Of the five witnesses who provided testimony at the February
congressional hearing on Balochistan, Ralph Peters was the most
controversial -- condemned by those who favor America's partnership with
Pakistan but applauded by those who support Balochistan's independence.
Based upon the reaction of the Baloch diaspora, one might expect that
their "hero" would share their nonpareil optimism for an independent
Balochistan. But, that is simply not the case.
While Peters remains "warmly committed to the cause of independence,
freedom and human rights for all Baloch," he readily acknowledges they
will probably not soon win their independence from Iran or Pakistan.
And, to some degree, he thinks they have themselves to blame.
From Peters perspective, the Baloch must overcome the intra-Baloch
feuding which is severely undermining their cause. They also need to
combat human rights violations by Baloch nationalists and mature their
diplomatic engagement with the West.
In the long-term, Peters remains optimistic the Balcoh will achieve
independence in all or part of their lands. This could result from
either the Baloch winning their independence through a sustained
diplomatic campaign or having it thrust upon them by what he sees as the
inevitable collapse (or dismemberment) of Afghanistan, Iran, and
Pakistan.
Either way, he cautions the Baloch will still need to unite their
various factions if they hope to effectively govern. If they cannot,
their freedom could simply produce another cycle of conflict, which is
not something Western policymakers will support.
Public fratricide
According to Peters, one of the most serious issues with the Baloch
independence movement is "deeply troubling" infighting. In fact, he is
emphatic in his condemnation of such bickering; going so far as to
assert: "they are quickly becoming their own worst enemies."
In his view, individual Baloch simply don't understand that their
personal feuding undermines the larger movement: "Certain Baloch fail to
understand that their only hope in gaining independence is if they put
their own egos and vanity aside and work together. This is the cold hard
fact. They are already outgunned and outmanned. Pakistan will continue
to to exploit their differences until they realize this."
So long as the Baloch continue to engage in "petty infighting,"
including "savaging each other in emails," Peters is pessimistic they
can garner widespread support in the West. In fact, he warns that such
infighting could eventually put off even their staunchest supporters.
As a result, he recommends that the Baloch leadership and activists
set the example and halt their public bickering: "The Baloch leaders
need to stop their severe personal attacks on each other and others. In
the military, we say that you don't let an entire attack get bogged down
by a single sniper. But, there are individuals out there who are
causing divisions and attacking people. They tend to look at the debate
as if you don't agree with me completely then you're my enemy. This
undermines their cause."
Until these leaders and activists "support the big picture," Peters
offers little hope that the broader Baloch nation will be able to "work
together, put aside their deep divide, and unify." This troubles Peters
as he confides: "At this point, do I believe they have a good chance of
achieving independence? No. But, it would be much higher in the future
if they just start working together. It's frustrating that the leaders
can't unite."
Peters is also bothered by the Baloch tendancy to blame such
infighting on covert operations by Pakistan's military and security
services: "The region as a whole tends to blame conspiracy theories.
But, I have come to believe that you never accept conspiracies when
something can be explained by incompetence. There are probably a mix of
things going on here. The Pakistani military and intelligence services
probably have provocateurs working in Balochistan just like they do in
Afghanistan. They live by the old rule of divide and conquer and they
are good at that. But, the bigger issue is the Baloch's own egos. That's
what needs addressed."
Victims not perpetrators
Separately, Peters calls the Baloch to clean their house of human
rights violators because Baloch extremists represent a very serious
threat to their cause: "I am very concerned with Baloch extremists.
Killing teachers and doctors is just dumb. It might feel good as revenge
but it is not going to win you friends in Washington. Assassinating
these folks is just hurting their movement."
In his view, such extremists represent more than just the inability
of the Baloch leadership to control all factions under the umbrella of
Baloch nationalism. They also illustrate one of the major problems
undermining the insurgency at the operational level: "The Baloch need
tactical purpose. You don't just kill Punjabi teachers because you don't
want them teaching in your schools. You kill those committing the
atrocities -- the Pakistani agents and enforcers."
When asked whether he thinks the Baloch leadership can easily rein in
these groups, Peters says he is not sure. But, he is of the view that
they don't have an option. If they don't, he believes they are headed
for a very uncertain future, "Could they become the next Tamil Tigers,
that's a possibility. At present, anything is possible because the
Baloch have not even laid out how a government would work. Instead of
fighting, they need to look at developing more sophisticated systems,
like a constitution, governmental structure, and press relations. Until
that happens, it is difficult to say which way they go."
Leadership deficit
Acknowledging that the "Baloch are very inexperienced," Peters is
pragmatic in rounding out his list of recommendations. He argues that
they must develop a more sophisticated approach to their diplomatic
engagement with the West if they have any hope of courting the favor of
the United States and other NATO members.
Peters says this starts at the political level, where the Baloch must
understand the "relative importance" of various stakeholders and
influencers which will decide their fate in the West: "The Baloch can't
see that people like me are not the important people. The key people are
Congressman Rohrabacher and the other Congressmen. They are too
inexperienced to understand that."
While he understands that such complexities are beyond the average
Baloch living in Kundi, he thinks they should be better grasped by the
leadership. Unfortunately, he does not see this happening. And, he sees
this as part of the larger issue with the competence of the Baloch
leadership: "The Baloch need leadership. It is not the United State's
place to pick their winners. Look at Ahmed Chalabi and Hamid Karzai.
They need to work this out and they need to develop leaders who we can
trust."
If the Baloch had more effective leaders, Peters is confident the
diaspora would not be so "naïve" in thinking the support of a half-dozen
Congressmen is sufficient: "The Baloch had too high of expectations for
the hearing. They have a hard time understanding that things like
independence don't happen quickly. The hearing was a historic event --
it got their cause on-the-record. But, the Baloch thought it would get
the ball rolling much faster than it did. They simply don't understand
that there are still hundreds of Congressmen who don't know where
Balochistan is on a map. Their independence will take decades not
years."
Peters also believes that the Baloch should better understand what
the international community can offer their cause. Right now, he sees a
major disconnect between what the Baloch want from their diplomatic
outreach and what they are likely to receive: "Look, the U.S. military
is not going to put troops on the ground to liberate Balochistan. And,
in the short-term, you are not going to see the U.S. overtly providing
arms to the Baloch no matter how frustrated we are with Pakistan. They
will have to win independence for themselves. They need to figure out
how."
Finally, Peters argues that the Baloch leadership needs to better
educate Baloch activists on media decorum. If they fail to do so, he
fears that they will fail to garner the awareness necessary to influence
Western governments to take action: "At the hearing, they gave a
platform to someone who does not have their best interests at heart by
attacking her and the media. They need to understand how the Western
press works. It would have been better for them to appear magnanimous
than attack others. Their hearts might have been in the right place but
they just don't understand how international media and governments work.
Their actions were detrimental to their cause."
As one of the most vocal American supporters of Baloch independence,
Peters hopes that the Baloch leadership will take these points under
advisement without prejudice, noting that his criticism is only meant to
"help not wound."
Eddie Walsh is a senior foreign correspondent who covers Africa and
Asia-Pacific. He also serves as a non-resident fellow at Pacific Forum
CSIS. Follow him on Twitter: @ASEANReporting
The views expressed by the interviewee do not necessarily reflect those of the interviewer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eddie-walsh/baloch-pakistan_b_1326421.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment