THE Obama administration last week notified the US Congress that it would sell eight F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan. The announcement follows heated congressional debate and several delays, during which both Republicans and Democrats have criticised the deal and engaged in Pakistan-bashing. The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, describing Pakistan as a “duplicitous partner” (دھوکے باز ساتھی), said he would block subsidies on the deal.
Despite the resistance, a congressional veto is unlikely at this stage, and the deal will go ahead. As such, it is a reminder that despite a decade of hand-wringing over the transactional and misaligned nature of the US-Pakistan bilateral relationship, little progress has been made on either side.
There is an uncomfortable history to contend with in this case: following the Pressler Amendment and subsequent imposition of nuclear sanctions on Pakistan, the US in 1990 cancelled the sale of 28 F-16s (the supply only resumed after 9/11 and Pakistan’s agreement to support the US-led war on terror).
India has raged against the US decision to sell F-16s to Pakistan.
The sale (or not) of F-16s is enmeshed (پھنس جانا، الجھ جانا) with a Pakistani narrative about repeated abandonments and betrayals by the US — during the 1965 and 1971 wars, the Pressler Amendment, the post-Afghanistan vanishing act, the finalisation of the US-India civilian nuclear deal in 2008 — and the idea that Washington is only generous when it wants to exploit Pakistan to further its own goals.
In keeping with the pattern, the F-16 deal comes at a time when the on-again, off-again US-Pakistan relationship is starting to recover from the many debacles (ناکامیاں) of 2011 — Raymond Davis, Abbottabad, Salala — and the US is increasingly worried about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.
The two Sharifs made separate visits to Washington last year and called for an enduring partnership. The US continues to pump Pakistani coffers with dollars: in 2015, the US appropriated around $371 million in aid related to security and $468m in economic assistance for Pakistan. A further $1 billion was released in the form of Coalition Support Fund payments to support counterterrorism operations.
This does not, however, mean that relations between the two are hunky dory (اچھے تعلقات). As congressional debate regarding the deal has shown, attitudes towards Pakistan in the United States are quite sour, the main complaint being that Pakistan continues to support the Haqqani network, which in turn targets American soldiers in Afghanistan. Pakistan is meanwhile sensing another exit by the US from the region and appears to be turning its mind to other allies — ie China, Saudi Arabia — and reviving its old strategies in Afghanistan. Pakistan is also irked (برا منانا) that even after ‘doing more’ — including the launch of major counterterrorism operations in North Waziristan — it has to face further demands from Washington to crack down on anti-India groups, particularly the Laskhar-e-Taiba.
The gradual re-hyphenation of Pakistan and India in Washington will lead to further challenges in the US-Pakistan equation. Pakistan blamed delays in the F-16 approval on the growing efficacy of Indian lobbyists on Capitol Hill. India for its part has raged against the US decision to sell the F-16s, saying they will be used against India, rather than in the fight against regional militancy.
There are some who speculate that the F-16 notification is timed to coincide with the latest development regarding India’s nuclear mainstreaming, its ratification of the insurance pooling agreement of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation, which relates to liability in the event of a nuclear accident.
If true, this is an awkward balancing act, particularly following the recent brouhaha (غل غپاڑہ) after it was suggested that the US would support Pakistan’s entry to the Nuclear Suppliers Group if it agreed to caps on its nuclear programme.
The India dimension of the US-Pakistan relationship is increasing at a time when American fatigue of what it terms to be Pakistani duplicity is leading to greater scrutiny of Pentagon and White House largesse (فراخدلی اور فیاضی) towards Pakistan: in March 2015, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs froze $150m in foreign military financing and halted the delivery of US Navy cutter vessels since they were not necessary for counterterrorism operations; $300m of CSF funding was also withheld because Pakistan did not meet the aid conditions.
The more Pakistan perceives such actions that are borne of frustration as being driven by Indian lobbyists, the more dim the prospects for a new alignment between Islamabad and Washington.
Even with fighter jets arriving in Pakistan, resentments in both Islamabad and Washington are likely to grow deeper, and become more complex. Rather than focus on completing transactions, the two sides should take advantage of the gradual improvement in ties to work on improving trust and transparency.
The writer is a freelance journalist.
huma.yusuf@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, February 15th, 2016
IT is a strange pattern: the army chief endorses death sentences handed down by military courts operating under the 21st Amendment and the Supreme Court suspends the executions pending a decision on the judicial appeals.
This week has seen 12 more individuals accused by the military of terrorism being condemned to death, and the death sentences of four earlier terrorism convicts suspended by the Supreme Court.
As noted by the Supreme Court judges hearing the appeals, the endorsement by the court of military courts in the 21st Amendment judgement has left a narrow window for appeal by those convicted by military courts.
What is troubling is that neither is there any light emerging from the military court trials nor is the Supreme Court moving swiftly enough to examine if justice is indeed being carried out. This newspaper stands against the death penalty in all its manifestations — but the conveyor-belt manner in which military courts are handing down death sentences is especially troubling.
The approach so far by the military has been to give no details to the public or the media about ongoing trials and then revealing the sentences and the crimes the terror suspects are accused of at the time of endorsement by the army chief.
No evidence is provided — often to even the family members — and the trial record is withheld. This in trials of individuals the state has accused of being ‘jet-black terrorists’ — how can evidence be so lacking and the willingness to produce it so low when it comes to terrorist acts that are some of the worst in the country’s history?
There are few answers. More than halfway through the life of the 21st Amendment, the state’s approach has only seemed to worsen.
Perhaps the only hope is the Supreme Court. Some of the justices have shown a willingness to examine military court convictions and, at least in verbal remarks, acknowledged the heavy burden on them when it comes to ensuring justice is done.
While the 21st Amendment judgement left only relatively narrow grounds on which military court convictions can be overturned, there are two things that the court can still do.
One, it can expedite the appeals process, prioritising them over normal court work. Two, the Supreme Court can act to set aside death sentences in cases where basic doubts still exist and the trial is deemed patently unfair.
The death penalty is fundamentally and morally wrong — the court must act to curb it where it can.
Published in Dawn, February 14th, 2016
THE government’s move to seek lower power tariffs in renewable and LNG-based power plants is laudable but it also reveals significant weaknesses in crucial areas in our power-sector management. In an unusual move, the ministry of water and power has said that the power regulator, Nepra, has set tariffs for renewable, hydropower and some LNG plants far above their market value, and underlined that it will not be notifying these projects on the basis of the tariffs set by Nepra. Instead, it will move towards international competitive bidding in an effort to bring down the costs. Any step to bring down the cost of power generation is to be welcomed, but this particular case points to significant deficiencies on the part of Nepra to determine upfront tariffs, and do the due diligence necessary to arrive at a fair figure. As an example, the Quaid-i-Azam Solar Park was inaugurated under an upfront tariff regime at Rs19 per unit, which is almost triple the solar tariffs being offered in other countries. The first project in that park, a Chinese partnership with the government of Punjab, has already locked in this higher tariff. Moreover, Nepra simply relied on the costs furnished by the Chinese company that was setting up the first plant in QAS for its determination, leading to allegations of favouritism by rival groups.
What doesn’t help in this case is that the earlier higher tariffs have already been locked in by groups in partnership with the government. In the case of QAS, for instance, the partner was the government of Punjab, and the prime minister himself showed up to inaugurate the park, while the chief minister of the province touted it as a big success of his administration. Now we have added fuel to charges of favouritism. Why did the government wake up so late to the fact that the tariffs being offered by Nepra were on the higher side? And why did Nepra go ahead and issue such exorbitant (انتہائی بلند، ہوشربا) tariffs in the first place? Tariffs for power producers are notoriously hard to adjust once they have been notified and power purchase agreements signed in accordance with them, which makes it all the more important to vet them thoroughly before they are announced. Apparently, Nepra has not been doing this, with the result that there is a cloud of suspicion and confusion hovering over the government’s plans for the power sector at such a late date.
Published in Dawn, February 16th, 2016
AP — via THE DAWN/ 15.02/2016
RIYADH: Saudi Arabia has said troops from 20 countries are gathering in the oil-rich nation for large-scale military exercises. The kingdom announced the exercises on Sunday with the official Saudi Press Agency describing them as “the largest and most important” military manoeuvres in the region’s history.
It said the exercises in the country’s north will include air, sea and land forces. They are expected to last 18 days.
Most of the participants are Arab and African countries, and do not include the United States and other Westen powers.
S. Arabia leads a coalition fighting Shia rebels in Yemen. It is also part of the US-led coalition against the militant Islamic State (IS) group, and recently said it was willing to send ground troops to Syria.
Published in Dawn, February 15th, 2016
BEIRUT: US President Barack Obama urged Russia on Sunday to stop bombing “moderate” rebels in Syria in support of its ally Bashar al-Assad, a campaign seen in the West as a major obstacle to latest efforts to end the war.
Major powers agreed on Friday to a limited cessation of hostilities in Syria but the deal does not take effect until the end of this week and was not signed by any warring parties — the Damascus government and numerous rebel factions fighting it.
Russian bombing raids directed at rebel groups are meanwhile helping the Syrian army to achieve what could be its biggest victory of the war in the battle for Aleppo, the country’s largest city and commercial centre before the conflict.
There is little optimism that the deal reached in Munich will do much to end a war that has lasted five years and cost 250,000 lives.
The Kremlin said President Vladimir Putin and Obama had spoken by telephone and agreed to intensify cooperation to implement the Munich agreement.
But a Kremlin statement made clear Russia was committed to its campaign against the militant Islamic State (IS) group and “other terrorist organisations”, an indication that it would also target groups in western Syria where militants such as Al Qaeda are fighting Assad in close proximity to rebels deemed moderate by the West.
Russia says the “cessation” does not apply to its air strikes, which have shifted the balance of power towards Assad.
It says the IS and the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front are the main targets of its air campaign. But Western countries say Russia has in fact been mostly targeting other insurgent groups, including some they support.
The White House said Obama’s discussion with Putin stressed the need to rush humanitarian aid to Syria and contain air strikes.
“In particular, President Obama emphasised the importance now of Russia playing a constructive role by ceasing its air campaign against moderate opposition forces in Syria,” the White House said in a statement.
Relief workers said efforts to deliver humanitarian aid were being threatened by the latest escalation of violence.
“We must ask again, why wait a week for this urgently needed cessation of hostilities?” said Dalia al-Awqati, Mercy Corps Director of Programs for North Syria.
The situation in Syria has been complicated by the involvement of Kurdish-backed combatants in the area north of Aleppo near the Turkish border, which has drawn a swift military response from artillery in Turkey.
The Kurdish YPG militia, helped by Russian air raids, seized an ex-military air base at Menagh last week, angering Turkey, which sees the YPG as an extension of the PKK, a Kurdish group that waged a bloody insurgent campaign on Turkish soil over most of the past three decades.
Published in Dawn, February 15th, 2016
