World Concerns Over Shariah in Swat

[Salahadin]

NEW DELHI: As senior Indian officials and US special envoy Richard Holbrooke discussed American policies for the Pakistan-Afghanistan region, the

ceasefire between Islamabad and the Taliban in Swat valley proved to be a dramatic example of the Islamist extremist threat closing in on the civilised world. Stepping out of his meetings with foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee, Holbrooke told reporters, "What is happening in Swat now is a common threat to the US, India and Pakistan, who now face a common enemy."

In a dramatic and more extreme replay of the 2006 peace deal between the Pakistan government and the Taliban, President Asif Zardari signed Sharia law for the Malakand division and Swat valley on Monday, a day after the Pakistan Taliban, led by Baitullah Mehsud, announced a 10-day ceasefire.

India is looking at the deal with growing trepidation, as it brings the Taliban much closer. Nobody in the Indian government would comment on record, but privately, there is growing concern here, which was discussed in detail with Holbrooke. But much more important, it shows the Pakistan government submitting to the growing powers of the Taliban.

The Pakistan government's deal with the Tehrik Nifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi (TNSM) to promulgate Sharia may be replicated in other divisions in the NWFP.

The distress about the deal in Swat also comes from the fact that after Swat, it could well be Peshawar, and then it's a leap to Islamabad.

India believes Taliban needs to be squeezed in terms of funds, weapons and legitimacy, but many also suspect that the Pakistan army continues to be the chief patron of the Taliban, as it believes Taliban to be essential to its policy of strategic depth in Afghanistan and bleeding India to death.

Pakistan government reportedly gave in on the Sharia laws to stop further violence in these areas which the army just could not stop.

The ceasefire with the Taliban, Indian sources believe, is not likely to make the Taliban give up either its ideology, weapons or intent to undermine the Pakistani state. While Islamabad has released many arrested Taliban commanders in return for one Chinese engineer, there is no talk about the Taliban disarming.

The peace deal, therefore has no other strategic objective, apart from stopping the violence. But by giving in to the Taliban demand and getting a limited concession for 10 days, Islamabad may only be prolonging the inevitable.

Why India is concern over
pakistan they had a problem when we released AQ khan and now over Sharia Law can any one tell them to mind their own F***ing Business

 

[ejaz007]

No link has been provided. It shall be appreciated if members provide link with their posts when quoting an article.

 

[waraich66]

The U.S. envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, said on a trip to India that events in Swat showed the United States, Pakistan and India faced a common enemy.

"For the first time in 60 years since independence your country and Pakistan, the U.S., all face an enemy that poses a direct threat to our leadership, our capitals and our people," he said. [ID:nSP415494]

Reuters AlertNet - Pakistan offers Islamic law to pacify Swat

Shariah Law is agreed and signed by GOP ,US dont have right to oppose it,it will be considered interference in Pakistan and may cause problems for US Pakistan relation.

Now Shariah Court Swat can declare Musharaf and Bush terrorist for their wrong policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan :

 

[Beskar]

We must understand first that America sees things differently than we do. This recent development to them is like as if we've lost the entire battle against Taliban and they've taken over the country. They don't know the ground reality and they clearly don't know that this isn't as if SWAT is now a country for Taliban with their own flag and an international border.

But unfortunately, they see it this way. And this will give them more than just a reason to INCREASE their attacks inside Pakistan and declare SWAT as the "Hub" of terrorism where possibly Osama Bin laden is hiding. Yes, It's B.S but that's exactly how things would be perceived in the west.

 

[IceCold]

We must understand first that America sees things differently than we do. This recent development to them is like as if we've lost the entire battle against Taliban and they've taken over the country. They don't know the ground reality and they clearly don't know that this isn't as if SWAT is now a country for Taliban with their own flag and an international border.

But unfortunately, they see it this way. And this will give them more than just a reason to INCREASE their attacks inside Pakistan and declare SWAT as the "Hub" of terrorism where possibly Osama Bin laden is hiding. Yes, It's B.S but that's exactly how things would be perceived in the west.

I second this. A wrong move at the wrong time and this has increased the danger even more of a direct US intervention in the name of securing our nuclear assets.

 

[ajpirzada]

I second this. A wrong move at the wrong time and this has increased the danger even more of a direct US intervention in the name of securing our nuclear assets.

i support this move and think it should have been made before things got out of control. anyways better late than never. our own ppl were dyin there. and US or west doesnt really care about that. only thing they care about is how many bullets do u fire everday and that is y they are loosing in afghanistan and have lost in iraq. they will have to come to table one day. GoP should first look after our national interests and then listen to wat west is sayin. i am quite hopeful of this deal provided gov sincerely implements shariah and it doesnt only stay on a piece of paper.

 

[Anwar2]

Dear Bezerk:

Pakistan is not such a marshmallow!. The attacks on Pakistani territory are launched with the active connivance and support of our Political and Military leadership.

Once Pakistan decides to respect its own territorial sovereignty the US too will respect it. The whole US Afghan operation is depends on Pakistan’s goodwill and support. The US cannot afford to antagonize Pakistan.

Richard Holbrooke is a bit of a clown, when he says United States, Pakistan and India faced a common enemy!! That’s his wishful thinking for Pakistan to accept India’s hegemony in South Asia, to forget about Kashmir and for Indian-Pakistan armies to fight America’s war under a common banner.

 

[Anwar2]

“”Direct US intervention in the name of securing our nuclear assets””

Pakistan’s nuclear assets are not that vulnerable. If they could be taken out entirely by the US; they can be taken out by a joint US-India-Israeli action far more easily.

The only real protection for nuclear assets is the element of uncertainty; i.e. what happens to the weapons that Could Not be Taken out.

Once Israel is given a clear message that it will be considered a party to any kind of nuclear adventurism against Pakistan, things will calm down substantially and rapidly in the US too.

By the way the greatest danger is not the USA, but our corrupt leadership who will swap anything for a penny.

 

[ajpirzada]

Australia sees Sharia deal as ‘positive development’ Baqir Sajjad Syed
Tuesday, 17 Feb, 2009 | 12:42 AM PST | Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith arrives with his Pakistan counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi for talks at the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad. -AFP Photo ISLAMABAD: Australia on Monday saw the agreement between NWFP government and Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariah Mohammadi (TNSM) as a ‘positive development’ and said military enforcement was not the only option in counter-terrorism.

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, who is on a three day visit to Pakistan and traveled to Peshawar and tribal areas on Monday, told media at a joint press conference with his counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi that ‘what we have is a positive development’.

‘We certainly believe that combating extremism and terrorism is not just military enforcement, it also needs civil capacity building, civilian reconstruction and dialogue,’ said Mr Smith.

However, the Australian foreign minister, whose country holds significant influence in Commonwealth, cautioned against an unfavourable outcome, similar to the fate of agreements made by the government with extremists in the past.

The remarks by Foreign Minister Smith on the peace deal are given great importance by the diplomatic observers because it was being expected that the agreement would irk the US and other western countries, which have been skeptical of such arrangements on the grounds that they give time and opportunity to the militants to regroup and rearm.

Australia that has significant interest in counter-terrorism further proposed a four times increase in the number of Pakistani armed forces personnel being trained in Australia and making the military dialogue between the services chiefs of the two countries a regular feature.

He believed that the most effective way through which Australia could share its wealth of experience in counter-terrorism with Pakistani forces was through training. This thinking led to ‘substantial increase in the number of training arrangements open to Pakistani military personnel’.

He acknowledged that difficulty of topography and terrain, the complexity of history of people living in the tribal areas and the porous Pak-Afghan borders were some of the attributes that made the counter-insurgency job in this region difficult.

Stressing on Australia’s counter-terrorism support for Pakistan, he said, Australia ‘stood shoulder to shoulder’ with Pakistan as it dealt with this most difficult challenge.

He further hoped that Pakistan with international support would be able to surmount this challenge by the extremists and make normal everyday occurrences to take place.

The Australian foreign minister also announced a significant increase in development assistance for Pakistan in areas requiring capacity building like health, civil society, democracy and tolerance. However, he did not exactly quantify the increase in development assistance.

Speaking on the issue of strained Pak-India relations, Mr Smith said, Australia had a significant interest in South Asia and also in Mumbai incident in which two Australians were killed.

He welcomed Pakistan’s response to the Indian dossier and called on India to respond favourably to it. He also called for resumption of the stalled Composite Dialogue between the two neighbours.

‘We welcome the first steps in last couple of days, we hope there is a positive ongoing response to that.

http://www.dawn.net/wps/wcm/connect...a-sees-sharia-deal-as-positive-development-rs

 

[araz]

I think they are just issuing a statemenyt in light of their previous experience with previous deals that have been brokered only to be broken and the resurgence of the tribal leaders.However, it is upto pakistani Governbment to make them understandhow Swat is different from the tribal areas, and why this step, here and today might work . At the end of the day US will have its own agenda and we have to convince them that we are working together. However, if after all they want to invade us --welcome, We will show them our hospitality
WaSalam
araz

 

[PakistanMyPride]

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

By Rahimullah Yusufzai

PESHAWAR: People in Swat and rest of Malakand division heaved a sigh of relief and expressed happiness following the announcement that Nizam-e-Adl Regulation was being enforced in their area but in keeping with expectations the Western capitals appear apprehensive and their media is critical of the decision.

The reaction by the Western media and some liberal and progressive sections of the population in Pakistan was so strong and negative that it appears to have unnerved the federal government. The statement by Information Minister Sherry Rehman that President Asif Ali Zardari would sign the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation only after restoration of peace in Swat could be interpreted as an attempt to allay the fears in the Western countries and deflect the criticism against the amended Islamic-rooted law. This statement doesn’t take into account the fact that enforcement of Nizam-e-Adl Regulation is necessary for restoration of peace as any further delay would provide the militants an excuse to continue their attacks against the security forces and pro-government people and provoke the military to take retaliatory action.
It is unfortunate that Pakistan has become so weak and vulnerable to foreign pressure that its government cannot even initiate measures and make laws in accordance with the wishes of its people. The people of Swat and other parts of Malakand Division have made it abundantly clear that they want Shariah as they believe it would make their area peaceful and facilitate quick and affordable delivery of justice.

More importantly, they feel this would bring an end to the military operations in Swat and restrain the militants. In fact, return of peace is now the most important wish of the people in Swat and they would welcome any decision that could achieve this objective. The expressions of joy in Swat as seen on our television screens and distribution of sweets in villages even in places like Lower Dir to celebrate the announcement about Nizam-e-Adl Regulation were proof of the relief that the common people felt about return of peace to their troubled area.

So strong was the reaction in the Western media that an American TV channel in a report termed the “deal” as capitulation to the militants. It wrongly claimed that the whole of NWFP would now be under Shariah and that strict Islamic law would be enforced. It also stressed that the Pakistan government gave up its sovereignty, that secular law was over and that the Taliban would henceforth impose their tough Islamic laws in Swat and beyond. Other Western media outlets argued that the Taliban got what they wanted after the government agreed to impose Islamic law and suspend the military operation across much of northwest Pakistan.

Unfortunately, much of this criticism is misplaced. This is primarily due to the lack of knowledge about the kind of law that is being proposed for Malakand region and the adjoining Kohistan district of Hazara division. In fact, the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation isn’t much different from a similar law that was enforced in Swat and rest of Malakand division and Kohistan in 1994 and then, with some amendments, in 1999. Some changes have certainly been made to appease Maulana Sufi Mohammad, founder of the Tanzim Nifaz Shariat-e-Muhammadi (TNSM) and the foremost campaigner for Shariah in the area, and bring him on board. Some commentators were even asking as to who would sit in the proposed Qazi Courts because they were unaware that such courts already exist in the whole of Malakand division as a result of the previous Shariah and Nizam-e-Adl ordinances and qualified and trained judges renamed Qazis man the Qazi Courts. The argument that the country cannot afford to have two different kinds of law or legal system is also irrelevant because Swat, Chitral, Dir and the new districts Buner and Shangla that comprise Malakand Division were merged into Pakistan as late as 1969 and, therefore, had a special status with their own set of laws. The Nizam-e-Adl Regulation for the area was rather a continuation of the semi-Shariah laws that were already in force in the states of Swat, Dir and Chitral at the time of their merger in Pakistan.

Swatis are happy but the West isn’t

 

[Patriot]

What really amazes me is that how ignorant Western People are.They somehow think Sharia law means extremist government which will sponsor terrorism and they think Pakistan will be taken over by the Talibans because of this shria law.On one hand they support democracy i am sure if people are asked in swat area to vote they will vote for Shria law..

 

[zhero]

On one hand they support democracy i am sure if people are asked in swat area to vote they will vote for Shria law..

- Yes, but they weren't asked, were they? This wasn't a referendum, right? Seems like the guys with the biggest guns won ....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

- Yes, but they weren't asked, were they? This wasn't a referendum, right? Seems like the guys with the biggest guns won ....

Not entirely true - the Nizame-adl legislation had been pending for a long time now, and most polls show over sixty percent of Pakistanis being supportive of 'Shariah Law'.

Now the definition of what that 'Shariah' means for every Pakistani is different, but the fact is that Pakistani society is moderate but religious, and perceptions of Sharia are largely positive.

I have been supportive of this idea for a while now, though initially I viewed it with trepidation. I think the issue is not so much that Shariah will be implemented, its just a change in the system (but it remains a system, which is important), but whether or not the Taliban will agree to disarm.

It is a moot point then that the 'bigger gun won', since the bigger gun won't exist anymore. However, a lot of people are skeptical that the Taliban will disarm, or accept a 'moderate and progressive Shariah' (infatuated as they are with blowing up girls schools and forcing people to grow beards), in which case I imagine we will be back to fighting them again, but atleast the GoP can then say to Pakistanis, 'look, we tried, we even implemented Shariah, and the Taliban were still not satisfied'.

Attempting political solutions is extremely important in fighting this is insurgency in Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ok - I have edited the thread title since there is nothing to suggest that the US views Shariah in Swat as a 'threat', at his point.

I think their concern is about this particular deal being similar t the past ones with the Taliban in FATA, where the Taliban were not required to disarm or disband their militias and stop their militant and terrorist training camps. Those deals were more like 'ceasefires', and allowed the Taliban to regroup and strengthen.

If the GoP does not ensure that the Taliban disarm in Swat, then this deal will likely be just as flawed as the last one. Given the GoP's record on this issue, I would say that the US is justified in being concerned.