Viewpoint: Readying for another APC

PTI Chairman Imran Khan had stayed away from the three all parties conferences convened earlier this year by the PPP government, the ANP and the JUI-F because he did not expect a meaningful outcome.

The APC the present government had planned for July 12 also had to be postponed because of his refusal to attend unless it was a small affair involving the Prime Minister, Chief of the Army Staff, and he himself as leader of a party which rules in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – the province most affected by terrorism. Others took issue with his demand, arguing that all parties had a stake in the situation and hence as much a right to participate in any such meeting as does the PTI Chairman.

Let’s first get the specifics straight. The conference this government is trying to organise is very different from the previous APCs both in format and objectives. The earlier ones were attended by as many as 27 parties both from inside and outside the Parliament, and several civil society members.

This one is to involve only the leaders of parliamentary parties in the formulation of a national security policy, which lends seriousness to the effort. The APCs hosted by ANP and the JUI-F were held in response to a Taliban offer for negotiations in the run-up to the general elections.

The home base of both parties being KPK, fear of terrorist attacks during campaign activities was upper most in their minds. Still, even though the ANP deviated from its earlier position and supported opening dialogue with the Taliban, the conference predicated any such talks on the Taliban laying down their arms and staying within the confines of the Constitution. Significantly, the conference hosted by the JUI-F made no mention of the necessity of accepting the Constitution. It would not be wrong to conclude, therefore, that those attempts were aimed more at appeasement to avert trouble during elections than to resolve the issue.

Various reports say that the three APCs were held at the urging of the military which wanted politicians to take ownership of the security policy vis-a-vis the militants. Without a question, politicians should be in charge at all times. In order to take ownership, civilian leaders must first know what has been going on and why. Imran has raised vital questions that, he rightly argues, need to be answered to formulate an effective counter-terrorism strategy. He wants to know if there were any secret understandings with the US on the drones issue, if yes what was the quid pro quo? Equally important, while sectarian terrorism has gone on unabated, he has been seeking clarification on reports that say some of the sectarian terrorists were patronised by the military.

Lending credence to these reports is at least one major incident in which provincial commander of the banned sectarian outfit Laskhar-e-Jhangvi, Usman Kurd and his deputy Dawood Badini – both handed death sentence by a Quetta anti-terrorism court – escaped from a high security Quetta Cantonment prison in 2008. Evidence suggests these men are responsible for unleashing a reign of terror against Quetta’s Hazara community. All these questions merit frank discussion and satisfactory answers.

The PTI leader thinks his party has a bigger stake in the security situation since the province under its rule is most disturbed by terrorism and the blowback from US’ drone attacks in Fata. It would be more productive, it seems, for those directly concerned to sit together and sort out issues and problems rather than a large gathering having different interests such as the Jamaat-i-Islami leader Munawwar Hassan, who makes no secret of being a Taliban sympathiser. He has consistently been refusing point-blank condemnation of suicide bombings against civilians. Surely, JI is PTI’s coalition partner in KPK, but it adopts a separate policy in its dealings with the Centre.

But then the proposed parliamentary party leaders conference is to deliberate not only on the terrorism emanating from FATA but also other forms of violence perpetrated by insurgents and sectarian terrorists in Balochistan as well as ceaseless targeted killings and abductions for ransom in the nation’s commercial capital, Karachi.

Targeted killings in Karachi are largely an outcome of local turf battles, but the city has its own share of sectarian terrorists and other extremists. Different provinces face different kinds of violence having both similar and dissimilar causes. It would be appropriate, therefore, that only representatives of all parliamentary parties have their say in the formulation of a new national security plan.

At his Tuesday’s meeting with media persons the Prime Minister said that he would fulfil PTI Chairman’s demand by hosting a preliminary briefing session with the Army chief. That means the other leaders would still be able to make their contribution in the formal conference to be held soon after Eid. Those who may yet want to take issue with Imran Khan getting privileged treatment should give it a thought that extraordinary situations such as the one prevailing in this country sometimes call for extraordinary concessions. If an exclusive meeting can help resolve the problem of terrorism, knit-picking over procedural formalities needs to be avoided.

Nonetheless, in compliance with democratic traditions the Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly needs to be invited to the special ‘preliminary’ meeting on the most important challenge facing this country. The ultimate responsibility for formulating and implementing an effective national security policy lies on the governmental shoulders. The Prime Minister must take charge of it, telling the security agencies what they can or cannot do.

saida_fazal@yahoo.com