Reminiscence of the Naval Base Attack

                                      
By Sajjad Shaukat

Although Pakistan has become special arena of the different war, being waged by the security forces against the ruthless terrorists, yet country’s armed forces have capabilities to foil the terrorists’ attacks.

In this respect, May 22 reminds the day when in 2011, 15 terrorists of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Al Qaeda attacked on the headquarters of the Pakistan Navy (Airbase), PNS Mehran in Karachi.  Two American-built P-3C Orion surveillance aircraft were also destroyed.

An intense gunfight broke out between the terrorists and the security forces including army personnel and naval commandos, and it continued for 16 hours. There was a series of loud explosions. This fact proved that the perpetrators were armed with automatic weapons, grenades and rockets. Despite the continued firing of the gunman on the troops, the valiant security forces successfully coped with the militants and were able to take back the related naval airbase. It was due to their boldness that the attackers failed in damaging the whole airbase or taking hostages. During the operation, 18 military personnel were martyred and 16 wounded. Spokesman Navy said that the terrorists were killed.

Regarding the terror-attack on the Mehran base Karachi, sources indicated the involvement of Indian intelligence agency, RAW which conducted that assault with the help of some anti-Pakistan secret agencies. In this respect, these agencies got the services of a group of Al Qaeda and TTP, based in Afghanistan. An investigation pointed out that at the time of the attack, there were six Americans at the base, but terrorists did not take them hostages.

Like previous and present subversive acts, the TTP took responsibility for assault of the naval airbase, Karachi.

In this regard, various terror-attacks indicate that Indian RAW has been waging guerilla warfare in Pakistan through its well-trained insurgents, especially of the TTP which conducted attacks in various cities of the country.

After sponsoring bomb blasts and suicide attacks in the past, a perennial wave of the same in 2009-particularly in the last 18 months clearly proves that RAW has modified its tactics of subversion in Pakistan. Apart from direct suicide events, militants, armed with hand grenades, machine guns and other weapons also come to help the explosive-laden vehicles so as to penetrate the security at the target points. Sometimes, exchange of fire takes place between the saboteurs and the security guards, and sometimes, purpose is to directly kill the security personnel of our country. A number of terror-events in Pakistan endorse that RAW’s agents have been acting upon the guerilla techniques. In most of the terror-tragedies, huge quantity of explosives has also been used, as noted in case of navy’s airbase, Karachi

In Lahore, similar tactics of exchange of fire were occurred in connection with many terrorist incidents, as the militants reached their directed targets with latest weapons. In this respect, on March 3, 2009, terrorist attack which targeted the bus of Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore had killed 8 persons after a continuous gunfire by the militants. Pakistani officials confirmed that “grenades and rocket launchers had been recovered” which were of foreign origin. Afterwards, official inquiry disclosed that RAW was behind that attack. On May 27, 2009, more than 30 people were killed in Lahore when an explosive-laden Suzuki van exploded near Rescue 15 building of the police which was completely destroyed. It also damaged the building of the Lahore Capital City Police Office (CCPO) and that of the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) which was the main target, but could not be hit due to heavy firing by the security guards on the terrorists who were firing at them. Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah said on the same day that Indian involvement in “suicide attack in Lahore cannot be ruled out.”

Similar types of terror-tactics were applied by the culprits in relation to the Pearl Continental hotel in Peshawar and the Marriot Hotel in Islamabad.

Another guerilla technique of the RAW-trained terrorists is that they camouflage themselves by wearing the uniform of Pakistani security forces so as to deceive the security guards. The militants who attacked the GHQ, Rawalpindi on October 10, 2009 were wearing army uniforms.

It is mentionable that regarding the 2009 simultaneous terror attacks in Lahore and that of the GHQ, the then Spokesman of the ISPR, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, Interior Minister Rehman Malik and other TV commentators had indicated Indian involvement behind the attack, remarking: “Hakimullah Mehsud and other terrorists are “the enemies of the state” and “are mercenaries who receive arms from Afghanistan to destabilize the country.”

Similarly, on March 30, 2009, the Manawan Police Academy in Lahore was attacked and captured by an estimated 12 gunmen who also seized hostages. Despite the continued firing of the gunman on the military troops and police, the valiant security forces successfully coped with the militants and were able to take back the building. On November 2, 2013, suicide bomber targeted a checkpoint at Wagah in Lahore and like other terror-assaults, Indian-supported TTP claimed responsibility. Afterwards, investigations proved Indian involvement in this attack. As regards the most brutal incident, TTP took responsibility for the massacre of 132 school children at Army Public School and College in Peshawar on December 16, 2013. In the recent past, TTP again accepted responsibility in relation to two suicide attacks on the churches in Lahore.

Particularly, in August 16, 2012, when nine militants disguised in security forces’ uniform, equipped with latest weapons attacked Pakistan Air Force Base at Kamra, the valiant personnel of Pakistan Air Force and Special Service Group (SSG) of Commandoes of Pak Army foiled the assault by killing all the terrorists. Only one soldier was martyred.

On May 13, this year, at least 45 people were killed after the gunmen brutally opened fire on a bus of the Ismaili community near Safoora Chowrangi area of Karachi. Without any doubt, Karachi bus incident is a handy work of RAW to sabotage the China-Pakistan economic Corridor (CPEC) by showing that if Pakistan government is not able to provide security to its citizens, how it can protect CPEC. Ismailis belong to Hunza (Gilgit/Baltistan) or have a spiritual linkage with this area, are Pakistanis. The CPEC would also originate from the same region.

As a matter of fact, based in Afghanistan, RAW with technological support of Israel and other anti-Pakistan countries have been sending the culprits to Pakistan so as to weaken the latter, as it is also the only nuclear country in the Islamic world.

Undoubtedly, Pakistan is in the state of new war, being waged by the Armed Forces and intelligence agencies against terrorists. In this connection, our Armed Forces have almost obtained their objectives in North Waziristan Agency (NWA) through military operation Zarb-e-Azb against the terrorists who had challenged the writ of the state, and had frightened the entire nation by their terror-acts. In Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Karachi and other parts of the country including tribal areas, our security forces are successfully coping with the militants.

It is mentionable that in his book, “Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945”, Creveld identifies the elements of ‘moral force’, whom he calls “fighting power, the willingness to fight and the readiness, if necessary, to die.” The greater these elements, the less vulnerable an armed force will be to demoralization. ‘Moral force’, then, is the crucial factor in determining the combat power of any belligerent.

No doubt, it is due to the elements of “high moral force” that like other similar terror-assaults, Pakistan’s courageous soldiers of the Armed Forces foiled the Karachi naval base attack. Hence, May 22 is reminiscence of this very day which shows capabilities of these forces.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

India’s dangerous Pakistan policy!

By Khalid Iqbal

Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power, analysts have been watching to see who would call the shots in Indian foreign policy—parliament or the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Now with BJP’s adoption of a resolution on foreign policy the situation has become clear; it is the hardliners in BJP who will remote control India’s policy.

BJP’s National Executive endorsed five pillars of foreign policy or “Panchamrit” of dignity, dialogue, security, shared prosperity and culture. Most of these are subjective, vague, and unquantifiable. This was the first separate resolution on foreign policy brought up by the BJP in its National Executive. BJP’s foreign policy framework calls for peaceful and cooperative relations with Pakistan in fighting terrorism. The BJP is “committed to building peaceful and friendly relations with Pakistan, predicated on an end to terrorism.” Meeting of National Executive also (mischievously) praised the government of Narendra Modi for “firmly and appropriately responding to the provocations on the border (read LoC and Working Boundary) allegedly by Pakistani troops”. Pakistan and India have remained engaged in the past under the framework of Composite Dialogue—a structured dialogue covering all issues. Pakistan is committed to a result-oriented, sustainable and meaningful dialogue with India to address all issues of mutual concern including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir. India’s new trend of focusing on the issue of terrorism only is a dangerous strategy; it implies that India no longer wants to have a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan. Stressing that “terrorism and talks cannot go together”, the BJP resolution said India’s engagement with Pakistan would be based on strategic interests. BJP attacked the previous Congress-led government, saying “a cursory glance at the ‘lost decade’ of the UPA, reveals retreat and a loss of direction in engaging with neighbours, ham-handed diplomacy vis-à-vis Pakistan and a blind-spot in our foreign policy to the Indian Ocean island states”. 

On Pakistan, the resolution further said, “We have laid out a clear policy for building peaceful and friendly relations with Pakistan, predicated on an end to terrorism... There can be no compromise with terrorism. There can’t be any duplicity towards a problem that has become a regional crisis and is fast becoming an international nightmare…All outstanding issues with Pakistan can be resolved through bilateral dialogue in an atmosphere free from terror and violence.”
The upcoming Indian trajectory is clear: no matter what Pakistan does to stem terrorism, Pakistan’s effort to end terrorism would have to meet Indian evaluation standards, and naturally it won’t. Hence, no dialogue. And to talk to India, Pakistan must forget about Hurryiat Conference leadership, Kashmir and water issues; also stop talking about bringing to book the perpetrators of bombing of Pakistani train Samjhauta express. In the early hours of February 19, 2007, sixty-eight people, mostly Pakistani civilians were killed and scores more injured in a terrorist attack on this train. India’s National Investigation Agency had concluded that Swami Aseemanand was the mastermind behind the blasts. Aseemanand’s confessional statement points towards involvement of government agencies and serving military officers in this incident. In a bid to cover-up the matter, investigation on this gory incident has been slowed down and all main culprits, including Swami Aseemanand, are on bail. Whenever Pakistan takes up this matter with India, instead of giving an explanation, India shows attitude and starts crying about Mumbai incident. Sole survivor out of the attackers of Mumbai incident, Ajmal Kasab, was hanged in an indecent haste that has hampered the ongoing investigations in to the Mumbai attacks. 

Interestingly, one of the Indian home ministry official, had submitted an affidavit in Indian court stating that the Mumbai attack and an earlier attack on Indian parliament were false flag operations planned and conducted by the Indian intelligence agencies to garner support for enacting tougher anti-terror laws. Later, under duress, he withdrew the affidavit. According to Times of India, RVS Mani, who as home ministry under-secretary signed the affidavits submitted in court had said that Satish Verma, until recently a part of the Central Bureau of Investigation-SIT probe team, told him that both the 2001 attack on Indian parliament and the 2008 Mumbai attacks were set up “with the objective of strengthening the counter-terror legislation (sic)”. Mani has said that Verma “…narrated that the attack on parliament was followed by Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act and terrorists’ siege of Mumbai was followed by amendment to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.” 

This is the Indian government’s track record on prevention of terrorism. Notwithstanding this, in a follow up to the BJP’s resolution, Modi in his interview to Hindustan Times said: “We remain open to bilateral dialogue with Pakistan on all outstanding issues in an environment free from terrorism and violence…The Simla Agreement and Lahore Declaration have to be the basis for going forward…Peace can only thrive when the climate is right”. Modi also spoke on his pro-active engagement with India’s South Asian neighbours, sparking fears that an attitude of apathy would send these nations into China’s arms. “We want SAARC to flourish….The dividends are visible in the quantum leap in relations with Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. But peace cannot co-exist with terrorism, can it?” he concluded. India had actively taken sides during recent elections in Sri Lanka for installing a pliant government. 

Now it will be interesting to take a look at the Simla Agreement and Lahore Declaration and see what way forward these documents suggest; and also observe how India has been flouting these two agreements. Simla Agreement states that: “...Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows: (i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries. (ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means…Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation…” India violated the agreement and invaded Siachen in 1984. 

Likewise, Lahore declaration states that: “The Prime Ministers of the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan … Committed to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, and the universally accepted principles of peaceful coexistence;…that the resolution of all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir is essential for this purpose; … respective Governments shall intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir”. 

Now, once again India wants to unilaterally change the status quo in Kashmir by raising Israeli style settlements for Kashmiri pundits. With the passage of time, this concept shall be stretched to the limit to change the demographic composition of Kashmir. India has also embarked on a comprehensive plan to divert the water of Pakistani rivers. 

During his recent visit to Pakistan Indian foreign secretary delivered a letter from Narendra Modi to Nawaz Sharif. It was a stern warning that either Pakistan should fall in line, and grant transit rights and trade concessions to India, or India would gang up with remaining members of SAARC and go ahead by sidelining Pakistan. This is how India views SAARC, a tool to intimidate Pakistan. 

Preconditioning the dialogue with favourable environment is a non-starter. Dialogues are initiated to make the environment favourable. Apparently India has taken a decision to freeze dialogue with Pakistan for a decade or so—barring occasional photo-ops to divert international pressures. Pakistan should not go overboard in commencing dialogue with India, unless India rationalizes its overall approach toward Pakistan. Keeping in view the prevailing Indian mindset, Pakistan should watch out its tendency of hurling unilateral concessions to India. 

A rock and a hard place

By Khalid Iqbal

When the parliament meets today, treasury benches will have a lot to answer; there is a huge gap between the Pakistani and Saudi positions regarding the ongoing role of Pakistan in Yemen crisis—positions vary between meek denial by Pakistan and total embrace by Saudi Arabia. After some fireworks, government will be able to accrue a near unanimous and vaguely worded resolution.

Apparently Pakistan is likely to follow a two track policy: an articulated track—compatible with public aspirations; and a pragmatic track—matching the Realpolitik. Articulated track would be: Pakistan won’t participate in the Saudi-led military offensive in Yemen but will help Saudi Arabia defend its own territory if necessary. And practical track could be to participate in military operations under Saudi flag. At least two of Pakistan’s military services—air force and army are poised to take part is such contingency centered operations. 

Pakistan shall continue striving for a balance between: obliging Saudi Arabia, its long-term partner; and placating Iran which actively supports the rebels that Saudis are struggling to defeat in Yemen. Saudi Arabia has asked Pakistan to join the coalition, militarily, and support its efforts against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. A plan to help secure the Saudi-Yemen border is being worked out. “At this time, there is no threat to Saudi territorial integrity,” said Khawaja Asif, the Pakistani defense minister. 

It will be difficult for Pakistan to deliver an unequivocal ‘no’ to the Saudis, and say ‘yes’ without annoying Iranians. It indeed poses a serious decision making dilemma. To be exact, the decision has already been taken, albeit post haste; and now it’s only a matter of performing good salesmanship towards Iran and the people of Pakistan. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have long been close friends and military partners, and on earlier such occasions, Pakistan did provide substantial military support to Saudi Arabia. But at this point in time, Pakistan can ill afford to anger Iran by outrightly entering the war in Yemen. Costs for direct involvement are greater for Pakistan than for any other coalition partner. If Iran begins to perceive Pakistan as an active adversary, it may cause a couple of irritants and ferment few troubles, but would eventually live with the situation. Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javed Zarif is expected to arrive in Pakistan on April 08, for consultations on the Yemen crisis. 

In the context of force availability, as of now, about one third of Pakistan’s active-duty troops are deployed in the country’s combat zones along Afghan borders. On the Line of Control, Modi has mellowed down after IHK elections; from now on a ‘cool’ LoC suits him better. Therefore, from a national security perspective, a potent contingent can be spared for Saudi Arabia without any negative shade on their own security. 

The Prime Minister is back from Turkey after consultations, he should have made stopovers in Tehran and Riyadh. The solution to the conflict lies in broader political understanding between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Such understanding may not be forthcoming as both are riding a high tide. Iran feels that the end to its isolation is just around the corner as nuclear talks are likely to lead to a final agreement by June 30, that would later lead to the lifting of nuclear related sanctions. And under the new King, Saudi Arabia has embarked on an assertive trajectory; indeed both are following proflies of over reach. Apparently, overrun by the war fatigue, America has outsourced the Yemen conflict to Saudi Arabia, which is now trying to emulate the American silhouette in strategy and style; forgetting that this style and strategy has hardly won any war during recent conflicts; although it has brought tremendous destruction in a number of countries in Saudi Arabia’s neighbourhood. 

By intervening in Yemen, Saudi Arabia has inadvertently brought the war to its doorstep without having due capacity to extinguish it, or push it back, or stop it from entering the Kingdom—hence, the panic for enlarging the coalition. Iran too is foolhardy to assume that the American led Western conglomerate will embrace it too soon, and too warmly. For decades, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been fighting proxy wars, by exploiting sectarian fault lines, in a number of Muslim counties. Now the monsters born out of those follies have matured and are turning against the creators. 

Unilateral intervention by Saudi Arabia also had pitfalls. It acted first and then began its campaign for legitimacy. UNSC has not yet mandated the Kingdom to undertake this expedition; endorsement of the Arab League also came post facto—to regularize a ‘fait accompli’. Desperation to show an exaggerated list of coalition partners indicates a high level of legitimacy related anxiety. One fallout of this American style unilateral interventionist approach could be that other bigger regional countries may hide behind the precedent and do the same in their neighbourhoods, under similar conditions. Also, the US has requisite capacities to absorb the fallout of such (mis)adventures that it undertakes at continental distances; Saudi Arabia is hardly equipped to save itself from the ill effect of such intervention, and that too in the territory of an immediate neighbour.
There are practical difficulties in the settlement of this dispute. There are no credible dialogue partners with whom an agreement could be reached with a reasonable degree of assurance of implementation. UNSC could intervene and contribute, but so far its attitude is of indifference; OIC is, by and large, dormant; and GCC has now taken partisan position. Apparently there is no one to separate the quarreling bullies within Yemen. And while external coalition for war is growing fast, the peace constituency is hardly visible. What is glaringly missing is political vision and towering leadership. Minions are in a hurry to take sides rather than maintaining at least a semblance of neutrality, necessary to take up a mediatory role. 

On the tactical canvas, air strikes alone would not yield the desired results; and sooner or later the coalition may be sucked in for a ground offensive. If so, it would be a dicey phase, with a few desired and numerous undesired fallouts: especially so when the State of Yemen ceases to exist for all practical purposes. At the end, Houthis may or may not turn to the negotiation table and the ground operation could come to a stalemate; if so it would threaten the territorial integrity of the country resulting into at least two de-facto states as was prior to unification in 1990, or the mushrooming of numerous principalities. The sectarian dimension is the most serious aspect of the conflict. Some regional and extra-regional actors wish to turn and sustain the Middle East as a blood oozing zone on the basis of sectarian hype—something like Lebanon of yester years.
Such conflicts are generally foreign resourced campaigns, rather than straightforward and well-meaning indigenous struggles. One way to stop such conflict is to dissuade the external pursers of insurgents alongside floating attractive political options for insurgents; to succeed, both steps have to go in tandem. And parties to the conflict are nowhere close to such propositions.
Strategists are expressing apprehensions that the turmoil could prolong and might trigger some major regional problems causing instability to many countries. Even the skin-deep divide within the GCC could become more accentuated. No matter what the outcome of the conflict is, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the region would, for a long time, continue to face domestic fissures thrown up by this crisis. While Pakistan is overwhelmingly on the Saudi side, the leadership should not lose sight of the stark reality that the key to the resolution of the Yemen crisis lies with Iran. 

India’s support to sub-nationalists

By Muhammad Jamil

New Delhi never missed any opportunity to destabilize Pakistan, be it by lending support to Baloch, Pakhtun and Sindhi ‘nationalists’ or other dissidents in Pakistan. India and some US Congressmen were hand in gloves to propagate excesses by Pakistan military in Balochistan. In Britain also, there are sympathizers or backers of Baloch insurgents and separatists. International Business Times of UK in a recent report stated: “Baloch people are persecuted, abducted and systematically killed by Pakistani security agencies and the Pakistani Army”. Antagonistic elements are making efforts to destabilize the province by promoting sense of dissent, political turmoil, and stirring sentiments of separatism. According to former governor and a cabinet minister, there is substantial evidence that India has been planning terrorist activities in Balochistan using Afghan soil, harboring and financing terrorists and projecting them as freedom fighters.

In his exclusive interview with oneindia portal/website managed by the RAW, Dr. Allah Nazar, a terrorist hailing from Awaran, Balochistan is directly supported by RAW to commit heinous crimes against humanity. In this interview, he spelled out in detail various issues ranging from the attempts made by the Chinese to have foothold in Balochistan with the help of Pakistan, and also the role that India could play in Balochistan. In introductory paragraph, oneindia website stated: “His (BLF) group fights against Pakistani Jihadis in Balochistan. In 2004, the Balochistan Liberation Front or the BLF led by Dr. Allah Nazar Baloch had claimed responsibility for attacks on Chinese engineers in Gwadar”. In question/answer part, Dr. Allah Nawaz said: “China in Balochistan is trying to destabilise India. The rogue ISI is brutally crushing the Baloch freedom movement and violating international laws in Balochistan. Thousands of Baloch have been killed and thousands forcibly disappeared”. 

However, people of Balochistan are witness to the fact that BLF has been killing men, women and children; attacked women university students, members of LEAs, blew up electric pylons as well as gas pipelines. The central contents of the interview revolve around unsubstantiated allegations against LEAs, AF, ISI and Pak-China relations. To gain sympathies of civil society and to create sensation, oneindia website introduces Allah Nazar as so-called freedom movement leader fighting against Jehadi elements and ISIS. It may be recalled that Allah Nazar and his group Baloch Liberation Front continued to harass local population in Awaran, Punjgur and Kech districts. They however fled from the area on arrival of AF during earthquake relief activities in Sep 2013. People of the area felt relieved after the arrival of AF during its large scale relief efforts. Since then, Allah Nazar and others have fled only known to Indian RAW.

Uploading of interview of a notorious terrorist on RAW managed Indian site confirms that India has been behind training, financing, arming and projecting terrorists to destabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan. India is using terrorist elements in Balochistan to create obstacles to Chinese efforts in the development of China-Pak Economic Corridor. India has been trying to hyphenate Pakistan with ISIS/jihadis, despite the fact that Pakistan’s military has destroyed terrorists’ network and dismantled their infrastructure in North Waziristan, South Waziristan and earlier in Swat and Bajaur etc. Pakistan military has the capability and capacity to destroy insurgents network, and they will never succeed in their designs to cause harm to Pakistan. It is in their own interests to lay down their arms and stop making trouble in the province. Their foreign masters are the enemies of Pakistan, and are using them as a tool for their anti-Pakistan policy. 

Balochistan is resource-rich province of Pakistan, and foreign elements are eying its mineral reserves including gas, coal, copper and gold. Geopolitical location of Balochistan has significance for international business and trade, thus ‘enticing’ the world powers and regional countries to design Balochistan-specific great game. Hence, the players of great game appear to have redesigned their strategies and are secretly working to create conditions to control and influence the resource-rich zones. Foreign forces are already using the existing volatile situation in Balochistan as a pretext to encourage separatism, raise voice on human rights violation, over- projection of mass graves and articulated support to alleged enforced disappearances. 

On 17th February 2012, US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher had introduced a resolution in the US House of Representatives, calling upon Pakistan to recognize the Baloch right to self- determination. The motion had been co-sponsored by House Representatives Louie Gohmert and Steve King. The proposed bill had favoured Baloch rights of self-determination and affording an opportunity to choose their own status of a sovereign state. This Great Game of the US strategic map-makers has been in full play in Balochistan province for quite some time. World maps, showing Pakistan all splintered up, and Balochistan province merging with Iran’s Sistan-Balochistan region making a Greater Balochistan, were published. But situation in Balochistan has been addressed at political level; an elected government is in place; and there is let up in target killings, and incidence of insurgency has also declined. People of Balochistan are known for their patriotism; and will never be deterred by violent activities of separatists.

Pakistan Army has over the years countered the machinations of the separatists, and also contributed towards bringing Baloch youth in the mainstream. Meanwhile, thousands of Baloch have joined armed forces as recruits and cadets, which will enable them to play their part in the defence of the motherland. Health camps have been established for common people; schools and vocational centres have been opened by the military to help Baloch youth to be productive citizens. These steps will increase income of the Baloch youth to lessen their dependence on sardars and centrifugal forces. Pakistan Army has done a lot to counter the machinations of the world powers and the regional countries. Whenever the people were hit by natural calamities, Army personnel conducted relief, rescue and salvage operations. They endangered their lives to save the lives of their compatriots. And even gaven their rations to the victims of natural calamities; thus winning the hearts and minds of the people. 

Chinese humanitarian relief campaign

By S M Hali

China's evacuation project may be its maiden humanitarian relief mission for future efforts to aid mankind in the face of indomitable odds, depicting China's willingness and capability to play a more constructive role in global crises

The age-old concept of human relief campaigns is that it entails coming to the aid of mankind in distress, irrespective of nationality, religion, creed or beliefs. The people in need include the homeless, refugees and the victims of natural disasters (earthquakes, flooding, cyclonic storms, famines), military conflicts and other trials. The primary purpose of humanitarian relief is to save lives and reduce suffering while respecting human dignity. History is replete with examples of nations providing support to human relief campaigns. One instance is the response to the northern Chinese famine of 1876 to 1879, which was brought about by a drought in 1875 that claimed the lives of 10 million people. British missionary Timothy Richard drew international attention to the catastrophe. The international community wholeheartedly responded to Richard’s appeal for financial aid for the victims.

Chinese efforts to help evacuate foreign nationals from Yemen merits praise. Yemen’s conflict has resulted in innocent civilians becoming caught in the crossfire between the rebels and the Arab coalition. The predicament of Pakistanis in this conflict is two pronged: on the one hand they are part of the civilian Yemen community, which is suffering collateral damage while, on the other, Pakistanis may be deliberately targeted in retaliation by the rebelling Houthis because of Pakistan’s support to the Saudi-led military campaign. The Pakistan government dispatched its commercial airliners to Hodeida to bring 500 Pakistanis home to safety. The mercy missions were successfully completed through the air corridor provided by the coalition to the PIA carriers to conduct their rescue operations. Simultaneously, there were desperate pleas of rescue from Pakistanis stranded in the Yemeni city of Aden. The relatives and dependants of the besieged Pakistanis also appealed to the government through social and electronic media for the urgent repatriation of their loved ones.

Aden airport was partly destroyed and under rebel control but the port was functional and a Chinese naval ship was in the vicinity, so Pakistan approached its long-time friend, China, for assistance. It is to China’s credit that it readily undertook the humanitarian relief mission without any delays because time was of the essence and precious lives were at stake. On April 2, a Chinese naval frigate, the Linyi, departed from the Yemeni port of Aden carrying 225 nationals of 10 countries, including Pakistan, who were stranded in Yemen, and arrived in Djibouti safely. The evacuees included 176 Pakistanis, 29 Ethiopians, five Singaporeans, three Italians, three Germans, four Polish, one Irish, two British, one Canadian and one from Yemen. The mercy mission conducted by China was welcomed by these countries as well as humanitarian support organisations the world over. This operation comes on the heels of China’s evacuation of its own nationals from Yemen in which eight foreigners from Romania, India and Egypt were also safely evacuated along with the Chinese citizens.
In the spirit of live and let live, the evacuation is a humanitarian relief campaign conducted by the Chinese government at the request of the affected countries. It is the first operation by the Chinese government to rescue foreign nationals stuck in danger zones, a move based on the ideals of putting the people first through internationalism and humanitarianism. The foreign ministry of China coordinated with the relevant countries and the Chinese navy immediately dispatched a military vessel to the port of Aden for the evacuation. The Chinese embassies in Yemen and Djibouti and the consulate general in Aden also smoothed impediments to complete the necessary formalities and organise the safe evacuation of foreign nationals.

The mission has been declared a complete success. Another 200 Pakistani nationals, who are still stuck in embattled Yemen, will be evacuated by a Chinese ship from Aden to Djibouti later this week. The Chinese rescue was timely because the Pakistani naval ship, Aslat, which reached Mukalla on Friday could not evacuate Pakistanis because of the deteriorating law and order situation following a jailbreak. Al Qaeda reportedly freed 300 inmates and the vessel had to be diverted to the nearby Ash Shihr port. The naval ship evacuated 148 Pakistanis on Saturday. In addition to the Pakistanis, the ship helped evacuate 35 people of other nationalities. The Pakistani foreign office identified 23 of those people as Chinese, Indian and UK citizens. China’s evacuation project may be its maiden humanitarian relief mission for future efforts to aid mankind in the face of indomitable odds, depicting China’s willingness and capability to play a more constructive role in global crises. For Pakistan, China’s gesture proved that a friend in need is a friend indeed. 

Embracing another thankless war

By Khalid Iqbal

DURING difficult hours Saudi Arabia, as indeed other Middle East countries, have been looking up to Pakistan for security cover. Bilateral agreements are in place with most of these countries that bind Pakistan to provide necessary support when asked for. Most of these agreement carry a clause that Pakistani troops shall not take part in war on behalf of requisitioning states. Mostly such military assistance by Pakistan has been in the training role and sparingly in domestic law enforcement role. As an exception, small number of Pakistani military personnel participated in purely defensive operations during Yum Kippur war—that too only on the soil and within the air space of hosts. Pakistani troops have never fought offensively against a third country on behalf of any country to which they have been deputed. Pakistan has in the past provided military assistance to Saudi Arabia, notably during taking over of Holy Mosque of Ka’aba by radicals in 1979, and when Iraq captured Kuwait and adopted threatening gestures towards S Arabia. In both these occasions, activities of Pakistani military personnel remained confined within Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is a population scarce country with very low density of people to area ratio. This limitation does not permit availability of enough of personnel to raise adequate ‘son of the soil centred’ standing armed forces. Personnel from neighbouring countries form a substantial portion of Saudi National Guards; nearly 40 percent Guards are of Yemini reign. This composition of National Guards is the underlying reason for current Saudi nervousness. Within Pakistan there is an overwhelming support—almost national consensus— to align with Saudi Arabia during all sort of crisis, including providing military assistance, with a caveat that such force is not used against any other country—especially Iran. Another concern is that such military deployment may embroil Pakistan in the sectarian wars going on in entire Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. If the government of Pakistan is bale to address these concerns, a national consensus is likely to evolve, barring some sectarian outfits. As the time is passing major political parties are withdrawing their reservations against sending of troops to Saudi Arabia and are aligning with government’s point of view.

Unravelling of Middle East has thrown up precarious situations. The fissures in MENA are threatening the security of the Arab world as a whole. This landscape is in its most dire hour, Since World War I. Realizing the enormity of the situation, Arab leaders at their summit in Sharm el Sheikh on March 29-30 voiced their support to the Saudi led operation against Houthi rebels, saying the overthrow of the government in Yemen is a threat not only to the security of the Gulf Cooperation Council but also to Arab world and to international peace. Arab league also decided to raise a joint force comprising 40,000 troops drawn from member states; it is indeed too little too late. A months-long Houthi rebellion has escalated into a regional conflict that threatens to tear apart the state of Yemen. Previous decades have seen decimation of one Muslim country after the other; now Yemen has thrown up the latest open-ended conflict after Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan. 

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has assured an all-out support to Saudi Arabia in the operation ‘determination storm’ reiterating that any threat to the territorial integrity of the kingdom would evoke strong response from Pakistan. King Salman Bin Abdul Aziz had telephoned the prime minister on March 28. Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the Yemen conflict, and the subsequent Saudi announcement of a coalition against Houthi rebels, involving Pakistan, has drawn a mixed reaction at home. Though official stance is that decision to participate is still under discussion; the decision, in all probability, has already been taken—Pakistan’s military contingent would proceed to Saudi Arabia
However the point of concern is that it is a different thing to rush to the aid of a valued ally who is in danger than facilitating an ally in playing its regional big- man ship in another country. Are Houthis really posing a territorial threat to Saudi Arabia? It is difficult to sell this proposition to Pakistani public at this point and time that they do. Houthis are Shite citizens of the areas that comprised former North Yemen, and as of now their struggle may have only intra-Yemen objectives. So while there may be a political consensus may emerge, public opinion would stay divided, especially with regard to necessity and ownership of war. 

Much more important is the socio-political fallout of such an action. Saudi Arabia and Iran are painting this conflict as a Sunni-Shia one. If the government of Pakistan rushes to the aid of a Sunni state against Shia rebels in a third country, it would exacerbate the already serious sectarian violence in the country. Even if Pakistan decides to participate in the war, considering it to be a remote activity at a far out distance, it would deepen a sectarian fault lines back home. Unlike the operation against the Taliban which remains a domestic law enforcement operation, military action in Yemen, in support of Saudi Arabia would have regional and global connotations. Saudi Arabia and Iran, are vying for influence in countries across the region. Iran has condemned Saudi Arabia for launching air strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen, saying it was “a dangerous step” that violated “international responsibilities and national sovereignty.” It is interesting that Saudi Arabia and Iran are fighting on the same side in Syrian theatre while dealing with IS; they may now be fighting against each other in Yemeni theatre. Iran, a long-standing Saudi contender for ideological influence in the Middle East, is stepping up support for the Houthis, their fellow Shiites.

As of now Pakistan continues to bleed— proverbially through thousand wounds—due to fallout of Afghan conflict. Pakistan is not prepared to take part in any conflict that could divide the Muslim world on sectarian lines. Pakistan should, however, assist and be a part of the peace process rather than being a participant in military alliance. An intriguing mosaic of sectarian strife, topped off by the presence of ISIS and AQAP, with their real and mythical connotations, points towards an open ended conflict with a potential to spread to South Asia. Pakistan’s involvement in Afghan conflict brought home terrorism, and Pakistan’s involvement in Yemen would accentuated the sectarian violence which is already on boiling point. Pakistan is already in the cross fire, feeling the heat of Saudi-Iran their proxy war, on Pakistani soil, in the form of sectarian violence stressing the societal fabric at its seams. People of Pakistan deserve better, they need a break from war fatigue— especially from others’ wars. At this point and time, Pakistan must not be on the wrong side of history. 

RAW Targets China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

By Sajjad Shaukat

On May 13, this year, at least 45 people were killed and several injured after gunmen brutally opened fire on a bus of the Ismaili community near Safoora Chowrangi area of Karachi. The deadly terror-attack resulted into countrywide day of mourning, closure of shops and institutes in Karachi and other areas of Sindh including a complete shutter-down strike by Ismaili community in Hunza.

Without any doubt, Karachi bus incident is a handy work of Indian secret agency RAW to sabotage the China-Pakistan economic Corridor (CPEC) by showing that if Pakistan government is not able to provide security to its citizens, how can it protect CPEC. Ismailis belong to Hunza (Gilgit/Baltistan) or have a spiritual linkage with this area, are Pakistanis. The CPEC would also originate from the same region.

It is notable that during the recent visit of the Chinese President Xi Jinping to Pakistan, on April 20, 2015, he and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif signed 51 agreements for cooperation in various fields, related to China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The establishment of CPEC between deep Gwadar seaport of Balochistan and the historic Silk Road city in western regions-Xinjiang of China will connect Gilgit-Baltistan through Khunjerab Pass. Beijing would also build an international airport at Gwadar, while the roads infrastructure in Gwadar would link the communication network of rest of the country to facilitate transportation of goods.

When Gwadar seaport becomes fully operational, it would connect the landlocked Central Asian states with rest of the world. Being the commercial hub, the port is likely to increase volume of trade, bringing multiple economic and financial benefits to Pakistan like the Suez Canal which changed the destiny of Egypt when Israel returned it to the former. It will enable high-volume cargo vessels to move in the major oceans. Gwadar project will not only uplift the impoverished people of Balochistan by providing thousands of employment opportunities and is likely to develop whole the province by redressing their grievances. The resulting prosperity in the province would trickle down to the Baloch people and damp the separatist sentiments, which the hostile elements, supported by anti-Pakistan powers do not want.

The ink on China-Pakistan agreements—CPEC was barely dry when western media, especially RAW started playing up the Baloch insurgency. In this regard, the director of The Second Floor (T2F), a social activist Sabeen Mahmud was shot dead by unidentified gunmen in Karachi on April 24—followed by a bomb blast in Sibi, which killed several persons on April 26. However, she had left T2F after attending the session on Balochistan, when she was targeted. She was likely to conduct a seminar at LUMS in Lahore about Balochistan. No doubt, RAW is behind the assassination of Sabeen Mahmud-a well thought-out plan not only to try to sabotage Pak-China alliance, but also to accuse Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Another aim was also to drive a wedge between Balochistan and rest of Pakistan.

However, Pakistan’s civil and military leadership, leaders of various political parities and religious parties including members of civil societies have strongly condemned the Karachi massacre in the bus and have shown solidarity with Ismaili community. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif held a high-level meeting in Karachi, in which Army Chief Gen Raheel Sharif and other political leaders also participated. Prime Minister Sharif said about the bus attack that Karachi is Pakistan’s economic and trading hub and “the enemies of Pakistan do not like the economic progress of the country. To put a stop to Pakistan’s economic progress is their agenda.” Next day, he remarked that some local elements and foreign forces are creating hurdles in China-Pakistan Economic Corridor programme which is vital for progress and development of Pakistan.

Taking serious note of the Safoora Chowrangi bus assault, on May 14, while showing his determination to eliminate all terrorists in the city, Gen. Raheel Sharif held a high-level meeting of military officials and security agencies at the Corp Headquarters in Karachi. He vowed to bring terrorists behind the Karachi attack to justice including their facilitators and sympathizers.

Besides, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who also condemned the bus massacre, urged Pakistan to move quickly to protect religious minorities. It was another aim of India to distort Pakistan’s image abroad.

It is mentionable that Ahmed Marwat, a spokesman for Jundullah which is the affiliated group of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), claimed responsibility for the bus attack. The group which started off from South Waziristan has targetted Shia minorities and foreign tourists in the past as well. In November, last year, it had pledged support to the ISIS or Daesh.

In fact, RAW wanted to divert attention from its sinister designs by targeting the innocent persons in the bus. In this respect, on May 14, Pakistan’s Foreign Office denied existence of global terror outfit Daesh, also known as Islamic State, in Pakistan. The FO Spokesperson Qazi Khalil Ullah said security forces of Pakistan were ready to meet any threat regarding the terror outfit. Foreign Secretary Aizaz Chaudhry pointed out that Indian RAW was behind terrorist activities in Pakistan.

Nevertheless, the probe team, comprising of security agencies has found clear evidence of Indian RAW involvement in Safora Chorangi incident in Karachi. They arrested the suspected terrorists, after their phone calls were traced—showed that RAW was involved in the incident, while some leaders and media analysts also stated that the RAW is behind the bus carnage.

Recall, when during the Musharraf regime, Islamabad initiated the construction of Gwadar deep-seaport in Balochistan in March 2002 with Chinese assistance, sirens went off in the capitals of foreign countries, especially the US, India and Israel which took it as a threat to their global and regional plans.

Notably, besides Balochistan’s ideal strategic location, its abundant mineral resources like gas, coal and gold, entailing Pakistan’s close ties with China also pinches the eyes of the US, India, Israel and some western countries which intend to destabilize Pakistan for their collective aims.

Therefore, major challenge to Pak-China strategic alliance is that RAW has well-established its network in Afghanistan, and with the tactical assistance of anti-Pakistan secret agencies, it is fully backing cross-border incursions including terror-activities in Balochistan province and other regions of Pakistan, and is also destabilizing China and Iran. It has continuously been assisting the Baloch anti-Pakistan groups like BLA, Jundullah and TTP including their affiliated outfits with logistic support—the militants kidnapped and killed many innocent people and the security personnel in the province and other areas of Pakistan through suicide attacks, bomb blasts, targeted killings and sectarian violence to create lawlessness in the country. In the past few years, they abducted and killed many Chinese and Iranian nationals in Pakistan. On a number of occasions, these insurgent groups claimed responsibility for their subversive acts.

The major purpose behind is to create unrest in Pakistan, especially Balochistan and to discourage Beijing for the development of Gwadar port. In this context, in May, 2013, a day before Chinese Premier Li Keqiang arrived in Islamabad; Chinese engineers being driven through Clifton Block-1 in Karachi escaped a major bomb attack. Taking note of the foreign powers’ anti-Pakistan designs, during the visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping, Islamabad made extraordinary security arrangements.

It is worth-mentioning that unlike the Indian-backed Afghan President Hamid Karzai, President Ashraf Ghani realized that Afghanistan and Pakistan are facing similar challenges of terrorism and will combat this threat collectively. Besides, Islamabad’s proposal to offer security and defence cooperation to Afghanistan was received positively. Both the countries desire to further strengthen bilateral relations in all areas of mutual interest. Now, frequent visits of Pak-Afghan civil and military leaders to each other’s country also irritate New Delhi.

It is noteworthy that that Gen. Raheel accompanied by the DG of ISI, went to Kabul on December 17, 2014. During his meeting with his Afghan counterpart, President Ashraf Ghani and the ISAF commander, he presented the evidence of linkage between the massacre of children at Peshawar school and TTP sanctuaries in Afghanistan. He also asked about action against the TTP chief Mullah Fazlullah and his network which is being assisted by India.

Taking cognizance of Indian secret function, now, Afghan government and US which now want stability in Afghanistan have started taking action against the TTP. A number of TTP militants have been captured in Afghanistan, while Fazlullah survived in a drone attack.

Nonetheless, besides other external secret agencies, particularly RAW which has accelerated terrorism activities in Pakistan to target China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, is behind Karachi bus attack.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com