Should Pakistan negotiate with TTP?

According to media reports Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has expressed willingness to talk to the Government of Pakistan (GoP) and has set two conditions for the talks. It has blamed the GoP for not taking earlier ceasefire offer seriously.

The TTP spokesman expressed lack of confidence over the military but expressed willingness to talk if Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Munawar Hasan, and Nawaz Sharif came forward for being the guarantors.

The second condition is release of three of its militants, Muslim Khan, Haji Umar and Maulana Mehmood. While there are suggestions that the GoP should start negotiations some quarters strictly oppose this because they consider TTP a collection of mercenaries working against Pakistan and killing Pakistanis. They also don’t accept them as Mujahedeen fighting against foreign occupiers in Afghanistan but their accomplice.

When TTP spokesman Ehsnaullah Ehsan talked to media at an undisclosed location near Pak-Afghan border in this video released on February 3, 2013, the prime convict in the Pervez Musharraf attempted suicide attack case; Adnan Rashid was sitting beside him. One can recall Adnan Rashid was freed by TTP fighters during the Bannu Jail break in July last year.

Analysts term TTP a cluster of various militant groups and their stated objectives are: 1) assault on Pakistan and its Army, 2) enforcement of their interpretation of Sharia and 3) a plan to unite against NATO-led forces in Afghanistan. It is often believed that the TTP is not directly affiliated with the Afghan Taliban movement, with both groups differing greatly in their histories, strategic goals and interests, although both belong to the Deobandi sect.

The TTP is at war with Pakistan Army in the tribal belt but has lately extended its operations to urban areas of Pakistan. TTP's main group consists of fighters and commanders who never took part in war against USSR or Nato in Afghanistan but they started their actions against Pakistan Army.

It is often alleged that they gets funds and arms from external source. They have started their activities near Durand Line but their main target is Pakistan not the occupying forces in Afghanistan. It is also alleged that their target is nuclear assets of Pakistan because TTP is contently keeping Pakistan Army engaged and distracting its attention from Indian border.

According to some experts about a hundred thousand Pakistanis have been killed or wounded and nearly 10,000 men in uniform martyred but TTP has been pushed back into Afghanistan from where they are now launching their operations against Pakistan. Experts have the consensus that TTP is a group of terrorists and it has no links or relations with Afghan resistance groups fighting against Nato-led forces.

Some analysts believing in conspiracy theories openly accuse that they are getting arms and funds from India and America. They even go to the extent of saying that CIA is killing leaders of Afghan resistance groups through drone attacks or through TTP. Therefore, TTP is not eligible for negotiations. Instead it must be weeded out completely else it will regroup and attack Pakistan with renewed power. TTP will actually do what the ‘godfathers’ will tell them to do.

TTP has been attacking mainly strategic installations in Pakistan and destroying equipments which have been procured at very high cost. They attacked PNS Mehran and destroyed AWACS planes which are very important for Pakistan’s maritime security. They attacked Peshawar Airbase and targeted fuel tanks there which were designated for fighter aircrafts for negotiating any aerial threat from West. They even attacked GHQ of Pakistan Army.

In Pakistan, they recruited many tribal and Punjabi youngsters in the name of Jihad but are now using Tajiks and Uzbeks for their operations against Pakistan. It is believed that Tajik and Uzbek fighters are being supplied by India operating military bases in Tajikistan. These bases are located just a few kilometers away from Uzbek border inside Tajikistan.

It is believed that TTP does not feel comfortable in Afghanistan. It fears after the withdrawal of Nato-forces from Afghanistan, Afghan resistance groups will try to eliminate them because they had caused huge damage to them.

 In a May 2010 US General David Petraeus described the TTP's relationship with other militant groups as difficult to decipher: "There is clearly a symbiotic relationship between all of these different organizations: al-Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban, the Afghan Taliban, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi. And it's very difficult to parse and to try to distinguish between them. They support each other, they coordinate with each other, sometimes they compete with each other, [and] sometimes they even fight each other. But at the end of the day, there is quite a relationship between them."

Another offshoot of the TTP is The Tehreek-i-Taliban Punjab, alternatively called the Punjabi Taliban. It is also said to be a loose network of members of banned militant groups based in South Punjab. Major factions of the Punjabi Taliban are said to be Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan and Jaysh-i-Muhammad. It has increasingly provided the foot-soldiers for violent acts and has played an important role in attacking Ahmedi, Shia, Sufi and other civilian targets throughout Pakistan.

The bottomline is that the mercenaries may wear different caps but their objective is common, plunging Pakistan into anarchy. These groups are getting funds and arms from outsides and hire ruthless people to kill and sabotage.

The time has come to weed them out without the slightest consideration that they are Pakistanis. The outlaws deserve no mercy, especially because they have been killing the innocent and helping Pakistan’s enemies to achieve their ulterior objectives.

 —

India overreacting on Gwadar port issue

India seems to be suffering from a tendency of making unnecessary hue and cry on any action taken by Pakistan, even if it is purely of commercial nature.

This point was proved once again when Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony said, “China's role in operating a strategically important port in Pakistan is a matter of concern for India”.

However, Salman Khurshid, Indian Foreign Minister later tried to pacify by saying there was no need to overreact to Pakistan’s transferring the management of Gwadar port to China from Singapore.

"I don't think we should overreact to everything that Pakistan does or everything that China is involved in. We need to take these matters in our stride and in the normal course," said Khurshid. He added, "There is a delicate balance in the entire region and I think none of us should be doing something which will upset that balance."

Transfer of management control of Gwadar port to China has become matter of concern India because it considers the port, which is close to the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil shipping lane will open up an energy and trade corridor from the Gulf, across Pakistan to western China. India also believes that China will get the capacity to deploy its forces in the region.

To be honest, transferring control of Gwadar port to China should be of no concern to India, it is Pakistan’s prerogative. The country signed a deal with Singapore that didn't work out as desired. Singapore's PSA International and the Chinese have settled the deal amicably and give no opportunity to any country to even discuss the issue.

China has already made clear that Gwadar is a commercial project and part of longstanding bilateral cooperation between the two countries. Historically, China has been supporting Pakistan to overcome its economic woes, especially in the areas Pakistan faces opposition from the United States.

It is pertinent to mention that the United States refused to treat Pakistan at par with India when the question of transfer of nuclear technology for civilian use came. India was given this technology as reward for not participating in Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project.

It is also on record that the United States has not stopped India from constructing Chabahar port in Iran and also the rail and road link up to Central Asia passing through Afghanistan. Chabahar port is located even closer to the Strait of Hormuz.

Experts are of the consensus that the United States has been busy in creating its hegemony in South Asia and MENA (Middle East and North Africa). To achieve this it has joined hands with India and promoting its as regional super power.

Construction of Chabahar port is aimed at undermining importance of Pakistan and especially Gwadar port. India is often alleged of supporting rebel groups of Balochistan, which are demanding transferring control of Gwadar port to the provincial government.

A lot of money is required to make Gwadar port efficient and cost effective and the provincial government does not have the funds. It must be recalled that China has extended funds and technical support in the contraction of this deep sea commercial port and also willing to extend more funds, may be this is not liked by India and United States.

Kashmir Can Initiate Third World War

Since 1990 Kashmir Solidarity Day is being celebrated on 5 February every year as a day of protest against Indian occupation of Kashmir. Pakistan maintains that Kashmir is a disputed territory and its final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir. Certain Kashmiri groups believe that Kashmir should be independent of both India and Pakistan. But the resolution seems difficult because both India and Pakistan consider Kashmir their lifeline and are not ready to abandon it at all.

One of the apprehensions is that the third world war will be fought on water and this time it will not be in any other continent but Asia, and most probably in Kashmir. Since independence India and Pakistan have fought three wars and all of these were ignited because of Kashmir, a thorn British Raj had left when it decided to quit the subcontinent.

Some say the Raj couldn’t decide the fate of Kashmir but the growing perception is that it was not on the agenda. The Raj wanted to leave a permanent point of conflict for the newly independent states so that at no stage these two countries even think about cooperating with each other. In fact the Raj was right that this permanent conflict will neither allow these countries to become an economic power. In fact these would become the biggest buyers of armament and the history has proved the Raj was right.

Over the years India has been saying that Kashmir is its integral part and the latest stance it ‘we will not allow another division of Hindustan on the basis of religion’. They even go to the extent of saying that division of India on the basis of religion in 1947 was wrong. In fact the followers of extremist Hindus believed that Pakistan would not survive beyond a few months and also made efforts to weaken Pakistan on one or the other pretext.

 The Kashmir issue has not only resulted in three wars but the countries have been spending billions of dollars annually on procurement of conventional and non-conventional arsenal. Since the two countries have attained the status of atomic powers world leaders have been stressing the need to resolve the Kashmir dispute to avoid an eventuality that may cause a catastrophe in the region. Kashmir is the nuclear flash point of Asia, surrounded by three nuclear powers.

India has been saying that Kashmir is its integral part, though the Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, stated after the 2010 Kashmir Unrest that his government is willing to grant autonomy within the purview of Indian constitution to Kashmir if there is consensus on this issue. Pakistan maintains that Kashmir is the disputed territory and its final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir. China states that Aksai Chin is a part of China and does not recognize the addition of Aksai Chin to the Kashmir region. Certain Kashmiri independence groups believe that Kashmir should neither be a part of India nor of Pakistan but should be given an independent state.

In 1989, a widespread popular and armed insurgency started in Kashmir. This resulted in the formation of militant wings and beginning of the Mujahadeen insurgency, which continues to this day. India contends that the insurgency was largely started by Afghan Mujahadeen who entered the Kashmir valley following the end of the Soviet-Afghan War. Yasin Malik, a leader of one faction of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, was one of the Kashmiris to organize militancy in Kashmir. Since 1995, Malik has renounced the use of violence and calls for strictly peaceful methods to resolve the dispute. He developed differences for shunning the demand for an independent Kashmir.

India claims these insurgents groups get support from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan. They claim Pakistan is supplying munitions to the terrorists and training them in Pakistan. India states that the terrorists have been killing many citizens in Kashmir and committing human rights violations but don’ accept that their own armed forces are responsible for extra judicial murder of thousands of Kashmires and worst abuse of human rights.

Kashmir, as disputed territory between India and Pakistan, is one of the most militarized places in the world. Decades of violence and brutality have divided Hindu and Muslim communities, forcing over nearly half a million people to flee their homes. Military convoys and soldiers armed with AK-47 rifles on the streets are a common scene.

India holds that the Instrument of Accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the Union of India, signed by Maharaja Hari Singh (erstwhile ruler of the State) on 25 October 1947 and executed on 27 October 1947 between the ruler of Kashmir and the Governor General of India was a legal act. It says that The Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir had unanimously ratified the Maharaja's Instrument of Accession to India.

India does not accept the two-nation theory that forms the basis of Pakistan and considers that Kashmir, despite being a Muslim-majority state, is an integral part of India. The common accusation is that insurgency and terrorism in Kashmir is being fueled by Pakistan. The Government of India has repeatedly accused Pakistan of waging a proxy war in Kashmir by providing weapons and financial assistance to terrorist groups in the region.

Pakistan accuses India of hypocrisy, as it refused to recognize the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan and Hyderabad's independence, on the grounds that those two states had Hindu majorities. In fact, India had occupied and forcibly integrated those two territories. Pakistan asserts that the Maharaja held no authority in determining Kashmir's future. Pakistan argues that even if the Maharaja had any authority in determining the plight of Kashmir, he signed the Instrument of Accession under duress, thus invalidating the legitimacy of his actions.

Pakistan says: 1) the popular Kashmiri insurgency demonstrates that the Kashmiri people no longer wish to remain within India. Pakistan suggests that this means that Kashmir either wants to be with Pakistan or independent. 2) According to the two-nation theory, which is one of the theories that is cited for the partition that created India and Pakistan, Kashmir should have been with Pakistan, because it has a Muslim majority. 3) India has shown disregard to the resolutions of the UN Security Council and failed in holding a plebiscite to determine the future allegiance of the state.

Experts say that the real reason for the dispute over Kashmir is water. Kashmir is the origin point for many rivers and tributaries. The river basin is divided between Pakistan, which has about 60 per cent of the catchment area, India with about 20 per cent, Afghanistan with 5 per cent and around 15 per cent in China. The river tributaries are the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, which primarily flow into Pakistan while other branches—the Ravi, Beas, and the Sutlej—irrigates northern India. The Kashmir dispute and the dispute over the water control are somehow related and the fight over the water remains as one of the main problems when establishing good relationships between the two countries.

US buying Iranian oil suspected

There is consensus that super powers violate globally agreed policies, when their own interest is at stake. Though, one can come up with a long list of such policy violations, stories of world’s leading economies defying economic sanctions imposed on Iran have started appearing as headlines in global media.

The latest story publish in Eurasia Review has raised suspicions that even United States, the mastermind of these sanctions was involved in buying Iranian oil. The expected copybook reply could be “We placed order with an exporter and were not aware that the load was blended with oil of Iranian origin.”

Eurasia Review report says, “There is a high probability that US sanctions against Iran have been violated by its own army. Part of the $1.55 billion in fuel the US bought from Turkmenistan for the Afghan army in the last five years may have originated from Iran.”

A report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has also suggested that “despite actions taken by DOD to prevent the purchase of Iranian fuel with US funds, risks remain that US economic sanctions could [have been] violated” from 2007 to 2012.

The suspicion rises because most of the fuel being used in Afghanistan comes from neighboring Iran. Because of the US sanctions on Tehran restricting the trade of Iranian oil and petroleum products, the ISAF has been required to abide by the regulations and buy petrol from eight Afghan-owned companies that deliver petroleum from Turkmenistan, which borders both Iran and Afghanistan.

Turkmenistan is a major regional oil producer, which also sells petroleum products made in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Russia and even Iran. Petrol vendors in Turkmenistan use flexible supply schemes, meaning that fuel of various origins could potentially be blended together.

In response SIGAR report, the US Embassy in Kabul stated “It is possible that if blending is taking place in Turkmenistan it could contain some Iranian fuel,” but refused to admit that fuel imported from Russia could also be blended with Iranian fuel prior to its export to Afghanistan.

It is believed that suppliers are unlikely to blend Iranian fuel, or any other product, with other sourced fuel because of the potential that blending could cause product deviation from specification standards and potentially cause a rejection of the entire shipment, said the Embassy.

A Reuter report says the US believes that the most common trick Iran uses to dodge sanctions is ship-to-ship transfers (STS), in which large tankers leaving Iran’s ports offload Iranian oil to smaller vessels. Then, the Iranian oil is blended with that of another country to disguise it. After that, new shipping documents are issued, giving the blended oil shipment a new identity.

One can still recall that when restrictions were imposed on buying oil from Iran many countries were exempted only to save their economies from sudden and grave shocks. Some of the countries are still buying oil from Iran.

In the recent past Iran was OPEC’s second largest oil producing member, exporting 2.2 million barrels oil per day. The economic sanctions have more than halved oil exports to 890,000 barrels by September 2012.

However, Iranian crude oil exports once again rose to 1.4 million barrels per day lately. Most of this oil was bought by three leading Asian economies; China, India and Japan, where demand for energy has been on the rise. The expansion of tanker fleet by Iran has also helped it to export more oil.

Iran boosts oil export despite sanctions

Economic interest remains most important for the countries around the world, irrespective of their being or not being part of any bloc or pressure group. This seems omnipresent when one looks at the developed countries buying oil from Iran, and defying economic sanctions. This leeway was initially given by the United States to a few countries but others are also joining the exempt elites.

In one of its latest reports Reuters said, “Iran's crude oil exports in December leapt to their highest level since European Union sanctions took effect last July, analysts and shipping sources said, as strong Chinese demand and tanker fleet expansion helped the OPEC member dodge sanctions.”

According to the report, oil exports from Iran rose to around 1.4 million barrels per day (bpd) during December 2012. Western sanctions had halved Iran's oil exports during 2012 from 2.2 million bpd in late 2011. But continuous robust demand from top buyer China and others such as India and Japan, as well as the purchase of new tankers, allowed Iran to boost exports late last year.

According to Reuter report Iran shipped more than 1.4 million bpd of crude oil in December and there are indications that exports would remain around the same level during January-March quarter of 2013.

This represents an increase from a low-point of less than 900,000 bpd in September and suggests monthly revenues worth approximately $4.7 billion based on December Brent prices.

One of the factors helping Iran to boost its oil export was purchase of tankers from China, which enabled it to ship more oil, even if shipping companies from other countries were not willing to carry the load.

This has taken some pressure off Iran and facilitated tanker traffic and analysts foresee further increase in oil export to China.

It is also believed that the rise in oil exports from Iran to nearly 1.4 million bpd was the result of traditional buyers finding new ways to secure insurance of oil being carried by the Iranian tankers.

Israel asked to vacate Palestinian land

According to an AFP report Israel has been asked to immediately stop all settlement activity and begin withdrawal of its settlers from the Palestinian territories on Thursday.

“Israel must … cease all settlement activities without preconditions (and) must immediately initiate a process of withdrawal of all settlers” from the occupied territories, a UN fact-finding mission concluded.

Because of the settlements, Palestinians’ human rights “are being violated consistently and on a daily basis,” the three independent experts said in a report commissioned by the UN’s Human Rights Council last March.

The three experts; Christine Chanet of France, Asma Jahangir of Pakistan and Unity Dow of Botswana will  present their findings to the 47-member state council on March 18. Israel has been asked Jewish to “ensure adequate, effective and prompt remedy to all Palestinian victims … of human rights violations that are a result of the settlements.”

The council’s decision to dispatch the fact-finding mission to determine what impact the settlements are having on the rights of Palestinians so enraged the Jewish state that it cut all ties with the 47-member state council in March 2012.

The experts published their findings just two days after Israel made its anger felt by becoming the first country to ever boycott a special council review of its rights situation.

Israel, as usual has termed this report bias saying it would only hamper peace efforts.

“The Human Rights Council has sadly distinguished itself by its systematically one-sided and biased approach towards Israel. This latest report is yet another unfortunate reminder of that,” foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said.

“Counterproductive measures, such as the report before us, will only hamper efforts to find a sustainable solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict,” Palmor said.

“The only way to resolve all pending issues between Israel and the Palestinians, including the settlements issue, is through direct negotiations without pre-conditions.”

The experts were not able to visit Israel or the Palestinian territories, after failing to secure Israeli permission, and instead met in Jordan with more than 50 people affected by the settlements or working in NGOs in a relevant field, it said.

The Jewish state is not a member of the council but like all 193 UN countries it is required to undergo Universal Periodic Reviews of its human rights situation.

Israel Attacks Syria

And finally warmonger Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tests the patience of his key rival Syria and its allies Iran and Hezbollah by attacking a caravan in Syria.

Israel is not likely to accept this, which is usual as it never admitted the 2007 air strike on a Syrian nuclear site despite US authorities confirming it.

According to a Reuters report Israeli jets bombed a convoy near Syria's border with Lebanon early on Wednesday apparently targeting weapons destined for Hezbollah. This is being termed a warning to Damascus not to arm Israel's Lebanese enemy.

Syrian state television accused Israel of bombing a military research centre, at Jamraya and even Syrian rebels disputed Israeli claim saying their forces had attacked the site. But Israel insisted on that the truck was carrying sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah.

According to Western diplomats the target was a truck loaded with weapons, heading from Syria to Lebanon and may have included anti-aircraft missiles or long-range rockets.

The overnight raid followed warnings from Israel that it was ready to act to prevent the revolt against President Bashar al-Assad leading to Syria's chemical weapons and modern rockets reaching either his Hezbollah allies or his Islamist enemies.

Syrian sources said these criminal acts would not weaken Syria's support for Palestinians and other groups engaged in resistance to Israel. Apparently the episode boils down to a warning by Israel to Syria and Hezbollah not to engage in the transfer of sensitive weapons.

Experts say Assad knows his survival depends on his military capabilities and he would not want those capabilities neutralized by Israel - so the message is this kind of transfer is simply not worth it, neither for him nor Hezbollah.

Such a strike or strikes would fit Israel's policy of preemptive covert and overt action to curb Hezbollah and does not necessarily indicate a major escalation of the war in Syria.

It is on record that Israel has recently raised its concerns about Syrian chemical weapons, but its officials say a more immediate worry is that the civil war could see weapons that are capable of denting its massive superiority in air power and tanks reaching Hezbollah; the group fought Israel in 2006 and remains a more pressing threat than its Syrian and Iranian sponsors.

Israel’s problem is even bigger because rebel groups of Syria are hostile to Jewish state because of its atrocities  An attack inside Syria could be diplomatically provocative, especially because Iran views any strike on Syria as an attack on itself.

Israeli apprehends that Syria's advanced conventional weapons, much of it Russian-built hardware has the capacity to destroy Israeli planes and tanks.

Hezbollah fighters and the Syrian army have close relations. While Damascus may have been reluctant to hand over key parts of its own arsenal to its Lebanese allies, some analysts suggest that if Syrian or Hezbollah commanders fear hardware is about to fall into rebel hands they might try to move it across the border - possibly even without formal government approval.

During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Israel's air forced faced little threat, though its navy was taken aback when a missile hit a ship. Israeli tanks suffered losses to rockets, and commanders are concerned Hezbollah may get better weaponry.