Mullen: Kashmir issue must be resolved!

Addressing foreign correspondents, US Admiral Mike Mullen called for progress in settling the Kashmir issue. He highlighted the importance of a peaceful resolution in Kashmir in bringing out peace and stability to the entire region.

“In the long run, resolution of the border in the east in Kashmir is a very important outcome. Obviously, that is a principal concern to India and Pakistan. But there is a concern to many others in terms of stability of the region,” he said.

Admiral Mullen welcomed the recent declaration by India that it would soon withdraw its troops from Kashmir.

Though he conceded much had to be done, it was an optimistic and hopeful military admiral that spoke at length about the future of the South Asia region.

He also emphasized his commitment to Pakistan’s war against the insurgency along the Pak-Afghan border.

We can interpret the words of Admiral Mullen as continued American efforts to bring out stability in Pakistan.

Musical denial

It was an August day when my cousin Navid and I were standing in the rain, by the edge of the Hudson River. He was somber, having decided to drop the cheerful façade he’d maintained throughout his visit to New York City. The wind blew his hair from his eyes; I saw tears.

Looking away from me and in a low voice, he recounted the night he learned his friend died as a result of a suicide bomb. A witness who survived said Abbas had been standing outside the Shi’ite mosque, turning off his music player before any of the older men could give him disapproving looks. He had loved Junoon, a popular rock band. He must have been near the bomber, maybe even glanced up and said “Salaam.” Something about the innocence of Abbas’ last act — turning off his music so the imam wouldn’t get mad — touched me deeply.

“It’s funny,” Navid said, looking suddenly at me. “That night it rained hard, like this.” Sitting outside the red-sanded steps of Abbas’ house that very night, the group of young friends knew things had changed. Going through the motions of consoling the family and being there for one another, they knew something foreign had entered their worlds. They were now face to face with the cancer of extremism, something that had always seemed so far away, because it affected the regions up north. Now it was in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore.

Coming from a Muslim family with relatives throughout the world, I can many times connect the events in the news to people I know. I try to keep the two worlds apart though, but at times the they are too strongly linked.

As with this story.

A New York Times video details the Pakistani rock music scene. The truth may startle some not familiar with a public who uses anti-Americanism as a crutch against many national issues.

Junoon’s beloved lead singer, Ali Azmat, is now on a solo career and has become an icon. He has stopped singing about love and heartbreak, and, like many other musicians, now chooses to sing with current affairs.

The alarming anti-Americanism in the top songs of Pakistan is unsettling.

When asked if he would ever sing about the 200 girls’ schools that were blown up, Azmat looked slightly taken aback but then an expression of denial crossed his face and he declared “You can’t blame the Taliban for that! Where is the funding coming from? It is the agenda of the neo-cons to de-Islamize Pakistan.” His songs routinely condemn the United States for meddling in Pakistan’s affairs, for infringing upon Pakistan’s territory and causing the problems the nation faces today.

Another popular band, the Noori brothers, sat relaxed and carefree, with the most nonchalant expressions as they agreed “The Taliban are amongst the smallest problems Pakistan faces. The West is affected by the Taliban, we’re not.”

Pakistan has been rocked by devastating terrorism this past month; one wonders if the Noori brothers and Ali Azmat mourn for the countless killed, wounded, traumatized…or is their grief reserved for the US?

I should note one of the brothers wore a shirt that said “Not terrorized enough.” Well, exactly how many deaths and how much destruction will it take before it IS enough?

I find it absolutely ironic these musicians are complaining about the west trying to rid Pakistan of the Taliban. The militants are killing Pakistanis every single day, these militants wouldn’t even support the right to music, and yet…and yet we have people in positions of influence being grossly irresponsible and pathetic.

I am at a loss to understand this. I cannot comprehend the thought process it must take to blame the United States, India and Israel for the violence that paralyzes the nation. Bombings at mosques, like the one that killed Abbas, explosions at schools and markets, suicide bombings at aid organizations…how can this all be blamed on others?

What is more disturbing is how their opinions have gained traction amongst the youth.

In his last blog, Nadeem Paracha implores Pakistanis to gather their wits about them. Regarding the bombings at International Islamic University in Islamabad, he writes:

Here we have a university that was attacked by a psychotic suicide bomber who slaughtered and injured dozens of students so he could get his share of hooris in Paradise. The attack was then proudly owned by the Tekrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. And in its wake, we saw enraged students protesting against the Kerry-Lugar act? What a response!
What did the Kerry-Lugar act have to do with the suicide attack? Wasn’t this remarkably idiotic ‘protest rally’ by the students actually an insult to those who were so mercilessly slaughtered by holy barbarians?

He highlights the Pakistani media’s love of the conspiracy-minded mentality, and cites an incident after a suicide attack in Peshawar:

One shop-owner who said he lost more than millions of rupees worth of goods in the blast was slightly taken aback when the anchor asked him who he thought was behind the bomb attack. For a few seconds he looked curiously at the anchor’s face, as if wondering why would a major TV news channel be asking a question whose answer was so obvious. ‘What do you mean, who was responsible?’ he asked. ‘The Taliban, of course!’

In a time where Islamic clergy are taking a stand against the Taliban and suicide bombings (and often being killed for their bravery), it is a downright shame the leading musicians choose to spread an ignorant message of blame and denial.

If ignorance is bliss, Sumayya Chawla is the happiest woman on the planet.

If ignorance is bliss, Sumayya Chawla is the happiest woman on the planet.

In her fantastically ridiculous piece, Is Pakistani Media Awake?, she is unflinchingly absurd, demonstrating to us all she has somehow escaped any character trait remotely resembling reasonableness.

It would be wrong to deride a work without citing the offensive statements, so here, dear Reader, is a small sampling of her rock-filled dish:

The ‘tough love’ response of Mrs Clinton to this was something along the lines of  ‘ well I am sorry you feel that way but it wasn’t our intention, you don’t have to take the money you know, if you don’t want to’. What exactly is going on here? Why isn’t anyone telling madam secretary that your country is killing innocent Pakistanis, killing babies rather, as she was so keen on pointing out in her address to university students in Lahore. Why didn’t any of our esteemed journalists ask her why the US is busy killing and bombing Pakistanis if we are such great friends and allies? Why wasn’t it politely suggested to her that she perhaps should not have come to Pakistan as she wasn’t very welcome here. Why don’t we see a revolt in the Pakistani media against the freak show that was Clinton’s visit to Pakistan? Why didn’t the big shot media anchors boycott the interview with Hillary Clinton while more than a 100 Pakistanis were being blown up in Peshawar and hundreds more were fighting for their lives? If Mr. Zardari and his government are not human enough to feel any empathy for his fellow Pakistanis who suffered terribly in this outrageous attack, where was the Pakistani media, why didn’t they refuse to cover her visit due to a national tragedy?  If they are such torchbearers of truth, then how dare they sat in their suits and ties and conducted an interview that amounted to nothing in terms of expressing the real sentiments of the majority of the Pakistani public? American Govt. has taken off its gloves and is now openly hostile to the Pakistani state and people, so why in God’s name are we still walking on eggshells.

As a lit major, the grammatical errors were enough to knock me down. However, I shall put forth a Herculean effort to ignore them all because we’re dealing with the bigger issue of her thought process mirroring that of a two-year old.

Within her bewildering rhetorical questions, I see her tripping over her own points.

I shall answer with my very own attempt at the Socratic method:

Is there anything wrong with a nation granting aid to another nation, especially one with which its aims are so closely aligned? Exactly what was wrong with Secretary Clinton pointing out Pakistan was under no obligation to take the aid? And exactly why are you viciously against the aid going to schools, police officers, health clinics, etc? Did you want to match the funds of Kerry-Lugar and supply the country with assistance? (That would be awfully generous of you!) Are you as upset with other international aid groups and private donors who donate to charitable causes within Pakistan? If not, I highly recommend you buy a dictionary and look up the word “consistency,” it’s a great word, one of my favorites.  Ms. Chawla, do you have sympathy for any of the people killed by extremists or is your screeching reserved specifically for all things related to drones? Can you so easily ignore the suicide bombings and drive-by assassinations of brigadiers? If so, the Pakistani public envies you a good deal. Exactly why should the media have boycotted the interview with Secretary Clinton? How is closing our eyes and covering our ears going to solve problems? (See, this is where I see a vast wilderness of immaturity where your rationality should be, Miss Chawla.) Any notion of a “biased-in-favor-of-President-Zardari” media culture in Pakistan can be immediately dismissed, for even the President’s most outspoken detractors admit the media is staunchly anti-Zardari. In this way, do you realize you have outdone the Ahmed Quraishis of Pakistan? I advise you to be careful though, Mr. Quraishi tries his best to outdo everyone else in his nonsensical vitriol, he may not appreciate playing second fiddle to you. Also, please respect the office of the President and address him as such…he was voted in democratically, and if you must kick and scream, take that up with the public that voted overwhelmingly for the PPP. You wrote “American Govt. has taken off its gloves and is now openly hostile to the Pakistani state and people.” Did you consciously disregard the Secretary’s statements of friendship? I shall include one: “I am well aware that there is a trust deficit. My message is that’s not the way it should be. We cannot let a minority of people in both countries determine our relationship.” Miss Chawla, it appears you do a wonderful job on inducing amnesia and forget all the hard work both Americans and Pakistanis have done, currently do, and will continue doing to foster better relations.

You ask if the media is awake…I have to answer that no, the media — and you! — are fast asleep at the wheel.

Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. If you cannot or are not willing to learn, Miss Chawla, then the knowledgeable and well-versed in nuance among us have a task: to continuously point out the flaws in arguments like yours and offer a vision of a world not driven by hate or fear-mongering.

Hamid Mir and his Ridiculous Benchmarks for Success

If anyone needed more proof of the media being overrun by the disgracefully uninformed, here it is. In
this preposterous piece, Hamid Mir makes outlandish demands of United States’ policy whilst having the nerve to wonder at the mistrust between the US and Pakistan. The fact that this man is executive editor of Geo TV in Islamabad is troubling.

Taking a deep breath, I feel the only way to tackle this monstrosity of distorted facts and hysteria is to go through it, point by point.

At the end of his first paragraph, Mir brings up the favorite punching bag of Pakistan’s obsessed media, the Kerry-Lugar bill. One has to wonder: now that the Pakistani public seems to be embracing the aid package, will the pseudo-journalists go through withdrawal symptoms once this this is no longer a relevant topic?

Mir writes: “Very few people in Washington realise that tension between Pakistan Army and President Zardari were actually created by Kerry-Lugar Bill.”

Quite off the mark, the statement goes to illustrate Mir’s love for simplified truths. The Kerry-Lugar bill was up for debate for many months. The writing, drafting, research and of course, floor debate and vote process was very much an open process. Throughout this sequence, there was no outcry to be heard, no fear of losing sovereignty to be felt. If anything, Pakistanis should be aware that tougher, far more intrusive clauses were actually not approved and the bill was full of immense respect and recognition for Pakistan at the time it was signed into law. Mir misses the point that tensions between the Pakistani Army and President Zardari’s administration are mainly over the new role the army must now play: to serve the federal government. We have in Pakistan a fledging democracy, and we absolutely must give it a chance to flourish. The Army has the noble task of protecting the people from danger, and it must work with President Zardari’s government to meet that goal. Tensions are natural when the role of one entity changes, and as Kerry-Lugar also notes, the Army is on its way to becoming a powerful, professional force in place of a political one.

Mir’s next paragraph launches into a recap of a conference on US-Pakistan relations that took place at Harvard University. Mir cites Ambassador Haqqani’s declaration that democracy is the only way forward for Pakistan. Indeed, Ambassador Haqqani has said as much from Day One, and worked tirelessly towards that end. Mir laments that his question, “Why the US is not listening to the voice of democracy in Pakistan coming through an elected parliament?” went unanswered. The answer, boys and girls, is taught in International Relations 101: diplomatic relations between nations are between the federal executive branches. President Zardari will not be setting up meetings with elected members of American state and city governments, as his work directly leads him to President Obama and the State Department. Realizing that Mir is unaware of this plain fact (and also knowing this is only the second point in his article) makes one uneasy about the rest of Mir’s piece.

Does Mir advocate American involvement with the Parliament? Does Mir forget that he just mentioned the rift between Zardari and the army and that too, over American involvement? The United States most unequivocally supports democracy in Pakistan, any question of that at this point is beyond ludicrous.

His third paragraph states, “No doubt that the US is the most controversial country in Pakistan and Pakistan is the most misunderstood country in the US. There is a huge mistrust on both sides but even then both countries need cooperation of each other because they are facing some common threats. Pakistan lies in one of the world’s most important geopolitical regions surrounded by Afghanistan, Iran, China and India.”

The fact is, the US should not be hated by Pakistanis but rather identified as a true ally. The anti-terror, pro-democracy goals of both nations are so neatly aligned, it just does not make sense for conspiracy-minded Pakistanis to break up this valuable bond. There are many in Pakistan who acknowledge the US’s extended hand and are grateful for it, because they understand a stable future for their country depends on it. Others will, however, continue to blast away at the US and the West in general in visceral, illogical ways. That is why the US is controversial in Pakistan. As to why Pakistan is misunderstood…it’s simple! American taxpayers are sending over an incredibly generous, well-thought out $7.5 billion in non-military aid alone, and all across their papers and televisions are reports of Pakistanis caught up in a fury. Of course this leads to confusion, how can they be anything but confused and frustrated? Any cooperation must come with respect, and if Mir believes in the spirit of partnership, he must lead the charge and do his best to bolster US-Pakistan efforts.

In ill-structured form, Mir abruptly cuts off topic and discusses the US drone attacks. If the US is so worried about the border, he asks, “Why is there no fencing and no proper border check posts? There are more than 350 illegal entry points on the Pak-Afghan border. Every day more than 20,000 vehicles and 45,000 people cross the border without proper documents.” Once again…how can we go from hearing “The US is intruding and will soon take over the country” to “Why isn’t the US building a proper border fence?” This is absurd and baffling.

Pulling another 180, Mir begins demands for a timeline for troop removal from Afghanistan, going so far as to say the replacement of American troops with UN peacekeeping forces would be better for the nation. There are a myriad of reasons as to why all this is utterly useless. The United States has a solid interest in Afghanistan, and will do its best to stabilize the country. The entire world in invested in Afghanistan, with billions in aid coming from Afghanistan’s neighbors, the EU, USAID as well as individual donations. Mir’s recommendation exposes he clearly does not know President Obama’s administration is working on a new strategy for military operations, and are contemplating a troop increase. UN peacekeeping forces would not be able to accomplish as much, nor have equal clout as, American troops.

Towards the end of his piece, Mir must have challenged himself to spit out the most bizarre statement he could muster. And he rose to the challenge.

Nobody can deny the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan have become unsafe after the arrival of US troops in the region.

Is one to assume Afghanis were “safe” under the tyrannical, murderous Taliban regime? That the quality of life, civil liberties, access to education were readily available to all people? Is one also to forget all she knows about Pakistani history and pretend Pakistan through the 90s up until the attacks of 9/11 was a perfectly safe country? Hamid Mir, you should be ashamed of yourself. The horrors that took place should never be forgotten, and you have some absolute nerve as you try to rewrite history.

There is one thing all people need to understand at some point, and that is that the United States of America is not interested in taking over another country. We are all living in the era of globalization, our successes and failures are tangled up. It is disingenuous and immoral to lie when you are in the media, in the name of a noble profession — journalism. Perhaps Mir and others like him will slowly come around. If not, we can all be grateful cooler heads seem to be prevailing. As Pakistan is rocked with tragedy after tragedy at the hands of the extremists, the public is slowly realizing the importance of a partnership with the US.

The goal, for all of us, is a stable, prosperous and modernized Pakistan.

In Defense of Kerry-Lugar

The passage of the Kerry-Lugar bill (formally known as the “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009”) has brought out Pakistan’s homegrown instability creators—the tunnel-vision conspiracy theorists—in droves. Far too much paranoid and tremendously inaccurate ink has been spilt on the matter, saturating the media with an alarming level of vitriol. All this is working against the country’s very self-interest. It is time Pakistanis were given a point-by-point summation of Kerry-Lugar, allowing them to see the vast advantages of this aid and how it will Pakistan and lay the path towards a stable, secure future for coming generations.

Firstly, it is imperative to note the purpose of this legislation is to change the relationship between the US and Pakistan. Pakistanis bitterly regard US aid as historically transactional and short-term. Kerry-Lugar seeks to ease that anxiety: not only does the law authorize $1.5 billion for the next five years but it also advocates for an additional $7.5 billion over the subsequent five years. This is demonstrative of the marked shift in policy: the US recognizes the need for long-term, bilateral relations with Pakistan.

Secondly, the language of the law contains complete respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty. That anyone would seriously advocate Kerry-Lugar as a slow takeover of Pakistan would be comical if it weren’t so damaging to the nation’s credibility. One needs only to read the law: Section 2 strongly distinguishes Pakistan as “a major non-NATO ally of the United States and a valuable partner in the battle against al-Qaeda and the Taliban” while firmly declaring “…but much more remains to be accomplished by both nations.” Here we have clear admittance that much needs to be done, a fact that almost all Pakistanis will agree with, and yet the United States’ attempt to do more has been met with irrational wrath and contempt.

Third, we must never forget Pakistan’s fight against extremism has led to the death of thousands of civilians over the past seven years. Pakistan has helped capture top leadership of al-Qaeda, and as a result, incurred the rage of the extremists. We have seen tragedy after tragedy, hotel after mosque after school blown up, innocent Pakistanis killed as the administration fights to keep extremism out. The most recent attack on the offices of the UN World Food Program further illustrates that extremists are willing to massacre noble Pakistanis working to feed their starving fellow citizens.

Pakistan needs help. The US has legislated assistance that will benefit all aspects of society: improving the educational system, building clinics with well-trained staff, drilling wells, reforming police and solidifying the democratic process.

Pakistan ranks 136 out of 177 countries in the United Nations Human Development Index. The Zardari administration fervently hopes this aid will change that ranking, and will administer the funds towards that end.

The “conditions” and “shackles” critics of the aid rant about are all perfectly in line with the President’s policy positions: internal improvement, counter-terrorism strategies and a general push on all fronts to improve the quality of life for Pakistanis.

Both the US and Pakistan are heavily invested in the fight against terrorism. It is no secret that the best long-term strategy is a modernized, economically stable and prosperous Pakistan. Kerry-Lugar is an attempt on the part of both nations to achieve that very goal.

It is time to end the self-defeating attitude, and participate on the world stage as a rising democracy and a leading player against extremism. Within this lies the future success of Pakistan.