Pakistan opposition blocks NATO route By Amir Mir ISLAMABAD - Pakistan opposition pa

[Karpo]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NC29Df01.html
Mar 29, 2012

Pakistan opposition blocks NATO route
By Amir Mir

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan opposition parties are moving to block the reopening of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) supply routes into neighboring Afghanistan ahead of crucial deliberations to set new terms of engagement with the United States.

The country's major right-wing opposition party, led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, and key religio-political parties, have taken a unified stand at a joint sitting of the senate and the national assembly, which was due to resume on Wednesday evening. The joint session will conclude by voting on proposals about potential ties with the US and the future of the NATO supply route that passes through Pakistani territory.

The prime aim of the unprecedented debate is to set a new tone for a relationship with the US that seemed on the verge of collapse for much of 2011, especially in the wake of the November



26 NATO air strike on a Pakistani border post, Salala, which killed 24 soldiers.

Pakistan subsequently suspended NATO supplies via its land route to Afghanistan, besides ordering the US's Central Intelligence Agency to vacate the Shamsi air base in Balochistan province that was being used to carry out US drone attacks on Pakistani soil.

Fearing a backlash from its predominantly right-wing vote bank, the key opposition party in parliament - the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) led by twice-elected prime minister Nawaz Sharif, has already rejected recommendations from the multiparty parliamentary committee charged with defining a path to a reset in soured relations with Washington.

The PML-N leadership took the view that placing the issues of Pakistan-US ties and the NATO supply route before parliament was a face-saving move on the part of the government, so that it would be able claim support of the country before quietly reopening the route.

"If the federal government wants parliament to provide guidance on certain issues and situations, then we are ready to do so, but the federal government has to convince us. Otherwise, we are going to block NATO supplies by force if a unilateral decision is taken," Nisar Ali Khan, the PML-N's opposition leader in the national assembly, said in a fiery speech in the joint sitting on March 27.

According to party insiders, despite the fact that the PML-N was a part of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS), its leadership decided to introduce proposals of its own that are aimed at countering the committee's recommendations.

Some of the contentious counter-proposals to be aired during the ongoing parliamentary debate will be that the US should categorically tell the Pakistan government of its date of withdrawal from Afghanistan and give a public commitment that it won't attack Iran, especially after withdrawing from Afghanistan.

At the heart of the debate is a list of 40 proposals to serve as guidelines for the new rules of engagement with the US, NATO and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) that operates in Afghanistan. These were presented to parliament by the PCNS in the joint sitting of March 20.

Besides recommending Pakistan to seek an unconditional apology from Washington for the unprovoked attack on the Salala check post, the PCNS sought a halt to drone attacks and a civilian nuclear deal with the US along the lines of the US-India deal.

The PCNS proposed reopening of the NATO supply line with revised terms and conditions, including regulation and control of the movement of goods and personnel that would be subject to strict monitoring within Pakistan, and that too by levying taxes on all goods coming in or going out of Pakistan.

The PCNS further suggested that 50% of the US/ISAF/NATO containers be handled through Pakistan Railways, and rest through the roads network.

The Pakistan government had decided on January 20 to hand the responsibility of making recommendations on a reset with Washington to the 16-member PCNS, on which all the political parties elected to the two houses of the parliament were represented. It was the first time since Pakistan came into being in 1947 that the military establishment, which had treated foreign policy decisions as its exclusive domain, was usurped on such matters by elected civilian representatives.

Opposition parties sought until March 26 to study the proposals before beginning a formal debate. However, before the session could resume, most of the right-wing and religious opposition parties urged the government to finalize fresh guidelines for Pakistan's ties with the US through consensus, adding that they would not allow the rulers in Islamabad to hijack parliament and use it to endorse its premeditated actions, especially pertaining to the resumption of the suspended NATO supply route.

The PML-N's Khan acknowledged that recommendations such as one calling for a cessation of US drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan were good, but he objected to others, including those about the presence of foreign private security contractors and foreign intelligence operatives being accountable to conditions of transparency, and the use of Pakistani air bases by any foreign force only with parliament's approval.

The next politician to issue a more serious warning was the amir of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, who is the sole representative of his party on the PCNS. He made NATO supplies the main target of his attack on the PCNS recommendations and warned the government that it would not be able to restore the supplies. "You will not be able to implement it in the field. We are not wearing bangles."

Earlier, addressing a rally of party workers on March 23 in Peshawar (which was titled Islam Zindabad), Rehman stated, "All major issues with the United States have already been decided and the establishment is now passing the buck to parliament in a bid to rubber-stamp the decisions which have already been taken to appease the United States. I will remind the rulers that they have been elected by the people of Pakistan and not by the people of the US and, therefore, they should look after the interests of Pakistan come what may."

Similar protest rallies were organized on March 23 by the Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan (JI) and the Jamaatul Daawa (JuD) against the potential reopening of NATO supply routes.

The most recent protest rally was staged on March 27 in front of Parliament House in Islamabad by the Difa-e-Pakistan Council (Defense of Pakistan Council or DPC), a conglomerate of mostly banned jihadi, sectarian and religious groups and which was allegedly created by the former director general of the Inter-Services Intelligence, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, in a bid to pressurize the government.

DPC chairman Maulana Samiul Haq accused the US of planning to send its troops into Pakistan under the cover of security personnel for NATO containers. "The resumption of NATO supplies will be a dangerous act to pave the way for America to spread its forces in Pakistan," he said.

The amir of the JI, Syed Munawwar Hasan, warned parliament and the federal government to refrain from taking decisions against national interests while finalizing the future terms of engagement with the US.

The firebrand JuD amir Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, whose party is also a component of the DPC, advised the army chief, the president, the prime minister and parliamentarians to quit if they could not protect national interests.

"All of you have taken an oath to safeguard the country and protect its interests and if you cannot fulfill your duty, you should quit," he said, as workers of religious parties chanted slogans "Down with America" and "Friends of America are traitors".

Adding to the pressure, the Pakistan Taliban on March 25 threatened to attack Pakistani lawmakers and their families if they allowed NATO to resume shipping supplies through the country.

A spokesman for the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (Pakistan Taliban - TTP), Ahsanullah Ahsan, accused Pakistani officials of acting like slaves for the US. "These parliamentarians must know that in such a case, none of them will be safe in their homes," he told the Associated Press. "We will start attacking all parliamentarians and their families and 'publicly slaughter' drivers ferrying NATO supplies."

Fifty religious scholars belonging the Deobandi Sunni school of thought - which is considered close to the Taliban - have issued a fatwa (religious edict) terming the reopening of the NATO land supplies route un-Islamic, adding that such a decision would be tantamount to inviting the wrath of the Almighty.

The edict warned that any cooperation with the "occupation army killing innocent Muslims in brotherly Muslim country Afghanistan" was forbidden under Islam and said the Pakistan government should compel US and NATO forces to leave Afghanistan immediately.

Before his departure for a nuclear summit in Seoul, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani responded to the opposition parties' onslaught against the government by reminding that the suspension of the NATO supply route was the government's decision and there was no dictation from any side at that time, especially from the opposition.

"The opposition is playing to the gallery on the issue of the NATO supply route and hopes to cash in on emotional anti-American sentiment," Gilani said. "If the opposition thinks that we discontinued NATO supplies under their pressure, then they are wrong. We decided to block the supplies after discussing it with the defense committee of the cabinet." The decision on whether to reopen the NATO supply routes will be taken by parliament unanimously, the prime minister added.

Recent American media reports that the US military is not planning to discipline its forces over the November 26 NATO air strike contribute to factors that make it hard for Pakistan to reopen the NATO supply route in the near future.

A US military investigation last year had already exonerated American troops operating in Afghanistan from inappropriate use of force against the Pakistani military - even as the US military acknowledged some blame over the incident.

The New York Times reported on March 25 that Pakistani troops were the first to fire in the incident, citing a Pentagon probe. "We found nothing criminally negligent on the part of any individual in our investigations of the incident," the newspaper quoted one senior US military official as saying.

Many Western diplomats in Islamabad believe the PCNS recommendations are a laundry list of unilateral and unworkable demands from Islamabad.

United States President Barack Obama, who met Gilani on Tuesday on the sidelines of the summit in South Korea, made it clear that the ongoing parliamentary review by Pakistan of its ties with the US would take a balanced approach and respect US national security needs.

According to diplomatic circles, the implications of Obama's statement are clear - it will be hard for the US to accept new terms of engagement that don't take into consideration overall American goals in Pakistan as well as the region at large.

Amir Mir is a senior Pakistani journalist and the author of several books on the subject of militant Islam and terrorism, the latest being The Bhutto murder trail: From Waziristan to GHQ.

[randolph85]

i wonder why they don't protest against america using paki air bases uninterrupted even when the land route was closed.

[khushal]

they want more money for the land routes. they want everything going into afghanistan be taxed. The truck drivers already steal NATO fuel and sell it to Pakistani fuel depots, it is reported that only half the fuel actually make it to NATO bases in Afghanistan. Same with other suppllies. Its all stolen by the Paksitansi just like it was during the Soviet Afghan war.

[fzpz]

Pakistan needs to take control
Tough-talking politicians are at it again as parliament prepared to debate the guidelines set forth by the all-party Parliamentary Committee on National Security for the revised terms of engagement with the US, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) and the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).
Those on the treasury benches have been assuring that the parliament’s decisions would be honoured even though their track record on this score is far from reassuring. The government policy to date has been to go along with the opposition to ensure the passage of unanimous resolutions in parliament and then forget about it. And the politicians on the opposition benches are declaring that they would not let the government hijack the parliament to rubber-stamp decisions that serve its own interests instead of those of all the stakeholders.
In view of its past performance, the opposition also doesn’t inspire hope as it failed to put enough pressure to seek implementation of previous resolutions of parliament with regard to the relations and cooperation with the US in pursuing the objectives of the so-called ‘war on terror.’
The parliament’s debate on the 16-member parliamentary committee’s 40 recommendations has been delayed twice, first to give time to the legislators to study the report, which is only eight pages and could be studied fairly quickly, and then due to the opposition’s demand that the far more pressing issue of power outages be discussed before anything else.
It was obvious nobody was in a hurry to discuss the recommendations that the Senator Raza Rabbani-led committee had finalised by January 11. The incident that prompted the government and parliament to review ties with the US took place four months ago in Mohmand Agency at Salala on the border with Afghanistan on the night of November 25-26. That was a while ago and the US has been waiting rather impatiently for the parliamentary committee to come up with its recommendations.
It is another matter if the US government through its own sources already knew the recommendations.
Some opposition figures even alleged that the committee’s confidential report had reached the US embassy before it was tabled in parliament. True or false, this explains the difficulties in having a transparent relationship with the US owing to the strong belief in Pakistan that the Americans have scores of people working for them in every Pakistani institution. The distrust between the two sides is so deep that every move is looked at with suspicion.
Apart from demanding an end to the US drone strikes and seeking apology for the Salala incident, both of which may not happen the way Pakistan would want, the most important issue that got greater consideration in the parliamentary committee’s guidelines pertained to the supplies passing through Pakistan for Nato forces in Afghanistan. The term used is “reopening” of Nato supply routes, which betrays the understanding among the committee members that the ban imposed by Pakistan on November 26 last year would be eventually lifted. This is reinforced by the proposal that 50 percent of the containers transporting Nato supplies may be handled by the ailing Pakistan Railways and that all the goods should be taxed.
The ruling coalition, guided by the foreign ministry and perhaps also the military, appears keen to reopen the Nato supply routes after revision of the terms and conditions. Getting it approved from parliament won’t be a problem as the PPP-led government’s majority in parliament has increased after the recent Senate polls.
It seems not much consideration is being given to the possibility of a rise in attacks on Nato supply vehicles in case the ban is lifted and the increased polarisation in the country. Pakistan has already angered the US by banning Nato supplies and reopening the route won’t impress it much as the Americans have made alternate arrangements through the Northern Distribution Network via Russia and its neighbours even if those routes are six times costlier.
Having been described as an unreliable partner, Pakistan is unlikely to regain the trust of the US and its allies by any amount of appeasement. Therefore, it would be better to continue the ban on Nato supplies in line with the aspirations of most Pakistanis instead of lifting it and risking resumption of the campaign of attacks by militants on the supply vehicles and more bloodshed.
Regarding the recommendations, various analysts have pointed out certain shortcomings. Some felt the guidelines were short-term and military-oriented and won’t be valid beyond 2014 when the Nato forces would have withdrawn from Afghanistan. However, there may not be complete withdrawal as the US is negotiating a strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan to be able to deploy several thousand American troops for counter-terrorism operations and training of Afghan security forces beyond 2014 at four or five military airbases.
In case of continued presence of US forces in Afghanistan, there would be no political settlement involving the Taliban, who won’t give up fighting. This in turn would mean a destabilised Afghanistan with Pakistan being blamed for the lack of success of the US military strategy against the Taliban and other resistance groups.
The recommendations made no reference to certain vital challenges facing Pakistan for which it needs cooperation from the US and its allies. These include creation of jobs, improvements in the education, energy and water sectors, rebuilding of infrastructure damaged due to militancy and military operations and floods and transfer of technology. The stress in the parliamentary document is on security and terrorism issues, thereby reinforcing the US standpoint of focusing on its one-dimension relationship with Pakistan by seeking its help in fighting Al-Qaeda and Taliban-linked militants.
The recommendations have been hailed for proposing deepening the strategic partnership with China, strengthening relationship with Russia, actively pursuing the gas pipeline project with Iran, and continuing the dialogue with India, including efforts for the solution of the Jammu & Kashmir dispute in accordance with the UN resolutions.
While the strategic partnership with China has been pursued by every government in Pakistan, the wish to strengthen ties with Russia and earlier with the USSR couldn’t materialise. Half-hearted efforts were made in the past to make this happen, though India’s growing friendship with the US has opened a window of opportunity for Pakistan to win Russia’s trust and strengthen its relations with it by using forums such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).
The recommendation for actively pursuing the gas pipeline project with Iran is important as support from the parliament would strengthen the government’s hands to deflect US pressure on the issue. Friendly relations with neighbouring Iran ought to be a cornerstone of Pakistan’s foreign policy and no amount of US pressure should dissuade Islamabad from honouring its agreement with Tehran to meet the rising gas demand at home.
The recommendations could also have specifically mentioned Saudi Arabia and Turkey, two very dear friends of Pakistan, instead of lumping them with rest of the Islamic world or the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC).
Another omission is the European Union, which happens to be Pakistan’s biggest trade partner and deliverer of aid. Not mentioning it is strange in view of Pakistan’s request for concluding a five-year strategic partnership agreement with the European Union. The lack of reference to Japan and certain other developed countries in the recommendations has also been pinpointed, though the primary task of the parliamentary committee was to provide the guidelines for ‘resetting’ the uncertain relations with the US in the backdrop of three major incidents last year including the Salala airstrikes by Nato forces killing 24 Pakistani soldiers, the CIA operative Raymond Davis affair after he shot dead two Pakistanis in Lahore and the raid by US commandoes to kill Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad on May 2.
Moreover, these are guidelines for revised terms of engagements with the US that could be debated, altered, reinforced and even rejected by parliament. It is up to the parliamentarians to firm up doable and realistic recommendations in line with the aspirations of the people of Pakistan and take ownership of the country’s foreign policy, in particular the emotional issue of the relationship with the US.

The writer is resident editor of The News in Peshawar. Email: rahim yusufzai@yahoo.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-100093-Pakistan-needs-to-take-control

[Karpo]

the thing is does the PPP want to be the sole people to vote to reopen the supply lines (with the ANP). Even the dog Nawaz Sharrif is backing out (remember he wants to have a chance at winning). If they go ahead and pass the resolution, it will be them ALONE voting for it, no other party.

So essentially, if they are not interested in the future of their "party" and want to bag some more $$$ before they leave, then they will go ahead, but there not going to be able to do that in the disguise of a parliamentary resolution- it will be a PPP decision. ANP is also giving full support for restoration of supply lines (forget Pashtun brotherhood which they yap yap about, there in with the Pak Army, PPP)

Its really hard to make a convincing case to the people to continue giving supply routes. Maybe there is a fringe of society in Pakistan which favors it- the liberal secular elite who also favor continued pak army operations in FATA too

but who wants to have this decision on their shoulders.

dog kayani has put the responsibility on the shoulders of parliament in order to evade the stench that comes with supporting an unpopular war in the region.