Afghan objection to border fencing

KABUL is desperately trying to find fault with others for its own blunders. It wants Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism which in fact is almost non-existent at present. Taliban, Karzai regime knows very well, are their indigenous problem. Pakistan has nothing to do with their resurgence. Islamabad, at the expense of annoying and in fact hurting patriotic tribesmen, launched an anti-terrorism military operation in our tribal belt involving as many as 80,000 troop. The protracted action, started at the demand of US and other foreign troops operating in Afghanistan, did more harm to Pakistan than any other step initiated during the continuing war on terror.
Despite demonstration of its fullest cooperation and sincerity in pursuing antiterrorism war, Kabul continues to charge that militants still pour Afghanistan from Pakistani side to launch attacks on Afghan and foreign troops. No country can possibly seal such a long and porous border. There are as many as 700 crossing points. The boundary runs through difficult and mountainous terrain. And tribes scatter over adjoining areas of the two countries. For ages, they have been crossing over the Pak-Afghan border as a matter of routine.
Islamabad has accordingly taken a decision on its own to further tighten movements across the border. Islamabad has announced that the border will be fenced and mined at various unspecified locations. This appears to be the only way to stop completely movement of militants across the long porous border. A joint grand jirga of tribes living on either side of the border has been planned precisely to enlist their support against use of their areas by militants.
Kabul’s sharp reaction to Islamabad’s decision to fence and mine the border is enigmatic. On the one hand, Kabul regime wants Islamabad “to do more” to stop terrorism and “on the other it opposes any move to minimize cross-border infiltrations. Kabul wants Islamabad to fight “terrorists in a real manner” without specifying what other specific measures Kabul proposes. Pakistan Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan who unfolded the plan for border fencing and mining at his press conference in Islamabad on Tuesday stated that Islamabad was ready to initiate any other action to stop cross-border terrorism. Kabul knows very well that camps of hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees living in Pakistan close to border could be used as a launching pad by Afghan militants. Islamabad has sought UN assistance in facilitating Afghan refugees’ repatriation but Kabul does not appear to be cooperating.
The suggestion made to Foreign Secretary at his press conference that Kabul’s consent to border fencing and mining could have been sought prior to Pak excision has rightly been dismissed. Obviously, Pakistan is proceeding to fence and lay mines along various points on the border within Pak territory and accordingly consultation with Kabul was not at all necessary. The decision establishes Islamabad’s commitment to anti-terrorism operations.

Acid test for UN in Somalia

AT A time when the international Press has started drawing compelling parallels between the UN and the discredited League of Nations owing to the former’s increasing toothlessness in the face of serious international crises, the Somalia conflict will test its mettle to the hilt.
As feared, the Ethiopian assault is assuming dangerous proportions and threatening to explode into a full-scale regional conflict. Yet the international community remains silent. That all efforts must be made to preserve the painfully put together transitional government — especially since it was the 14th attempt to establish it — is understandable. But it is also important to note that the Islamists were able to expand their influence and gather mass sympathy because they put an end to what the West-backed government could not — wide spread lawlessness and factionalism.
The position of the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) in Somalia, comprising the hard-line Islamists, is strangely reminiscent of the Taleban before they were ousted from Afghanistan. Despite their repressive rules, they did provide Afghans with the element of security that eluded both their predecessors and successors, in addition to putting up a resistance the occupiers seem increasingly incapable of finishing off. There is an important lesson to be drawn from this.
The big powers behind the Ethiopian push need to realise that there are wiser options on the table than using muscle to subdue an extremist enemy. Rather than using armoured tanks and aircraft to ‘free Somalis of the UIC’, it is more prudent to make efforts to provide the people with the necessities that only the hardliners seem capable of assuring. What would eventual peace be worth if bolstering the government means killing, injuring and displacing hundreds of thousands of innocent people who already live far from enviable lives?
Of course, the suggested measures, too, must be ‘processed’ through the UN. If the secretary-general will remember his mandate, it was for effectively liquidating crises just like these that the LoN was discarded and the UN erected in its place. It needs little stressing that the prime responsibility of ensuring the UN falls in line with its job-requirements rests with the world’s big powers. With wars raging in Asia, the Middle East as well as Africa, the UN and its high-profile security council does not boast too impressive a resume.

—Khaleej Times