Had I not been a firm believer of the view that most of the traditional concepts of conflict resolution in the discipline of international relations are outdated, I would have cast serious doubts on the TTP’s willingness to conditionally parley with the government dominated by the infidels, as the self-styled crusaders perceive of the declared secular parties like PPP, ANP and their other coalition partners.
In the post-9/11 world, the nature of conflicts and the parties involved therein have introduced a watershed change in the paradigms of conflict resolution methods. The wars being fought across the globe today see the states predominantly engaged with the non-state actors. And the non-state actors are those who, having already chosen militancy as a lifestyle and with no public pressure on their back, are totally unwary of the outcome of any process of negotiations they rarely opt for. These non-state actors, therefore, have the leverage to dictate terms and conditions for the talks.
In case of TTP in Pakistan, this leverage stands automatically doubled with Taliban seeing the world’s sole super military might, the US, backed by NATO, having ultimately chosen the path of dialogue to wrap up the decade-old guerrilla warfare in Afghanistan.
If evaluated against the backdrop of conventional conflict resolution methods, the TTP, being one of the conflicting sides, must come to the negotiation table sans preconditions that most of the time constitute the bone of contention between the warring groups. In fact, the belligerents, when sit across the table, negotiate these preconditions to pave the way for a broader range of parleys. This, however, is not the case with the so-called Pakistani Taliban who apparently tend to hold the most-discussed talks with arms in their hands.
No sane person would ever buy the contention that the TTP is serious in holding result-oriented talks with the politico-judicially-embattled government if the banned outfit’s conditional willingness for peace comes with the determination to ‘eliminate’ MQM, a major coalition partner of the ruling PPP and one of the most prominent stakeholders in the current polity in Pakistan.
Also, terming the imprisoned Muslim Khan and Maulvi Omar as the would-be leaders of their peace-negotiating team, the Taliban have linked the start of dialogues with their release. This is the most predictable stumbling block for the talks yet to commence. If analysed in depth, Sunday’s video message of TTP Spokesman Ihsanullah Ihsan or Yaseen Safi, Ihsan’s reported real name, depicts anything but Taliban’s willingness to shun violence, at least in the foreseeable future.
Instead, the TTP, seeking a trilateral guarantee from the leadership of PML-N, JUI-F and JI, seems to have some underlying political designs that, if not contained pragmatically, are very much likely to plague the electioneering country with a fresh political turmoil. Having already used terminologies like good and bad Taliban, we would soon be witnessing politicians categorised as pro- and anti-Taliban. Though murkily, politics is lurking from the ambiguous conditions set forth by the Taliban. What is more alarming, however, is the fact that the stakeholders from the govt’s side are also not apolitical in their response.
ANP’s KPK Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain, who has lost his only son to militancy in the terrorism-stricken province, was quick in reportedly claiming that TTP had responded to ANP’s offer. “In fact, banned TTP expressed willingness for dialogue in response to ANP’s offer,” he said last Sunday. Another political touch in this entire episode is the fact that all of the leaders the TTP confided in as ‘guarantors’ from the military’s side are presently sitting in the opposition block and have one thing in common: anti-Americanism.
The three Taliban favourites also have a clear idea, more than others, of the realities on ground in a country like Pakistan where they know Parliament is not the only centre of power. This apprehension can be seen at work in a recent statement of Maulana Fazlur Rehman who has linked his role as a mediator with ‘total authority’.
This is an open secret that the shrewd Maulana is asking the all-powerful Pakistan Army for ‘total authority’ and not the elected government which cannot deal, unilaterally, with strategic issues Pakistan is facing on the War on Terror front. Also, the PPP-led political government is less likely to give a free space to these three politicians who are its potential rivals, most prominently PML-N, in the forthcoming election. PPP’s trouble-shooter, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, has sought ‘next few days’ for response to TTP’s offer.
JUI’s Deputy Secretary General Farid Paracha has already put enough weight behind this impression by saying that how his party could play as a guarantor given the government’s unwillingness to implement even the parliamentary resolutions.
Amid these miscomprehensions and apprehensions, the PPP would end up with the only choice of mobilising another Taliban favourite: Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. Dr Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, and a disgraced figure for his alleged involvement in nuclear proliferation, is a ‘national asset’ to TTP, as Ihsan dubbed him in his 7-minute video message. It is prerequisite for a conflict resolution process that the mediator be acceptable to all sides. The non-partisan status of Dr Khan makes the former nuclear scientist equally a preferred choice for the PPP government.
What is direly needed in this country is to have a single legitimate decision-making central authority, let’s say the Parliament, which could independently decide the ill-defined national interest of Pakistan.
Putting it more simply, we would never be able to put an end to this never-lasting ideological fight called War on Terror if all pillars of the state, which include the government, army, judiciary, media and bureaucracy, fail to go hand-in-hand in bargaining with the militants.
The writer is a Karachi-based journalist. He can be reached at ismaildilawar@gmail.com