The Eleven New Demands
BY Herschel Smith16 years, 8 months ago
After the 9/11 attacks the U.S. made seven demands of Pakistan as a cooperative effort in the global war on terror (and specifically aimed – at that time – towards the Afghanistan campaign).
1) Stop Al-Qaeda operations on the Pakistani border, intercept arms shipments through Pakistan and all logistical support for bin Laden.
2) Blanket over-flights and landing rights for US planes.
3) Access to Pakistan’s naval bases, airbases and borders.
4) Immediate intelligence and immigration information.
5) Curb all domestic expression of support for terrorism against the United States, its friends and allies.
6) Cut off fuel supply to the Taliban and stop Pakistani volunteers going into Afghanistan to join the Taliban.
7) For Pakistan to break diplomatic relations with the Taliban and assist the US to destroy bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network.
Reportedly Richard Armitage threatened that Pakistan would be bombed back to the stone age if these demands were not accepted. The Pakistani Army has tired of battle among its own people and various ceasefires have allowed the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).
But over the course of the last year or two, an amicable split in the Taliban has seen Mullah Mohammed Omar’s forces refocus on Afghanistan, and Baitullah Mehsud’s Taliban focus internally on Pakistan and beyond.
“We will teach him [Musharraf] a lesson that will be recorded in the pages of history in letters of gold. The crimes of these murderers, who were acting at Bush’s command, are unforgivable. Soon, we will take vengeance upon them for destroying the mosques. The pure land of Pakistan does not tolerate traitors. They must flee to America and live there. Here, Musharraf will live to regret his injustice towards the students of the Red Mosque. Allah willing, Musharraf will suffer great pain, along with all his aides. The Muslims will never forgive Musharraf for the sin he committed. We want to eradicate Britain and America, and to shatter the arrogance and tyranny of the infidels. We pray that Allah will enable us to destroy the White House, New York, and London.”
Because of the influx of foreign jihadists and evolution of fighters in the area to a more global perspective, Pakistan itself is now at risk. Further, the Afghanistan campaign is in jeopardy of failure because of transnational movement and safe haven in the mountainous areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. CENTCOM realizes that the counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan are one and the same campaign. Thus, a more forceful U.S. presence has been proposed to Pakistan, along with eleven new demands (the story as broken by Shireen M Mazari and universally ignored by the so-called Main Stream Media).
The first demand is for granting of a status that is accorded to the technical and administrative staff of the US embassy. The second demand is that these personnel be allowed to enter and exit Pakistan on mere National Identification (for example a driving licence) that is without any visas.
Next, the US is demanding that Pakistan accept the legality of all US licences, which would include arms licences. This is followed by the demand that all these personnel be allowed to carry arms and wear uniforms as they wish, across the whole of Pakistan.
Then comes a demand that directly undermines our sovereignty – that the US criminal jurisdiction be applicable in Pakistan to US nationals. In other words, these personnel would not be subject to Pakistani law.
In territories of US allies like Japan, this condition exists in areas where there are US bases and has become a source of major resentment in Japan, especially because there are frequent cases of US soldiers raping Japanese women and getting away with it. In the context of Pakistan, the demand to make the US personnel above the Pakistani law would not be limited to any one part of the country! So the Pakistani citizens will become fair game for US military personnel as well as other auxiliary staff like military contractors.
The next demand is for exemption from all taxes, including indirect taxes like excise duty, etc. The seventh demand is for inspection-free import and export of all goods and materials. So we would not know what they are bringing in or taking out of our country – including Gandhara art as well as sensitive materials.
At number eight is the demand for free movement of vehicles, vessels including aircraft, without landing or parking fees! Then, at number nine, there is a specific demand that selected US contractors should also be exempted from tax payments.
At number ten there is the demand for free of cost use of US telecommunication systems and using all necessary radio spectrum. The final demand is the most dangerous and is linked to the demand for non-applicability of Pakistani law for US personnel. Demand number eleven is for a waiver of all claims to damage to loss or destruction of others’ property, or death to personnel or armed forces or civilians. The US has tried to be smart by not using the word “other” for death but, given the context, clearly it implies that US personnel can maim and kill Pakistanis and destroy our infrastructure and weaponry with impunity.
But Shireen M Mazari’s article resents U.S. involvement in the area, as do other Pakistani commentators. Whatever else the recent elections mean, they do not mean that there is increasing support for the U.S. led war on terror. The Pashtun have outright rejected such an idea. The idea in vogue is that the U.S. presence is the reason for the unrest in the area. The solution, they think, is to throw the U.S. out of the region and talk with the Taliban.
But herein lies the Pakistani blindness to the global jihad. The classical insurgency might be concerned about governance, representation, wealth, and power, but the global jihad has as (at least one of) its motivators religious persuasion. What the U.S. found in Anbar was that the concerns of the indigenous insurgents can be addressed by typical counterinsurgency doctrine, including military force but also other very important nonkinetic operations. But the global religious fighters had to be captured or killed. There was no other solution.
What Pakistan has yet to allow into the public consciousness is that jihadists bent on the destruction of both Pakistan and all Western influences must be eradicated. The Pakistanis are confused. It isn’t just the U.S. led global war on terror that is opposed by the jihad. It is modernity. The powers in Pakistan will soon enough wake to the peril that they are in, but by rejecting U.S. involvement to help stem the tide of dark change in the country, they are only ensuring that they will have to take the same actions against the jihadists themselves -and they will quite possibly be alone when they do. It will be a bloody affair, and dangerous for the whole world. The Pakistan military brass knows this. The nationalistic rank and file are furious, and only time will tell how bad this gets.
On March 25, 2008 at 10:31 pm, Bashy said:
Dear Captain’s Journal
It is the first time that I have come across your web journal, covering a wide varity of subjects and political opinions, I am interested in. The article “The Eleven New Demands” by HERSCHEL SMITH specially caught my attention. Not for the sober analysis of Pakistan’s developing situation but for it’s arrogant tone and a complete lack of understanding for Pakistan’s geographical and stretegical importance.
Mr. SMITH talks about Ms Mazari’s resentment towards USA involvement in Pakistan’s internal affairs. This sentiment is very widwspread among ordinary rank and file Pakistanis, irrespetive of their political or religious standing.
Pakistanis are not pro-Taliban or support Al-Qaeeda. This they have proved by not voting for religious parties and electing a secular democratic government. The question now is that would USA respect the wishes of Pakistanis and let them handle the issue of terrorism, extremism and intolerance the way, they deem fit. I do not believe that Pakistanis take the issue of terrorism lightly but they are justified to ask; How come all this terrorism, suiside bombing and militany has come to them after USA attacks on Afghanistan. Why should Pakistan suffer because of USA mistakes and miscalculations in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Coming to the whole question of so-called Jihadism, most Pakistanis are not blind as the author of the article supposes. The mere fact is that Pakistanis and Muslims throughout the world do not buy this argument because they know that Islam does not allow killing the innocent but it allows resistance and self defence. Muslims will be more inclined to fight side by side USA if it stops so convieniantly dubbing terrorism as Jihad. By invoking the name of Jihadists and Al Qaeeda in every second sentence, the West has lost the argument and turned 1.5 billion people off. The root cause of terrorism is not Jihad but injustices and double moral practiced by the West. In a recent survey conducted by World Economic Forum( Jan 2008), 60 percent people in Europe do not want even a dialogue with the Muslim world while majority of Muslims want democracy, better living standrad and an understanding between Islam and the West. This says it all.May be Mr. Smith should use some energy in persuading the Eyropean instead of running after shadows of Jihadis.
Bashy Quraishy
Chief editor
Media Watch. Copenhagen
bashy@mail.dk
On March 26, 2008 at 8:58 am, Herschel Smith said:
After reading your highly compelling analysis, I’ve changed my mind. You’re right. We should all go home and stop the global war on terror. That way, everyone will leave us in peace. Jihadists do not exist, after all. Al Qaeda and the Taliban do not control the NWFP and FATA, and talking with these people (who do not exist) instead of fighting them is the best solution. And Pakistan is doing a fine job of handling a jihadist problem that, well, actually doesn’t exist as you have proven in your analysis.
If I had only thought of that before.
On March 27, 2008 at 8:11 pm, Bashy said:
Dear Mr. Smith
I am happy that you agree with me even if you are being sarcastic. My only mistake is that I expect from people with a mighty pen in their hand to be open minded, listening and knowledgeable. Admitting the lack of information about Pakistan and having a biased verdict on Islam, will not diminish your position as a commentator. We all make mistakes but few have the moral courage to admit it. I come from that area you were commenting about and know the situation on the ground, I felt to correct your tunnel vision, obtained from an office window on 10th floor in DC. Yes there are violent extremists who commit crimes against humanity, but they are not present only in Muslim countries but are found in every country,including USA.Tamils in Sri Lanka, Basques in Spain, IRA in Ireland, Farc in Columbia and many many more are committing acts of violence, but they are not Muslims or as you prefer to call them Jihadis. You must have also heard KKK who kill on the name of Jesus and white race. USA slaughtered millions in Vietnam and hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hitler killed 6 million Jews. If I use your logic of Islam and Jihadis, then I can also blame Christianity for these hideous crimes. But I would not.
Peace to the World would only come when powerful nations would stop humiliating and exploiting the weak. You must be knowing that there would always be resistance to oppression, no matter how powerful the oppressor is.
Not every problem in the World can be solved by nuking innocent people or shooting from the hip. There is time to fight and time to negotiate. Pakistan has lost over 1000 soldiers in fighting the terrorists. In Afghanistan, no one has ever won by fighting, from Alexander to Soviets. Why do you think that USA, NATO and Pakistan can achieve this victory?Have you ever been to Afghanistan or the tribal areas of Pakistan? I doubt that.
Have you ever bothered to find out from where Al Qaeeda and Taleban came from? What were the reasons and how come they did not start before Afghanistan’s struggle against Soviets in eighties and CIA’s covert and overt operations. If you do not like to read history books, just watch Charlie Wilson’s War. This is the true story based on facts. It will explain to you all the facts, you need to nuance your views on Pakistan.
Bashy Quraishy
Chief editor
Media Watch
Copenhagen
bashy@mail.dk
On March 27, 2008 at 8:26 pm, Herschel Smith said:
I’m not agreeing with you; I’m being sarcastic. As for “nuking people,” I decided not to nuke your previous comment.