further reinforced after 9/11. This voting has shocked the United Sates.

Before the vote President Obama had said, “the Syrian regime’s policy of maintaining power by terrorizing its people only indicates its inherent weakness and inevitable collapse...Assad has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community...Every government has the responsibility to protect its citizens, and any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern.”

After the vote, Ambassador Susan Rice said, “The United States is disgusted that a couple of members of this council continue to prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose here - addressing an ever-deepening crisis in Syria and a growing threat to regional peace and security.”

Russia’s UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, defended the negative vote by saying that proposed resolution “sent an unbalanced signal to the Syrian parties”. Chinese envoy to the UN Li Baodong said pushing through such “a vote when parties are still seriously divided ... will not help maintain the unity and authority of the Security Council, or help resolve the issue.” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed deep regret, saying that it ‘undermined the role of the United Nations’.

A Security Council resolution can be blocked by a single veto from any one of the five permanent members. A double veto by the Security Council permanent members is rare event; however, this was second one by the two countries since the start of the Syrian crisis about a year ago. This indicates emergence of Sino-Russian counterweight to America. To the well-wishers of an equitable world order, 13 votes in favour of the resolution came as a disappointment. It is interesting that Pakistan and China viewed the issue differently.

During the process of consideration of the resolution, Pakistan had pursued the inclusion of four points, viz no military intervention by outsiders, no forced regime change and preservation of Syrian security and integration, initiation of democratic process in line with aspirations of the people, halting the killing, and no supply of arms to government and insurgents. All these points were incorporated in the resolution. However, Russian envoy objected to the language of the resolution and the consensus began to breakdown. Pakistan’s efforts were in concert with Arab League. Before voting Pakistan informed China of its intent to vote differently, to which China had no reservation.

Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN ambassador Hussain Haroon said, “Reports of continuing violence and bloodshed cannot, and should not be taken lightly by anyone. We strongly condemn use of force against peaceful protesters....The situation therefore requires collective analysis towards obtaining a solution... the discussion must remain in full cognizance and respect of the independence, unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. It also should remain within the framework of Chapter VI and the principles of pacific settlement of disputes. We support the Arab League’s efforts, including deployment of the Observers...We also hope that the Mission would continue its work”.

Arab countries have to realize that greater Middle East game envisages regime change in all Arab countries, if they keep faltering, under pressure, the UNSC will keep on authorizing regime change in all of Arab countries one by one, and it’s only a matter of sequence. Sadly, Arab counties have not learnt any lesson from the Libyan fiasco. Arab League needs to raise its own rapid reaction force to tackle Libya and Syria like situations. Moreover, the OIC must come out of hibernation and play a proactive role in crises management, as envisaged by its founding fathers.

Over the recent years, the UNO had in fact become a tool for furthering American unilateralism. Despite this leverage, Americans had no qualms in mis-interpreting the UNSC resolutions to exceed the mandate. Resolutions 1973 and 1979 pertaining to Libya are recent example whereby a limited mandate of establishing a no-fly zone was stretched beyond imagination to unleash a full war on Libya. Chinese and Russians appear determined to prevent a similar replay.

Hopefully, Russia and China would keep up the good job and continue to perform the balancing act for saving the world from ill effects of unilateralism in international diplomacy. For now, stationing of a UN peacekeeping mission in Syria needs to be looked into, followed by free and fair election in about 2-3 years timeframe.

Mohammad Jamil

TAKING a strong exception to the hearing of US House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Balochistan, Pakistan has termed it an “ill-advised” move that would be detrimental to the efforts to restore the trust between Pakistan and the United States of America. A Pakistan Embassy spokesman in Washington said that Pakistan’s Ambassador Sherry Rehman raised this issue in meetings with the members of congress and senior officials of the US administration. The United States Committee on Foreign Affairs had convened a congressional meeting on 8the February 2012 for an exclusive discussion on the gravity of situation in Balochistan. The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, chaired by Republican Dana Rohrabacher, held a session to discuss target killings and human rights situation in Balochistan, and termed it a matter requiring urgent attention. This provocative meddling of some half a dozen US congressmen in a matter strictly an internal affair of Pakistan is despicable and condemnable.

In his opening remarks, Rohrabacher said Balochistan is a turbulent land marred by human rights violations “by regimes that are against US values”. Human Rights Watch Pakistan Director Ali Dayan Hasan, in his remarks, said that cases documented by the HRW showed that Pakistan’s security forces and its intelligence agencies were involved in the forced disappearance of ethnic Baloch. However, C. Christine Fair, an assistant Professor at Georgetown University, in her written statement, disagreed with the suggestion, saying that given the ethnic diversity of the province, its complicated history, and the existing geographic constraints, an independent Balochistan was untenable. She added: “While she understood emotions ran high, targeted killings are also being carried out by the Baloch”. Whereas scores of teachers, professors, doctors belonging to other provinces have been killed during the last few years, some political leaders to draw political mileage express solidarity with dissident sardars. According to reliable sources, America and India have coalesced to destabilize Pakistan.

Dr M. Hosseinbor, a Baloch nationalist scholar, assured the Americans that “the Baloch were natural US allies and would like to share the Gwadar port with the United States, would not allow the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline through their lands and would fight the Taliban as well”. Mr. Ravi Khandalwal, an Indian journalist who is working for the RAW, stated that Mr. Munir Mengal is planning to travel to Geneva during March 2012 to raise issue with UN. Khan of Kalat is planning to hold ‘Baloch Unity Conference’ in Bangkok (Thailand) in April 2012, which was scheduled to be held in the UK. Certainly, foreign powers including America are eyeing avariciously the province for its immense mineral wealth and also for the strategic location, many rivaling to get their foothold in its critical Makran coastal belt, which is free from fissiparous tendencies. In fact, dissident Baloch sardars are losing their hold on their enslaved populace, and Baloch youths by and large are for the national mainstream, as a result of educational and health facilities provided by the army.

There are three main groups supported by the aliens i.e. Brahmdagh Bugti, Dr. Allah Nazar and Javed Mengal. India is reportedly promoting terrorism in Balochistan through its information centers in Afghanistan, and funding the dissident groups. Some Baloch rebels are ensconced in England and others in America to organize their movement for greater Balochistan. Some of political parties and their leaders expressed solidarity with Shahzain Bugti and were willing to launch a long march shoulder to shoulder with dissidents. Human rights organizations also cry hoarse for ill-treatment with Baloch nationalists, but turn a blind eye to the aliens’ activities in destabilizing Balochistan. Then there is talk of missing persons and intelligence agencies are accused of either arresting or killing the dissidents. As regards missing persons, there should be high-powered judicial enquiry, which should not only locate missing persons held on various charges but also try to trace them from Ferrari Camps/Detention Centers being run by Baloch Sardars and insurgents. Efforts should also be made to identify those militants who were either sent to Afghanistan and India for training.

Although the province, for its strategic import, remains all the time in the vortex of fiercely rivaling international spy agencies for infestation, even big Baloch names are allegedly on their payrolls. The CIA had focused on Balochistan as an area of its particular action soon after it descended on Afghanistan to direct and conduct the US-led invasion there. In order to advance its interest and to achieve geopolitical objectives in the area, CIA is active. There are stories about Baloch youth being offered $10,000 per head plus other incentives. Reportedly, not only dollars but also arms are coming in. The question is who is supplying those deadly weapons to insurgents with which they are killing the security people and innocent people belonging to other ethnic groups and from other provinces. Only over the past few days, they have slaughtered some 40 security men in well-organised deadly attacks on paramilitary posts and convoys.

The CIA was reported to have created Jundullah - a terrorist outfit of Iranian exiles and dissidents - to destabilise the neighbouring Iranian Sistan-Balochistan province, to hurt relations between two brotherly states. From here, the outfit launched a number of deadly attacks on Iran, and Pakistan had to draw flak after every attack. On one occasion, the outfit targeted a gathering of senior Iranian security officials. Significantly, Rigi, a frequent guest of South Waziristan’s militant commanders Naek Mohammad and Baitullah Mehsud, was snatched midair from a Gulf flight by Iranian agents long trailing him after he emerged from the US Bagram military base in Afghanistan. Yet the Americans feigned innocence, having no link with him. Even Jundullah they have on their black list. And to put a further gloss on this connection, they recently planted a story in their media that then president Bush had hit the roof when told that Israeli spy agency Mossad’s agents carrying American passports and poising as CIA men were active in our Balochistan.

In fact, the CIA, RAW and Mossad have been unnerved by Pakistan government’s efforts for development in Balochistan; and out of sheer frustration they have gone berserk. They are trying to exacerbate the existing contradictions between various ethnic groups. Since army has recruited thousands of Baloch youth who are committed to the defence of the motherland, anti-Pakistan forces see the writing on the wall that with the development and education of Baloch youth, the insurgency will die its own death. Army’s contributions in the social progress of Balochistan including Chamalang Education Program, Sui Education City, Gwadar Institutes of Technical Education and Kassa-Hills Marble Project are likely to bring prosperity to the people of Balochistan. Measures have been taken to sustain these projects which are contributing positively towards better education and creation of jobs for common people particularly in remote areas of Balochistan.

Judy Dempsey

WHEN Thomas de Maiziere described the state of the trans- Atlantic relationship to a packed audience in Munich, he shied away from unpalatable truths.

Yes, the German defence minister conceded, there have always been ups and downs in the relationship, and there has always been criticism that Europe was not pulling its weight militarily, especially now. But on the whole, de Maiziere was upbeat. Europe was not doing so badly in terms of cooperating with the United States in Afghanistan, for example. And even the European Union’s defence and security policy was not doing too badly.

Tell that to top US defence experts and Atlanticists, who were attending the Munich Security Conference that brings together defence and foreign ministers and experts from many countries. Unlike de Maiziere, these experts and former politicians did not pull their punches.

They said that the Europeans did not grasp just how bad the trans-Atlantic relationship had become as Europe refused to pick up more of the military burden. Nor did the Europeans understand the implications of Washington’s strategic shift from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region.

A particularly hard-hitting analysis came from Stephen Hadley, a former national security adviser to former President George W. Bush. He is one of the experts for the new Euro-Atlantic Security Initiative that aims to forge a new cooperative relationship between the United States, Russia and Europe.

Europe, Hadley said in an interview, had become a “free rider.” It was taking the United States for granted in providing defence and filling military capability gaps. “Europe has become so enamoured with soft power that it has stopped investing in hard power,” Hadley said. “In terms of hard security, it makes Europe a free rider.”

Hadley and other US security experts insisted that they did not want a Europe that was weak and divided to the point that the grand project of European integration that the United States has encouraged since 1945 would collapse.

With few exceptions, European leaders seem to ignore that Europe needs the tools of hard power if it wants to aspire to being a global player. Instead, they point to their success in toppling Col. Muammar el-Gaddafi’s regime in Libya. Sam Nunn, a former US senator, said Europe’s performance in Libya and in Afghanistan “pointed out a whole number of deficiencies.” He said that the Europeans lacked logistics, intelligence and air power. They could not have done it without immense military support from the United States.

The Europeans can always blame the global financial crisis of 2008-9, and now the euro crisis, for the sharp decline in defence spending. According to NATO statistics, defence spending among European NATO countries fell to $275 billion in 2010 from $314 billion in 2008. That is a drop of more than 12 per cent. Since most European countries are members of NATO and the European Union, Europe as a whole is in very bad shape militarily, say analysts.

But the problem is not just about money. Europe’s unwillingness to invest in military capabilities like drones and electronic intelligence surveillance equipment predate these crises.

The European members of NATO believe that the answer to some of their deficiencies is “smart defence.” On paper, it means NATO members pooling and sharing capabilities, and better coordination. In practice, little has happened.

If the price involves sovereignty, there are few takers. Indeed, despite paying lip service to cooperation and wanting to become global players, NATO and EU members put national sovereignty before collective interests. Even Europe’s two most important military powers, Britain and France, no longer have the capabilities to execute the whole spectrum of military operations alone. They have to rely on each other, and especially the United States, as they did during the Libya campaign.

Some of the smaller European countries have chosen to specialise. But they want a say over how their equipment is used. De Maiziere, the German defence minister, and other European ministers, still believe that the trans-Atlantic relationship was fine, steered clear of such awkward questions in Munich.