Will negotiations deliver?

Soon after Pakistan’s political parties agreed at an All-Party Conference to negotiate peace with militants, a spokesman for the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) had welcomed the move. But immediately thereafter, a targeted bomb blast in upper Dir martyred the Army General in command in Fata and his two staffers – a tragedy whose ownership was proudly claimed by the TTP.

9/11 saga – a shocking act of terrorism – was used to justify for the ‘war-on-terror’ but that gimmick for establishing the US as the sole super-power backfired because while it fuelled global terrorism limiting which is now beyond the capacity of governments, including of the US, as shown by the recent attack on a US Navy Yard (close to the White House) in Washington.

Although, governments emphatically claim having shut all doors on terrorists, except for combat aircraft, terrorists seem to have every lethal weapon and the ammunition there for. Foreign backing (of the level that terrorists now have) gives them the muscle to topple governments, and quite visibly, the targets of their onslaught are the resource-rich Muslim states.

While Pakistan’s ‘democrats’ insist on negotiating with terrorists, they have no idea of how many terror groups are operating in Pakistan; ISI believes there are 69, the government places the number at 54, and others give a lesser figure. The reason: the TTP label is also being used by outfits backed by foreign countries with geopolitical stakes in Pakistan.

Taliban’s targeting of Sunni as well as Shia shrines confirms this view, as did a recent SC reference to smuggling of arms into Pakistan for different terrorist outfits. No wonder, statements by one supposed TTP spokesman are rebutted by another. Who then will the government negotiate with, and who can credibly commit to implement a peace deal agreed with the government?

Al Qaeda is no longer ‘the’ terrorist outfit to be feared or dealt with; there are many with their own interests, aims, and targets, and each is an uncontrollable lot. Terrorism is now a pastime, a profession, a business, entering which requires an individual only to commit loyalty to a terrorist group, not to Islam or to a just cause.

Recruits are given one explicit order; killing those that your boss says are sinners, is a religious duty and killing the innocent helps frighten potential sinners into submission. Terrorists are aided not just by their masters having designs on their neighbouring and regional states but also by their agents planted at sensitive positions in the target countries.

Pakistan is an example thereof where, while one group of officials claims that a hefty 19,000 Nato shipping containers destined for Afghanistan (containing arms and ammunition) simply disappeared, another group (and the US Embassy in Pakistan) claims that nothing of this sort ever happened. What a shocking comedy this unending debate portrays!

Terrorists want to rule the world via remote control and are succeeding in that quest; terror attacks at critical stages change the course of multi- and bilateral-relations – times when friendly states (sinners according to the terrorists) begin strategic dialogue, or states (tension between which serves the aims of terrorists) decide to hold tension-relieving negotiations.

The attack on Chinese mountaineers at Nanga Parbat before Nawaz Sharif embarked on his first visit to China as Prime Minister in his present term, and the deadly attack on a church in Peshawar as he began a visit to the US to address the UN General Assembly, tarnished Pakistan’s image. Isn’t it worth asking “Who benefited from the embarrassment Nawaz Sharif faced thereafter?”

Terrorist attacks go on unabated – Qissa Khawani Bazaar attack being the latest big one – and on October 10, bomb blasts shook all the provincial capitals. Oddly, a day before the attack in Dir, the PTI government in KP had sought the withdrawal of armed forces from FATA, and despite TTP’s lethal responses thereafter, it keeps insisting on this dangerous strategy.

After the Dir tragedy, the Interior Minister refused to make a policy statement on it in the National Assembly (to which no member objected), but after sharp criticism of this parliamentary stance, the house resolved to condemn that tragedy, and the tragedy in Peshawar, wherein scores of Christians were killed, finally ‘jolted’ the house into action.

Such reactions convey the impression that ‘democrats’ don’t back the Army sincerely because it toppled past democratic regimes; what they forget is that every Army take-over was preceded by chaos created by the ‘democrats’. But in the chaos that went on during the past five years and is now becoming worse, the Army played only one role – it preserved democracy.

While the ‘democrats’ insist on negotiating with terrorists (as a prelude to which top commanders of the TTP were freed), TTP refuses to stop destabilising Pakistan and targeting its defence forces. The visionary qualities, negotiating skills, and leadership caliber this stance portrays revives the misgivings that led to toppling of the past democratic regimes.

Such doubts gain strength from TTP warnings that even after a peace deal it will target the defence personnel who participated in past operations against the TTP. That this threat is real was proved more than once. Even retired Army personnel (including a General) were assassinated by TTP agents. Against this backdrop, what the democrats are trying for may prove a trap because it is unrealistic to expect the soldiers to pay such a price for the services they render for the defence of the state and the realm.

The PML-N vaguely admits that its negotiators (associated with various TTP factions in the past) are working on a peace accord with the TTP, but events of the last month don’t reflect a success therein. The ruthlessness of Taliban actions shows TTP’s commitment to punish the pro-US elements (and not to Islam), while other outfits fronting as TTP are out to dismember Pakistan.

Hoping that negotiating peace with the TTP (what about others using that label?) will get public backing is over-optimistic; terrorists show no signs of mending their ways – stop killing the innocent and security personnel – to lend credibility to any peace accord. Thus, the keenness on negotiating peace with the terrorists makes it appear a ‘US-like’ surrender.

To give it a credible profile, the accord must be visibly fair – a credible commitment by the TTP to abide by the Pakistani laws. While the TTP (a pro-Pakistan outfit?) may do so, will it confront the other terrorist outfits having foreign backing, and if it is made conditional upon arming the TTP, will the government do that? Is there a guarantee that it won’t make the TTP a bigger threat for Pakistan?