The tragedy of 11 September 2001, in New York shocked the whole world with its senseless cruelty. US President George W. Bush announced that the country is at war with international terrorism, the purpose of which is to eliminate its leaders and deprive them of their funding. Washington saw the main enemy in the face of Al-Qaida, which found a safe haven in Afghanistan, which was (in 1996 – 2001) under the control of the Taliban (ethnic Pashtuns). October 2 2001, the NATO leadership decided to enter into force paragraph 5 of its Charter, according to which an attack on one of the members of the North Atlantic Alliance is regarded as an attack on NATO as a whole and its member countries have the right to retaliate against the aggressor. Support for the antiterrorist operation, called "Enduring Freedom," was declared by the 70 states, more than 40 of which expressed willingness to participate in it. In response to the call for combating international terrorism, Russia agreed with the temporary deployment of US military bases in the region of Central Asia, which is strategically important for its national interests.
As a result of a brief military operation, the Taliban regime in early December 2001 was overthrown. This created good conditions for limiting their influence not only in Afghanistan, but also in neighboring Pakistan, where Afghan militants took refuge in border areas, creating new bases and camps.
It would seem that the war on terror is already close to its end. But President Bush Jr. didn’t have enough political wisdom. Instead of continuing the struggle in Afghanistan, he switched to Iraq, and at the same time decided to reform the entire Near and Middle East. A chain of endless wars began, in which there were no winners. For a number of reasons, al-Qaeda and Islamist organizations affiliated with it have grown stronger and have begun to control large areas of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria. In fact, the Americans themselves have nurtured them with an extremely ill-conceived policy of interfering in the internal affairs of other states. Pakistan was no exception, by the example of which we will consider some features of the fight against international terrorism.
FIGHTING TERROR IN PAKISTAN
The military operation of the American and British special forces in September-October 2001 of the year in Kabul, Kandahar, Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif, Jalalabad and Bagram "pushed" the Afghan Taliban in the southern provinces of the country, as well as the border lands of neighboring Pakistan. So, already at the end of December 2001, around 500, militants of the Al-Qaida movement who fled from Afghanistan were spotted near the Pakistani city of Peshawar. Islamabad was “embroiled” in the orbit of the antiterrorist campaign. In particular, Pakistan has provided a logistics arm for transporting NATO cargo from its southern port of Karachi up north in land-locked Afghanistan.
In the twentieth century, the struggle against separatism provided the Pakistani army with a wealth of experience regarding its own radicals. And at the present time, it has acquired particular urgency in connection with the "redeployment" of the Afghan Taliban to the Territory of the Tribes of the Federal Administration (FFT). This is an administrative region in northwest Pakistan, located along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, uniting seven political agencies (Bajaur, Kurram, Mohmand, Orakzai, Khyber, North Waziristan and South Waziristan); it is often called the Pashtun tribal zone. He is a member of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, but administratively subordinate to the federal center, and is managed by local political agents.
The struggle of the Afghan Taliban against the "infidels" was supported by the Pakistani Pashtuns of the tribal zone. Initially, in South Waziristan, later in other agencies, detachments were formed to provide armed assistance to the Pashtun brothers of the southern provinces of Afghanistan against the NATO occupation forces. The Pentagon and Brussels demanded that Islamabad stop the cross-border crossings of the militants. It was at that time that Islamabad first introduced parts of the federal army in the FPCU, thus violating the agreements reached in 1948 with Pashtuns. This led to armed confrontation. Understanding the danger of the slogans of Pashtun nationalism and separatism, President Pervez Musharaf tackled: in economic terms, he provided financial assistance to local Pashtuns, initiated a number of economic projects; in the military-political - he sought agreements on the cessation of hostilities, which both sides constantly violated.
Perhaps it was then in Islamabad that they made a serious mistake when they signed a secret agreement with Washington that allowed US special forces units to search for and pursue al Qaeda representatives in Pakistan. The agreement provided for not only the conduct of ground action against the militants, but also the use of aircraft. The latter, in the form of shock unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), created a national problem for the Pakistani authorities. The reason for this was that, as a rule, the actions of American UAVs with Islamabad were not coordinated. Moreover, their strikes periodically led to numerous casualties among the local population. So, according to Western data, only from June 2004 of the year to September 2012 in Pakistan as a result of UAV attacks killed 3325 people, including 881 civilians, including 176 children. Such activities had a negative effect on relations between the United States and Pakistan, even in the conditions of acute dependence of Islamabad on American military and economic assistance.
In recent years, Pak-US relations have experienced ups and downs. At the peak of relations in 2010, the US-Pakistan Strategic Agreement was signed, which included areas of activity ranging from security issues to broad economic cooperation with strong financial support. In particular, Washington promised to transfer to Islamabad annually for five years 1,5 billion dollars for economic development. But later, in the opinion of the American side, the Pakistani component of the antiterrorist campaign in the region failed, and the events began to unfold in a different scenario.
DIFFERENT PAKISTAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS
In early May 2011, the special forces unit DEVGRU of the United States armed forces conducted the successful Neptune Spear to eliminate Osama bin Laden, the leader of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad. This event was welcomed with approval in the USA and among its allies. However, in Pakistan, many have condemned their own military leadership, which did not hinder the operation.
November 26 of the same year, American aviation destroyed the border checkpoint of the Pakistani army in the town of Salalah on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, which led to the wound of 15 and the death of 24 (later they began to talk about 27 dead) military personnel. A wave of anti-American demonstrations swept through the country. As a result, the military and political leadership of the country decided to suspend cargo transit for the allied force grouping in Afghanistan.
In December 2011, the global media launched a campaign to discredit Pakistan’s leadership. At the same time, they tried to convince the public that the national army is preparing to seize power in Islamabad. In response, Pakistan began to develop the Fundamental Principles for the revision of the conditions of interaction with the United States (NATO) and foreign policy in general, which were approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of 12 on April 2012. The country's foreign affairs ministry said that "the government will abide by the recommendations of the parliament according to the letter and spirit on the issue of restoring relations with Washington." As one of the conditions for this, Islamabad demanded an end to the strikes of American UAVs on Pakistani territory, which was viewed as "a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country." The Americans decisively rejected it, as they believed (and still believe) that UAVs "are an integral part of their fight against terrorism."
In an effort to put pressure on Islamabad, the United States also played a separatist card. In the winter of 2011 – 2012, a new aggravation of bilateral relations arose between Washington and Islamabad. Then, in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, anti-government demonstrations were held demanding autonomy for the local Baluchs. A small number of people took part in them. However, in early February 2012, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs held a subcommittee on the oversight and investigation of the Pakistani Balochi, and on February 17, a draft resolution was submitted to the US Congress that called for recognizing the rights of ethnic Baloch of Pakistan to self-determination. In Islamabad, it was perceived as interference in internal affairs. As a result, the American ambassador was strongly opposed.
Pakistan did not remain in debt. Despite assurances about the resumption of transit of goods by NATO on the eve of the anniversary summit in Chicago in May 2012, Islamabad opened the barrier only for a few trucks with supplies for diplomatic missions in Afghanistan. And the rest were waiting for their turn at border crossings for eight months. In response, Washington froze financial aid to Islamabad, approved by the Congress back in 2010,. However, American humanitarian and educational projects continued to be implemented in Pakistan (more than 2009 schools have been repaired since 600, 12 scholarships have been provided to thousands of students).
In the eyes of the United States, Pakistan appears to be an “unstable” ally, while Pakistan considers the US claims to be unreasonably high. Mutual claims of the parties are more than enough: Washington’s slowing down the implementation of a number of energy projects, its threat of imposing economic sanctions in connection with Islamabad’s appeal to Tehran to provide Iranian investments and the construction of a gas pipeline in Pakistan.
As a result, mutual suspicion between the countries in question is maintained, including due to the increasing convergence of Washington and Delhi. Under these conditions, the West continues to blame Pakistan for its low level of struggle against international terrorism, support for the Afghan Taliban and Pakistani insurgents. One of the most pressing issues in relations between them remains the use of UAVs.
But there is another side to the question. The de-radicalization of the militants was raised by the command of the Pakistani army shortly after a large-scale military operation in the autumn of 2009 against insurgents in Malakand and areas of the Swat Valley of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Due to the extremely high level of terrorism in the interior of the country, in 2010, the generals radically revised the national military doctrine, which noted that "the main threats to the country come from domestic terrorism, and not from external aggression." And this is not accidental, since Pakistan has been waging a war on terror for many years, attracting about 150 thousand troops of the national army to it. Since 2003, 40 thousand civilians and 5 thousand military personnel, including one lieutenant-general, eight major generals and ten brigade generals, have died there. The last time that happened was 15 in September 2013, when Major General Sanaullah Niyazi and two officers accompanying him were killed in an explosion of an improvised explosive device in Upper Dir.
IN SEARCH FOR INNER PRESENT DIALOGUE
Since 2012, the topic of expediency of a dialogue with the Taliban Movement of Pakistan (DTP) banned militant organization has been widely discussed in Pakistan. Despite the desire for dialogue, the accident as one of the prerequisites required the federal authorities to immediately stop the air strikes on the territory of the Pashtun tribes bordering Afghanistan.
Having come to power in May 2013 as a result of the victory in the general parliamentary elections, Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif supported the course of a dialogue with the militants, stating the need for their disarmament and their recognition of the country's constitution.
In September 2013, the All-Party Conference was held in Islamabad with one item on the agenda: the feasibility of holding a dialogue with the rebels in order to achieve peace in the country. Prerequisites for an accident (the abolition of the Constitution of Pakistan, the introduction of Sharia norms, the withdrawal of the Pakistani army from the areas of the FTE) even at the stage of initiating a dialogue were unacceptable to the federal authorities. However, one of the clauses of the requirements of both sides coincided - the termination of UAV strikes.
The West hoped that Prime Minister Navaz Sharif would continue the fight against terror solely by force under the leadership of the United States and its allies. Instead, the final resolution of the All-Party Conference noted that during the war against international terrorism thousands of soldiers and local residents were killed, and as a result of illegal UAV attacks and rocket-bombing attacks by NATO member countries, Pakistan’s socio-economic infrastructure was significantly damaged.
The West was obliged to support the initiative of the dialogue of the Pakistani leadership in order to at least stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. In this respect, Rob Crilly’s article “Only in Pakistan, the Taliban movement can be considered as a full participant in the negotiations”, published on September 10, 10, in the British newspaper Daily Telegraph, is indicative. On this issue I would like to note the following.
First, the very title of this article is surprising. For years, the Americans have been trying to come to terms with the so-called moderate wing of the Taliban movement in order to resolve the Afghan problem. And it does not cause any objections in the West. Why is this not allowed to make Islamabad? Is the Pakistani Taliban so radical than the Afghan that it is impossible to negotiate with them? Or maybe the United States and its allies are not interested in a stable Pakistan, which will begin to pursue an independent foreign policy? Apparently, the latter assumption is well-founded.
Secondly, the successful fight against terrorism and the strengthening of internal security contribute to the development of the national economy and the attraction of foreign investment.
Thirdly, any joint actions against international terrorism require a high level of mutual trust. Its absence cannot be replaced by any modern technical means, especially under the action of percussion systems in the territory of a foreign state. In such conditions, there will always be erroneous rocket-bombing attacks on Pakistani military personnel and civilians, which will only exacerbate existing problems. In any case, the use of American precision weapons on Pakistani territory must be consistent with Islamabad. Otherwise, such actions, in accordance with current international practice, are illegal.
Fourthly, the author of this article did not take into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of the ruling elite of Pakistan shares the views of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the issue under consideration and calls on the government to begin a dialogue with the Taliban of Pakistan.
Fifth, the problems of Pakistan should be solved only by the leadership of this country, which has sufficient political will and perseverance in the fight against terror.
The culmination of Zal's short-sighted policy toward Pakistan was that November 10, 1 was killed by the Taliban Pakistan leader, Hakimulla Masood, as a result of a strike by US UAVs in Pakistan’s border with Pakistan’s North Waziristan. He was among the most wanted by the US terrorists. A reward of 2013 million was announced for his head. The Pentagon suspected Hakimullah Masud of attacking NATO bases in Afghanistan, car bombing in New York on Times Square and terrorist attacks against Americans in Pakistan. But why was this to be done the next day after Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made a statement about the beginning of peace talks with the Taliban? As a result, the peace dialogue that had not yet begun was disrupted. There is no doubt that such a US policy will negatively affect the situation both in Pakistan and in neighboring Afghanistan.
NEAREST PERSPECTIVES
It should be noted that Khakimullah Masud was the third leader of the Taliban Movement of Pakistan since its formation in the 2002 year. The founder and first commander of the militant detachment was Nek Muhammad from the Masud tribe of South Waziristan. After the death in 2004, he was replaced by his tribe - Beytullah Masoud, who in August 2009 was also eliminated by the American UAV. As a result of drone strikes, other field commanders were also killed, as, for example, in 2013 year - mullah Nazir and Valiur Rehman.
Khakimullah Masoud had a significant influence among the Pakistani Taliban. He commanded operations to undermine convoys with cargoes for the mission of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and also led the Taliban groups in the Khyber, Kurram and Orakzai agencies. Moreover, he managed to unite the rebel groups scattered over a vast territory into an organized movement with a single administration. In 2013, Masood controlled more than 30 militant units operating in the northwestern parts of the country.
The death of Khakimullah Masud immediately brought about the procedure for electing the new leadership of the Taliban Movement of Pakistan. Before the appointment of a new leader of the movement, the emir of the central Shura was unanimously approved by Asmatullah Shahin Bkhitani from the Tank district bordering Afghanistan. The leader of the military organization was appointed Hafiz Said Khan - the leader of the accident in the agency Orakzai. Under his leadership, numerous attacks were launched against objects of the Pakistani army and civilian centers in major cities, including the US consulate in Peshawar, Peshawar airport, Shiite peaceful processions and places of worship for the Ahmadia sect. But nevertheless, Mullah Omar approved the central figure - Fazlulla, the new leader of the Taliban Movement of Pakistan, after discussion at Shura (council) in North Waziristan. It was he who headed the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (in 1996 – 2001 years) and is considered the leader of the Afghan Taliban. According to the Pakistani and Afghan media, it is located in Pakistan.
At first glance, a change in the leaders of accidents is a natural process. But, on the other hand, the radical break of the tradition is due to the appointment of a Taliban leader from the Masud tribe of South Waziristan. Tribal ties in the Pashtun tribal zone are extremely important in the military, political, and administrative management of the agencies. The appointment of an “outsider” (not only from another South Waziristan tribe, but also from another region) to command combat groups can lead to unpredictable consequences: fragmentation of the movement, randomness of its actions and change of priorities.
Of course, the Taliban of Pakistan, banned by President Pervez Musharraf back in 2004, was interested in public recognition and legalization of its existence. Certain hopes of the DTP placed on the flexibility and pliability of the new leaders of the country, since Nawaz Sharif had previously not openly criticized him, condemned only the terrorist acts committed and expressed condolences to the families of the victims. As a result, the Pakistani Taliban did not add the names of the members of his family and the party he headed to the black list of their targets until November 2013.
Until recently, the Taliban Movement of Pakistan pinned hopes on the negotiation process, especially in the light of the prime minister’s statements about the need to end the strikes of American UAVs on the Pashtun tribal zone, made in October 2013 of the year during a visit to the United States. The elimination of the leader of the accident Masuda forced the rebels to abandon the peace talks with the government of Pakistan, accusing him of treason, complicity with the United States and a double game with the rebels.
In this situation, the Pakistani authorities were forced to put security forces in the tribal area into a state of increased combat readiness and further strengthen them in order to prevent possible terrorist actions by the Taliban.
The Pakistani parliament expressed concern over the situation following the assassination of the Taliban leader in Pakistan. Major political parties called the attacks of American UAVs "a conspiracy to sabotage peace talks with militants," and called for stopping the supply of American goods through Pakistan. As a result, the country's parliament reiterated the revision of relations with the United States due to the breakdown of the internal Pakistani negotiation process. At the same time, many at home and abroad express the view that Islamabad is unlikely to make drastic changes in relations with Washington.
During the visit of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to the United States in October 2013, the parties agreed to renew the Strategic Treaty. From the beginning of 2014, the White House plans to allocate more than 1,6 billion dollars (approximately equally to military and non-military programs) to curb the energy crisis. In addition, the Obama administration has asked the US Congress for the 2014 fiscal year, which will begin on 1 in October next year, as an aid to Pakistan for an additional about $ 1,2 billion in economic and educational development.
Thus, the fight against international terrorism, which the United States and its allies are waging, is extremely controversial, as can be clearly seen from the example of Pakistan. On the one hand, Islamabad is mainly blamed for the failure to resolve the Afghan problem. On the other hand, Washington requires Islamabad to solve its internal problems by force and impedes inter-Pakistani dialogue, which only expands the social base of the radicals. In such circumstances, it becomes extremely difficult to defeat terrorism in Pakistan, if at all possible. Maybe this is the main goal of that part of the US elite, which is ready to maintain its leadership in the world at any cost? However, controlled chaos cannot be created, and deliberately weakening states does not strengthen regional security. Therefore, such a policy is erroneous and should be revised in the interests of the entire international community.