Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

Lets consider a snapshot of the events that have taken place in Balochistan during the past few months (I will start from June 2010 when the kill and dump policy was adopted):

Military was convinced that the kill and dump policies in Balochistan were working:

Rahman Malik believes the Baloch separatists need to surrender their arms before dialog:

Aslam raisani (CM Balochistan’s brother) believes Malik’s behavior is suspicious:

The Prime minister’s policy on Balochistan:

The COAS has recently claimed that there is no operation going on in Balochistan, where as the people of the province are protesting the inhumane treatment being meted out to them for the past many years:

I don’t know why our army deteriorates the situation to a level of no return. They did it in Bangladesh, then Kargil and now in KP/FATA and Balochistan.
Read between the lines of today’s news that the PM will be calling APC soon:

Now Rahman Malik is saying:

I do not absolve the government for not addressing the issue on timely basis, and now when the situation is reaching the end point the government has suddenly realised that an APC is needed. A similar APC was announced by Nawaz Sharif I wonder what has happened to that?

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

Will Gilani last long enough to preside over the APC? :@:

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

Saving Balochistan … Good article in The News by Muhammed Malick

The more you think about the issue, the more complex it appears. Yet when you consider some basic things like general amnesty, engaging all stakeholders and compenstions to the grieved people, then things appear more doable. The most vital tools unavailable so far are political will and seriousness on the part of mainstream political parties. From their attitude, it looks like they feel that Balochistan could be fixed anytime. Sadly, this may not be a case.

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

I think the nationalists should participate in the next elections, as by boycotting the previous elections a weak government has come to power in Balochistan due to which the situation has deteriorated. I personally believe for a very long time that drastic steps need to be undertaken now to improve the situation in Balochistan.

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

You wanted to make them easy target for your killing fources .

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

**Bill on Balochistan lands in US congress **

WASHINGTON: A bill has been tabled in the US House of Representatives calling upon Pakistan to recognize the right of self-determination for Balochistan.

**Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) introduced a House Concurrent Resolution that the Balochi nation has a historic right to self-determination.

The bill states that the Balochi people “have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country; and they should be afforded the opportunity to choose their own status.” **

“The Balochis, like other nations of people, have an innate right to self-determination,” says Rohrabacher. “The political and ethnic discrimination they suffer is tragic and made more so because America is financing and selling arms to their oppressors in Islamabad.”

Thanks God that she just demanded right for self-determination for Balochstan and did not ask Obama to immediately dispatch US forces to Pakitan so that Balochistan emerges an indpendent country by dawn.

Is anyone still awake in Islambad? :hmmm:

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

You only have a gun to kill every one especially when one is not from Central Punjab.
But Civilians are saying same now
‘Time to apologise to Baloch, Pakhtuns’](http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/02/time-to-apologise-to-baloch-pakhtuns/)

  [http://cache.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/02/Shahbaz-Sharif-51-288x115.jpg](http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/02/time-to-apologise-to-baloch-pakhtuns/)           
 Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif said on Thursday it was time  to apologise to the Baloch and Pakhtuns for violence in Balochistan,  adding that they should be brought to the table for peace talks.  Addressing a conference, Shahbaz said issues of the people of the  province should be resolved and they should be given legitimate  ..........

It is never too late , But not only from Balochs and Pakhtons but also from Saraiki people of Multan and Bahawalpur states

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

no , they are busy counting dollars! :frowning:

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

See what we did to these simple people;
http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/423095_302392249822151_144193088975402_835167_1642783844_n.jpg

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

http://epaper.dawn.com/2012/02/18/stories/18_02_2012_007_007.jpg


Restored attachments:

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

**SECOND EDITORIAL: US resolution on Balochistan

Republican Representative Dana Rohrabacher, who first chaired a US Congressional hearing on Balochistan, has now introduced a resolution calling for self-determination for Balochistan. Pakistan has taken a strong exception to this resolution, with Prime Minister Gilani, the Foreign Office, Pakistan Embassy in the US and the Pakistani media all condemning it in unison. The US Embassy in Islamabad issued a statement saying that the US respected Pakistan’s sovereignty and Balochistan was an internal matter of the country. The Obama administration may have distanced itself from the resolution but there are three factors behind this development. One, the Republicans are surely annoyed with Pakistan and its double dealing in the war on terror. It began in General Musharraf’s time and the army has continued with his policies to date. Tabling a resolution on Balochistan’s freedom from Pakistan could also be a way for the Republicans to embarrass the Democrats and the Obama administration. Whatever their motives, there is a serious implication that a sympathetic ear is available in the US to the Baloch cause. Two, the US’s vested interest in the region. If Balochistan gets independence, the Baloch will be well inclined towards the US. Given Balochistan’s mineral wealth and geostrategic location, it will be advantageous to the Americans. Three, international lobbying by Baloch nationalists is finally wielding the desired results: the issue of grave human rights violations in Balochistan has now become an international issue due to their efforts.

The Pakistani state and media are angry at the latest developments. Why has there not been any anger against the ‘kill and dump’ policy that the army has been pursuing in Balochistan for almost a decade now? Somebody has finally taken notice of what the Pakistani military has done in Balochistan. Hiding under the umbrella of ‘sovereignty’ cannot hide the state’s own cruelty, which has led to this pass. **The world is waking up to human rights violations, as this concept has permeated into the world’s consciousness in the 21st century. The sovereignty argument looks lame in the case of genocide and massacre, Rwanda and Bosnia are cases in point. If the Balochistan issue is taken up by the UN, which seems to be the next logical step, Pakistan would not be able to do much about it. Just like the OBL episode, the hullabaloo surrounding the US resolution on Balochistan is about sovereignty and not about the real issue. We must focus on why the Baloch are asking for their freedom and how the military establishment is responsible for it. We must revisit the slow genocide that is going on in Balochistan and a political solution must be sought immediately before it is too late.

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

Rohrabacher

Rohrabacher’s Pressler momentBy Fahd Husain
Published: February 18, 2012

Dana Rohrabacher has just become a meddlesome villain. But is he a lone ranger, or is something more sinister cooking in Washington DC?

The resolution that Rohrabacher has introduced in the US House of Representatives calling upon Pakistan to recognise the Baloch right of self-determination is an outrageous act of provocation. It is shocking in content, and deliberately insensitive in wording. And it will wreck the atmosphere prior to the debate on the new rules of engagement that Pakistan has put together to deal with the United States.

But **clearly there is more to it than a US politician looking to back an issue which can guarantee him headlines. Rohrabacher would like nothing more than to grab centre-stage in the volatile arena of Pakistan-US relations. Remember Larry Pressler? He was a random US politician who introduced an amendment in the 1980’s calling for US aid to be cut to Pakistan if the US president certified that Pakistan had crossed the nuclear threshold. The piece of legislation came to be known as the Pressler Amendment, and it kicked into effect when George Bush the Elder decided it was time to squeeze Pakistan. The Pressler Amendment, and its author, single-handedly soiled Pakistan-US ties for almost a decade. Rohrabacher is now donning the Pressler mantle. But the repercussions of his mischief have the potential to be far more damaging than Pressler’s. He is, in fact, reinforcing the widely-held impression that the US is out to destroy Pakistan.

**
Let’s not use the word ‘destroy’ lightly. It conjures up images of what the Americans did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. It paints a picture of bombing sorties, burnt out cities, tens of thousands killed and a country reduced to a wasteland. Transplant these images on to Pakistan and it send shivers down your spine. This is the worst case scenario.

**What is possible though is the triggering of a series of events which can snowball into unpredictable situations. In fact, the unthinkable has already started: a very public and a very acrimonious debate on the demand for an independent Balochistan. As long as such a debate was confined to private conversation, or a limited section of the very local and regional press, it could be ignored. Such a debate, based on such demands, never reached a stage where it could be taken seriously. Yes Baloch have genuine grievances, yes they had suffered from criminal neglect, and yes their alienation from Islamabad was never really seriously addressed, but the simmering situation remained on the fringes of our national discourse.

**
**Not anymore. By plucking this issue from the fringes and placing it bang centre in Washington DC, Rohrabacher has transformed the dynamics of the entire issue within a month. The resolution he has just introduced will ensure that this debate gains traction, both in the American and Pakistani media.

**
**What do we do? Issuing condemnations is not enough. Our outrage at this blatant interference in our affairs should be heard loud and clear. The US government will try and distance itself from Rohrabacher and mouth the usual statements. Our parliament will probably pass a counter-resolution and pile pressure on the hapless Gilani government to rake Washington over coals. This is all for public consumption, and there isn’t much wrong in doing so.

**
**But the real task is two-fold: First, get our facts clear on Rohrabacher, his resolution, and what’s happening at his back. If ever, a deep behind-the-scenes information on what’s cooking in Washington DC was ever required, it is now. Our new ambassador has a huge challenge on her hands. Second, and more important, is for us to get a grip on the situation in Balochistan, which is spiralling out of control with each passing day. Killing and counter-killings now seem locked in a vicious cycle which no one is able to stop. Despite extreme positions, the door to dialogue needs to open. Rules of engagement need to be spelt out, and the Establishment needs to change tack.

**
**Rohrabacher is indulging in villainy because we are providing him fodder. He is exploiting our weakness. Let’s condemn him for what he is doing, but at the same time douse the flames that we have lit ourselves.

**
Published in The Express Tribune, February 19[SUP]th[/SUP], 2012.

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

The situation in Balochistan has changed so rapidly during the past 2 months, that it has become very difficult to predict now of the future of the country.

Now its in Pakistan’s interests to initiate talks (with separatists whom Rehman Malik a few days ago was saying that cannot be contacted unless they shun violence), while the interests of the Baloch would be to continue struggle and make Pakistan Army kill more Baloch’s to cement their case for a genocide in BalochistanDaily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

**Baloch happy

**

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/2012/02/19/20120219_37.jpg

LAHORE: **As the government called a US congressman’s bill for an ‘independent’ Balochistan an ‘attack’ on Pakistan’s sovereignty, Baloch nationalist leader Harbiyar Marri said the resolution was a ‘positive move’ aimed at ending Baloch people’s grievances.

In an interview with a private TV channel, Harbiyar said efforts for a ‘sovereign’ Balochistan should have been made quite earlier as the Baloch had suffered a lot because of the ‘Pakistan government sponsoring terrorism in the province’.

Asked if they wanted to use the US as a launchpad for their ‘separatist movement’, Marri said, “We are making allies. We have told them about our grievances. We have told them about ground realities.” Marri went a step forward in his demand for an ‘independent’ Balochistan, saying that the Baloch were spearheading a ‘freedom movement’ and not a separatist drive.
Asked if he represented all of the Baloch, Marri said, “I don’t represent all of them. But the entire Balochistan wants freedom.”**

Accusing Pakistani government of killing several Baloch people, he said presentation of the bill in the US House of Representatives was a result of sacrifices rendered by the Baloch.

Marri said he did not believe that the problems of Balochistan could be resolved through legislation in assemblies. “The Baloch will not get their rights [from assemblies]. I had been to parliament in the past but would not repeat that mistake,” he said. daily times monitor

Re: Balochistan

My post from August 2011, no realization from the Government and military what so ever and the situation which was not that clear at that time is becoming more and more obvious with each passing day.

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/pakistan-affairs/237682-balochistan-crisis-and-its-resolution-3.html

Re: Balochistan

Lekin 18th February 2012 National And Political Selfishness,struggle To Eradicate,balochistan Situation Like Kashmir Mula Bakhsh Chandio, Nazar Mohd Gondal, Shereen Rehman

Lekin on Balolchistan

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/18/stick-it-to-the-pakistanis.html

In the days before last week’s Congressional hearing on Balochistan, Dr C. Christine Fair, an Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, was extremely critical of the proceedings, going so far as to call the hearing a “political stunt” and one of her fellow witnesses a “nut” in a series of Twitter exchanges.

At the time, Fair did not elaborate on what drove her to so publicly rebuke the hearing. It is only now that she is ready to set the record straight in defence of her statements amid what she calls “considerable harassment from some vocal members of the Baloch diaspora.”

The “stunt” heard round the world

According to Fair, her “political stunt” comment was prompted by a call from a sub-committee staff member. Fair had contacted him to solicit guidance for her upcoming testimony. In the course of their conversation, the staffer explained “we want to stick it to the Pakistanis.” The staffer further elaborated that the Pakistanis had been “killing our troops for ten years in Afghanistan.”

In Fair’s words, while she understood and even shared this person’s views on Pakistan’s relations with the United States over the past decade, this comment about the hearing made her “feel really uncomfortable about being roped into something that I would call a stunt. So, I wanted to make my position publicly known.”

Looking back on the comment, Fair is unapologetic: “Prior to accepting the request to serve as a witness, I was told this was a hearing about human rights violations and other issues needed to understand the various crises in Balochistan. But, based upon that brief phone conversation, I concluded that it wasn’t about human rights. Rather, it seemed that the people behind this hearing were pandering to diaspora politics just to tick off the Pakistanis at a time when the United States is trying to repair its tattered relationship with Pakistan.”

Fair’s comments did not go unnoticed. Elements of the Baloch diaspora, who Fair called “a bunch of extremists,” took extreme exception to the comments, especially on Twitter. In her words, they then “subjected me to an array of bullying and obnoxious assaults, many of which also tagged Congressman (Dana) Rohrabacher (R – CA).”

This avalanche of tweets protesting Fair’s participation in the hearing ultimately brought the matter to Rohrabacher’s office. On the Monday prior to the hearing, the staff member who had been coordinating with Fair reached out to her again to convey his displeasure: “He called to take a piece out of my hide. I requested that he explain to the Congressperson why I called the hearing a stunt, namely this staffer’s explanation that they wanted to stick it to the Pakistanis.” However, in her assessment, the staffer “did not have the testicular fortitude to explain the comment to Rohrabacher.”

A “nut” by any other name

Fair’s characterisation of Ralph Peters, a fellow witness, as a “nut” also rankled many proponents of Baloch interests, including at least one staff member affiliated with the hearing. According to Fair, during the aforementioned phone call, the angered Congressional staff member explained that he was taken aback that Fair dismissed Peters as a nut. He added that he had never previously experienced one witness attacking another before the hearing.

In recounting that exchange, Fair remains vivacious in her defence. She points out that she actually called Peters “a certified, flipping nut because only a nut would advocate the dismembering of a sovereign state based upon the views of one community in a province.” She then explains the reasoning for her steadfast opposition to Peters: “If this Congressional subcommittee remotely intended to try to use the hearing to put pressure on Pakistan for its human rights record in Balochistan, they should not have included someone who calls for the halving of their country.”

Biting the hand that invites you

Fair acknowledges that her comments were the impetus for the uncomfortable exchange with Rohrabacher at the hearing’s conclusion. Rohrabacher, who looked her straight in the eye and explained “this was not a stunt,” appeared perturbed by her pre-hearing comments. He therefore, used the hearing as the forum to issue his rebuttal.

While Fair admits that she “might not be invited back to give testimony again,” she does not regret her actions. From her perspective, she needed to signal her concerns because “this was a hearing designed by a collection of guys – and possibly a woman or two – who share a strategic image of how the Afghanistan and Pakistan postures should interrelate. While they reflect the general frustration in Congress with Pakistan taking US money and supporting terrorism, their views about dismembering Pakistan do not reflect the larger sentiment in Congress on Pakistan. Their statements struck me as incredibly provocative, did nothing to advance human rights in Balochistan, and made a US-Pakistan rapprochement much more difficult.”

Fair also notes that Congressmen Rohrabacher and Louie Gohmert (R – TX) bear significant responsibility for undermining the hearing before it was ever held. She points to the Congressmen’s pre-hearing OpEd, which suggested the United States should openly support an independent Balochistan, as setting the wrong tone for a hearing purportedly on human rights.

Eddie Walsh is a senior foreign correspondent who covers Africa and Asia-Pacific. He also is a non-resident fellow at Pacific Forum CSIS. Follow him on Twitter here.

The views expressed by this writer and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.


Seems it is a petty case of revenge and not anything specifically related to Balochistan.

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/18/stick-it-to-the-pakistanis.html

In the days before last week’s Congressional hearing on Balochistan, Dr C. Christine Fair, an Assistant Professor at Georgetown University, was extremely critical of the proceedings, going so far as to call the hearing a “political stunt” and one of her fellow witnesses a “nut” in a series of Twitter exchanges.

At the time, Fair did not elaborate on what drove her to so publicly rebuke the hearing. It is only now that she is ready to set the record straight in defence of her statements amid what she calls “considerable harassment from some vocal members of the Baloch diaspora.”

The “stunt” heard round the world

According to Fair, her “political stunt” comment was prompted by a call from a sub-committee staff member. Fair had contacted him to solicit guidance for her upcoming testimony. In the course of their conversation, the staffer explained “we want to stick it to the Pakistanis.” The staffer further elaborated that the Pakistanis had been “killing our troops for ten years in Afghanistan.”

In Fair’s words, while she understood and even shared this person’s views on Pakistan’s relations with the United States over the past decade, this comment about the hearing made her “feel really uncomfortable about being roped into something that I would call a stunt. So, I wanted to make my position publicly known.”

Looking back on the comment, Fair is unapologetic: “Prior to accepting the request to serve as a witness, I was told this was a hearing about human rights violations and other issues needed to understand the various crises in Balochistan. But, based upon that brief phone conversation, I concluded that it wasn’t about human rights. Rather, it seemed that the people behind this hearing were pandering to diaspora politics just to tick off the Pakistanis at a time when the United States is trying to repair its tattered relationship with Pakistan.”

Fair’s comments did not go unnoticed. Elements of the Baloch diaspora, who Fair called “a bunch of extremists,” took extreme exception to the comments, especially on Twitter. In her words, they then “subjected me to an array of bullying and obnoxious assaults, many of which also tagged Congressman (Dana) Rohrabacher (R – CA).”

This avalanche of tweets protesting Fair’s participation in the hearing ultimately brought the matter to Rohrabacher’s office. On the Monday prior to the hearing, the staff member who had been coordinating with Fair reached out to her again to convey his displeasure: “He called to take a piece out of my hide. I requested that he explain to the Congressperson why I called the hearing a stunt, namely this staffer’s explanation that they wanted to stick it to the Pakistanis.” However, in her assessment, the staffer “did not have the testicular fortitude to explain the comment to Rohrabacher.”

A “nut” by any other name

Fair’s characterisation of Ralph Peters, a fellow witness, as a “nut” also rankled many proponents of Baloch interests, including at least one staff member affiliated with the hearing. According to Fair, during the aforementioned phone call, the angered Congressional staff member explained that he was taken aback that Fair dismissed Peters as a nut. He added that he had never previously experienced one witness attacking another before the hearing.

In recounting that exchange, Fair remains vivacious in her defence. She points out that she actually called Peters “a certified, flipping nut because only a nut would advocate the dismembering of a sovereign state based upon the views of one community in a province.” She then explains the reasoning for her steadfast opposition to Peters: “If this Congressional subcommittee remotely intended to try to use the hearing to put pressure on Pakistan for its human rights record in Balochistan, they should not have included someone who calls for the halving of their country.”

Biting the hand that invites you

Fair acknowledges that her comments were the impetus for the uncomfortable exchange with Rohrabacher at the hearing’s conclusion. Rohrabacher, who looked her straight in the eye and explained “this was not a stunt,” appeared perturbed by her pre-hearing comments. He therefore, used the hearing as the forum to issue his rebuttal.

While Fair admits that she “might not be invited back to give testimony again,” she does not regret her actions. From her perspective, she needed to signal her concerns because “this was a hearing designed by a collection of guys – and possibly a woman or two – who share a strategic image of how the Afghanistan and Pakistan postures should interrelate. While they reflect the general frustration in Congress with Pakistan taking US money and supporting terrorism, their views about dismembering Pakistan do not reflect the larger sentiment in Congress on Pakistan. Their statements struck me as incredibly provocative, did nothing to advance human rights in Balochistan, and made a US-Pakistan rapprochement much more difficult.”

Fair also notes that Congressmen Rohrabacher and Louie Gohmert (R – TX) bear significant responsibility for undermining the hearing before it was ever held. She points to the Congressmen’s pre-hearing OpEd, which suggested the United States should openly support an independent Balochistan, as setting the wrong tone for a hearing purportedly on human rights.

Eddie Walsh is a senior foreign correspondent who covers Africa and Asia-Pacific. He also is a non-resident fellow at Pacific Forum CSIS. Follow him on Twitter here.

The views expressed by this writer and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.


Seems it is a petty case of revenge and not anything specifically related to Balochistan.

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

Resolution has no legal force | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

Resolution has no legal force
Anwar Iqbal | Front Page | From the Newspaper
2 hours ago

The Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, stated in his press release, it’s a concurrent resolution submitted in the US House of Representatives. -Reuters Photo

WASHINGTON: The Balochistan resolution presented in the US Congress on Friday is not a piece of legislation and will have no legal force even if it is adopted, although this seems unlikely.

As Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, the lawmaker behind the effort, stated in his press release, it’s a concurrent resolution submitted in the US House of Representatives.

According to a Congressional bills glossary, published by the US Government Printing Office, a concurrent resolution is a legislative proposal that “requires the approval of both the House and the Senate in the same language but does not require the signature of the President and does not have the force of law”.

Concurrent resolutions generally are used to express the sentiments of both the houses, such as conveying congratulations to another country on the anniversary of its independence.

A concurrent resolution is also used for housekeeping functions such as authorising the printing of congressional documents.

A concurrent resolution, however, can be used to express the sense, or opinion, of Congress on matters of foreign and domestic policy but to do so it requires the approval of both houses. The resolution on Balochistan is unlikely to have this approval because so far it has only been moved in the House.

Even in the House, it only has one mover, Mr Rohrabacher, and two co-signers. So far no other lawmaker has backed this resolution.

Yet, as Ambassador Sherry Rehman pointed out, it can do much harm to already strained relations between the United States and Pakistan.

“This kind of resolution, even though it’s moved by one congressman and supported by two others, strains the people-to-people relationship between the two nations,” she told Dawn.

The ambassador noted that the US administration had clearly distanced itself from the move, and no US newspaper or TV channel had taken it up.

Ambassador Rehman, who had a series of meetings with senior State Department officials soon after the resolution was moved, said the US administration had assured her that “it is certainly not government policy to challenge Pakistan’s territorial integrity”.

US officials pointed out that it was “one among thousands of resolutions of this nature moved in the US Congress, and is likely not to gather support on the Hill”.

“Yet, it reduces space for moderate discourse which is so essential to policymaking. It also becomes very different to change the narrative when such episodes recur in quick succession,” Amb Rehman said.

An official US Statement also made a similar point, saying that “the US policy has nothing to do with the resolution tabled in the US House of Representatives on Balochistan province”.

The statement noted that the US respected Pakistan’s sovereignty and considered Balochistan “an internal matter of the country”.

The United States, however, supported human rights across the world, the statement added.

On Friday, US state department’s spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters that the US has no intentions to interfere in internal affairs of Pakistan.

In a separate statement, the Pakistan Embassy took “serious notice” of the resolution, saying: “We reject this ill-informed move and the Congressman’s misplaced concern on Balochistan, which is a part of the Pakistani Federation.”

The embassy pointed out that Balochistan had a directly elected provincial assembly and had due representation in the National Assembly and the Senate of Pakistan. “The resolution seeks to cast doubt on the territorial integrity of a member of the United Nations and a friend of the United States, and is totally unacceptable,” the embassy said.

The embassy also said that Amb Rehman has met more than a dozen senior US legislators on this issue who also assured her that they too considered Balochistan Pakistan’s internal matter and were not going to endorse Congressman Rohrabacher’s move.

Meanwhile, Christine Fair, one of the witnesses who appeared before Mr Rohrabacher’s panel last week to speak about human rights situation in Balochistan, told a journalist, Eddie Walsh, that she believed the hearing was a “political stunt”.

Ms Fair told Mr Walsh that her “political stunt” comment was prompted by a call from a staff member of Mr Rohrabacher’s panel. Ms Fair had contacted him to solicit guidance for her upcoming testimony. In the course of their conversation, the staffer explained “we want to stick it to the Pakistanis”.

“Based upon that brief phone conversation, I concluded that it wasn’t about human rights. Rather, it seemed that the people behind this hearing were pandering to diaspora politics just to tick off the Pakistanis at a time when the United States is trying to repair its tattered relationship with Pakistan”.

Re: Balochistan crisis & its resolution!

TheNews Blog » Saving Balochistan

Saving Balochistan

Balochistan is a land blessed by nature but ravaged by the emphatic greed and criminal empathy of man. With its natural resources worth hundreds of billions of dollars it ranks amongst the world’s potentially richest regions, but its inhabitants live in abject poverty. Over 63 percent of its population languishes under the poverty line, 85 percent have absolutely no access to clean drinking water, and 70 percent have never seen the inside of a school. Natural gas from its fields powered the industrial and development juggernaut of the country for decades, yet it remains the country’s most under developed federating unit. It saw at least two major military actions (locals count six) against the people when they agitated for their rights. As if all this was not bad enough, those raising voices against this injustice have been going ‘missing’ by the hundreds. Consequently, the locals have turned upon ‘settlers’ who are predominantly of Punjabi origin, in a bid to settle scores with what they perceive as the oppressive Punjab-dominated establishment. Balochistan is caught in a vicious cycle of violent lawlessness.

The possibility of its breaking away never loomed larger. Can Balochistan be saved? Rather, can Pakistan be saved by resolving the Balochistan crisis? Yes, provided our political leadership adopts Balochistan as a numero uno priority, thinks prudently rather than emotionally, and moves without wasting another single day.

A day in Balochistan’s life is a lot more than a typical 24-hour time band. It is a lifetime. Another person could go ‘missing’, further stoking the fires of hatred and disenchantment. A day could see one more settler losing his life, or property, adding to the crippling climate of insecurity and fear. We have wasted enough days already.

The government must start talking, and to everyone. Even those elements, who currently have no desire to engage with the government must be approached. It will even have to talk to players who ostensibly have nothing to do with the crisis. We have a situation where one segment of insurgents is motivated by genuine grievances while another is pushing ‘foreign’ agendas for self-serving vested interest.

Balochistan, unfortunately may no longer be a purely internal matter of Pakistan, as put by Prime Minister Gilani in his latest interaction with newspaper editors. The premier went into a huff when asked about the inevitability of engaging India, Afghanistan and the United States to end their meddling in Balochistan by withdrawing their overt and covert support for the insurgents. Spewing the usual rhetoric about the US Congress Committee on Foreign Affairs “crossing the red line” by discussing Balochistan, the PM thundered that there was no need to talk to “any outsider”. If only life were that simple.

2012 is not the 70’s when a similarly strong insurgency had petered out. Then, the Baloch insurgents pouring into Afghanistan had not received tangible support either from Afghanistan, the Soviet Union or the Americans. This time it is different. India has jumped into the fray, a payback for our 90’s jihad in Kashmir, amongst other considerations. And it is not just financing the insurgency movement in Balochistan, it is also investing billions of dollars in Afghanistan and influencing Pakistan’s increasingly anti-Pakistan narrative. Afghanistan for its own part is unhappy because it perceives us to be promoting anti-Kabul elements. The US is peeved because of our certain stances in the ongoing war on terror. Whether they are correct from Pakistan’s national perspective is not the question here. The ease of international travel, sustenance, and critical exposure of ‘Baloch rebel leaders’ at critical global forums could not have been possible without the active support of the United States.

Foreign players are fishing in the troubled waters of Balochistan. We need to start clearing our own waters to minimise such exploitative opportunities. We must foster a conflict free environment and create a convergence of interests with the interfering powers. To have peace in Balochistan, it is imperative that we have peace in and with Afghanistan. That India and Pakistan move away from a destructive narrative to a constructive dialogue. There has to be more profit in peace than in acrimony. And the US too must gain more from playing with us rather than against.

The prime minister would be naïve to believe that the Balochistan crisis was altogether bereft of external influences and could be resolved without courting the foreign players active in the background. When Khair Biar Murree openly states that the Baloch would rather be dependent on the Americans than Punjabis, then there is clearly an underlying reality, which must not be ignored.

First of all, however, we need to start putting our own house in order. All political stakeholders must be aggressively pursued and be brought back into the Balochistan dialogue. To cite one example, Akhtar Mengal was the chief minister Balochistan during Nawaz Sharif’s power days in Islamabad but today he is living in exile in the UAE, forced into adopting a separatist stance by the compulsion of circumstances. Everyone like him, the Bugtis, Murrees etc must be made a stakeholder in the system otherwise they will naturally favour carving out their own new system based on a ‘new’ Balochistan.

The government should also announce a general amnesty. Surely questions will arise about differentiating between crimes against the state and the citizens (read: settlers) but the government could take care of that part through generous compensations. It would not be an ideal solution for the grieved but compromises may have to be made for the country’s larger good, and that is why it is essential that such compensations are extremely generous.

Will development initiatives and amnesty bring insurgents down from the hills and back from Afghanistan and spell success? No, because a pull factor alone will not work in Balochistan as it must be complemented by the push factor, which I’ll discuss a little later. Development work must begin in earnest. Immediate additional resources and incentives must be allocated for Balochistan. The multi-billion-rupee Aghaz-e-haqooq-e- Balochistan package never realised its potential and nobody knows what happened to the Rs250 million development funds given to every member of Balochistan assembly. This trend must cease. Excellent recommendations have been made by different parliamentary commissions on Balochistan, which if implemented would yield immense political dividends.

The rule of the FC must give way to the rule of law. The only thing that should go missing from Balochistan is lawlessness, and not its people. The nature of resistance is always decided by that of the oppression. For a positive and meaningful change to happen, Pakistan will have to change its own paradigm of being a security state to a secure one.

A strong pull factor could be created but it cannot deliver without the push factor involving Afghanistan, India and the United States. The spectre of an independent Balochistan, with its strategically located long coastline and trillions of rupees worth natural wealth, is too tempting an option for the agitating elements to give up without ‘persuasion’. The public and international face of this insurgency is none other than the younger crop of the traditional ruling sardars and chieftains, used to being the most important stakeholders in the power equation. They will only come back to the negotiating table if deprived of the material and political support of their international backers. And India, Afghanistan and the US will create this critical push factor only if Pakistan develops mutually beneficial bilateral relations.We need the three to end their open and secret support for the insurgents and thus push the angry Baloch leadership towards an honest and fair dialogue with the Pakistan government.