A bad time for anything
Behind The Headlines
By BUNN NAGARA

Sunday December 20, 2009:THIS past week has been tough for capturing world headlines, with stiff competition among more financial disasters, environmental mayhem, the conference response in Copenhagen, and other missteps and mishaps.

However, Pakistan managed the feat in the second half of the week with multiple perils spanning growing US pressure to pursue Taliban forces, the increasing body count from controversial US drone attacks on villages bordering Afghanistan, and the Supreme Court ending an amnesty protecting 8,000 people, including the president from corruption and murder charges.

Islamabad has already been fighting its own Taliban group, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Washington wants Pakistan to do the same against Afghan Taliban forces based in Pakistan, some of which are allied with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda also in the country.

Reports say Pakistan’s 30,000 troops already in Swat and South Waziristan are now so stretched that spreading them thinner in North Waziristan as well to fight the Hizb-e-Islami, the so-called Haqqani network, and al-Qaeda would jeopardise existing operations against Pakistan’s Taliban.

US-led forces in neighboring Afghanistan have reached the stage where no significant progress can be made against insurgent activity without neutralizing its roots in Pakistani soil.
Meanwhile, Pakistani authorities are adamant that limited resources only means homegrown targets have to take priority.
To confuse this strategic stalemate further are two recent court decisions from a newly independent judiciary. After all, the country’s post-Musharraf judiciary is supposed to signal a return to democracy.

First, the Lahore High Court stopped the deportation of five US citizens who allegedly went to Pakistan to join groups affiliated to al-Qaeda. The five, who hold dual nationality and include two Pakistani-Americans, have been remanded in custody in Sargodha until Christmas Eve.

The court has required the police to apply to the court for any further action on them. US officials are watching the situation closely and have yet to apply for extradition.

The five have been questioned by both the FBI and Pakistani officials. They allegedly contacted militant groups on YouTube and wanted to contribute to militant activities.

Their discovery has already sparked fears that more individuals in the United States may want to do the same. As formal US military activities extend from Afghanistan towards Pakistan, informal militant activity may do the same from the US heartland itself.

Second, the Supreme Court ruled the 2007 National Reconciliation Ordination (NRO) unconstitutional, removing immunity from serious charges for thousands, including President Asif Ali Zardari. From all indications, Wednesday’s ruling was hugely popular.

The NRO had always been controversial and despised, shoved into position with US and British assistance to help prop up then ally and president, Gen Pervez Musharraf. In time Musharraf was discredited and fell away, and after former premier Benazir Bhutto’s assassination her husband Zardari “inherited” Musharraf’s office and the privilege of NRO protection.

For the government, the NRO is a necessary instrument to ensure political stability and the legitimacy of the state. For many Pakistanis, and now the Supreme Court as well, it had masked the lack of legitimacy of certain leaders and the declining credibility of the state.

Wednesday’s court decision capped a period in which the powers of the presidency as expanded by Musharraf were being tamed. After the decision, Zardari could no longer sound defiant and acknowledged that he would respect it.

The president still enjoys his standard immunity from prosecution, although charges of corruption over many years may also emerge. The two issues to watch now are how these charges, once fleshed out, will chip away at Zardari’s presidency and how he will respond.

There is not much that can act in Zardari’s favour. Even those Pakistanis unhappy with the Supreme Court decision are not defending him, but only grumbling that corruption charges should also be laid on other prominent individuals.

The political opposition has predictably called for Zardari’s resignation, making more Pakistanis regard the court decision as a defiant act by a newly empowered judiciary against an unpopular leader. But despite the triumphalism of Zardari’s opponents, it will take more time and effort to dislodge him from office.

There is no pressing issue hefty enough to do that. Besides, with insurgents more active than ever, there would be enough Pakistanis along with Britain and the US who want Musharraf-style political stability to remain.

Yet this is where the crucial Pakistan-US ties are most troubled. US forces are getting impatient with the perceptibly slow response from Pakistan in going all out against insurgent groups.
There is still a nagging suspicion that Pakistan may not want to exterminate all insurgents, since some have proven useful in helping advance its case in Kashmir and occasionally needling India.

For Pakistan, apart from the declared shortage of resources, it is also politically inexpedient to be seen consorting with US forces that continually bombard rural settlements suspected of harboring militants.

The more US forces feel they lack Pakistani military support, the more they will use UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) drones to bombard villages unilaterally. But the more they do that, the less inclined Pakistan will feel in helping them.

Even at the best of times, a national leader cannot be seen as an accessory in acts against his own people’s interests. A president of Pakistan on the verge of losing his official credentials will be even less inclined to do that.