Asia

Q&A: Balochistan

On 17th February 2012 three US lawmakers led by Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican from California introduced a resolution in the US House of representatives. The resolution stated: “The Baloch 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,” Dawn 18 Feb 2012. The issue gained international attention after Dana Rohrabacher raised the issue of Balochistan. This also led to a debate within Pakistan about the Baloch issue with Baloch leaders being interviewed on national media and a discussion started on the Balochistan issue within the Pakistani intelligentsia. Dana Rohrabacher US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland also spoke about human rights violation in Balochistan. Why is America raising the Balochistan issue? Does America really want to divide Pakistan? What is the role of the British in the province?

To understand the situation in Balochistan and America’s interference in the area, the following points must be borne in mind:

1- The present day Balochistan region is divided into three parts: Northern Balochistan (also known as Afghani Balochistan), Western Balochistan (Iranian Balochistan), and Eastern Balochistan (found in Pakistan). As far as Eastern Balochistan is concerned, it is one of the four provinces of Pakistan and by far the largest province. It makes up approximately 44% of Pakistan’s total land mass. It is bordered by Iran to the west, Afghanistan to the north-west, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly known as North Western Frontier Province (NWFP)) and FATA to the north, Punjab to the north-east and Sindh to the south-east. Quetta is the largest city and is the provincial capital. Hence, it not surprising to find a number of ethnic communities living in the province. The main ethnic groups in the province are the Baloch and Pashtun, with smaller communities of Sindhis living mainly in the south-eastern districts. The main languages in the province that are spoken by the population are Balochi (40%), Pashto (40%) and Brahui (20%). However it is Balochistan’s unique geographical characteristics that has given the region its strategic importance and has attracted the attention of a number of foreign powers over the centuries. Its proximity to the Middle East, Southwest Asia, Central Asia and South Asia have made it the playground for international powers to secure their interests. In modern times this has been further exacerbated by the fact that it is the nearest coastline to Central Asia. The port of Gwadar has accentuated the desire amongst foreign powers most notably America, Russia, China and some European countries to secure their interests.

2- Balochistan is blessed with an abundance of minerals and hydrocarbon energy reserves such as: copper, gold, sulphide, zinc-lead, iron ore, fluorite, barite, chromite, dolomite, gypsum, limestone, coal and natural gas. It is copper and gold that has attracted the attention of foreign companies. Reko Diq a place in Balochistan has one of the largest copper and gold reserves known. Foreign companies such as Antofagasta Minerals, Barrick Gold, BHP Billiton and Tethyan are looking to exploit these rich resources.

3- Since early times, the tribes in Balochistan have always been restive and difficult to manage and control. Even at the time of the Khaleefah ur Rashidoon, numerous revolts took place but were subdued under Islamic rule. But the restive nature of the Baloch people continued to persist and again surfaced during the period of the Mongols, the Mughal era, and the British rule. Hence, modern day Pakistan by and large inherited this problem and in many ways adopted the same policy as the British did i.e. to ensure that the scale of the restiveness was kept to a minimum by pitting various Baloch tribes against each other and rewarding their leaders. A natural consequence of the policy meant that the Baloch people would suffer endlessly, whilst their leaders enjoyed immense wealth and riches. Occasionally, the agitation of the Baloch people would spread out of control and the Pakistan military would be used to quell the rebellion and strike new deals with the tribal chiefs. Thereafter the army would withdraw and leave it to the local leadership to manage the situation. This is exactly how successive Pakistani governments in cohorts with the army managed the Baloch uprisings of 1948 (First uprising), 1958–59 (second uprising), 1973–77 (third uprising) and 1973–77 (fourth uprising). In this way, Pakistan has effectively managed a low intensity Baloch insurgency for the past 60 odd years, without exploring a long-term political solution for the Balochistan province.

4- In the aftermath of President Musharraf’s actions of siding with America in its war on Islam, Pakistan’s strategic depth in Afghanistan was compromised. This enabled America, Britain, and India to increase their influence in Balochistan through military bases and consulates located in Afghanistan. The years of neglect and the absence of long-term political solutions meant that it was easy for these countries to find support amongst the Baloch tribes and exploit them for their own interests. America’s interests were rooted in using Balochistan to apply pressure on both Iran and Pakistan to safeguard her strategic interests. In the case of Pakistan, America meddled in the internal affairs of the province to remind the Pakistani establishment, especially the army to fall in line with her policies for Afghanistan and the tribal areas. Subsequently, Pakistan found it very difficult to contend with the fifth uprising that started in 2004 and continues till today. The death of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti in 2006 has brought little relief and the uprising has been transformed into a mini insurgency that is sapping the strength of the Pakistani army. Pakistan’s efforts to look for a military solution to the issue, which includes killings and abductions on a large scale has backfired and has only emboldened the insurgency. Furthermore, it has encouraged different strands of political solutions to emerge. Some Balochs are calling for greater autonomy and more rights from the federation, whilst others are calling for an independent Balochistan state, which includes the Iranian Balochistan.

5- It is against this background that the recent remarks by US politicians and analysts have to be interpreted. Californian Republican, Dana Rohrabacher is leading the campaign for greater independence for Balochistan, and he has been joined in this crusade by fellow Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert and Steve King. On 18 February 2012, the three Republican politicians tabled a bill before congress stating that Balochistan is currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan with no sovereign rights of its own. The resolution explains that “in Pakistan especially, the Baluchi people are subjected to violence and extrajudicial killing,” and therefore, the Baluchi 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 three politicians are not alone in fomenting a new assault on Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty. Earlier, on 8 February 2012, the US subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs convened a hearing on the extrajudicial killings and human rights situation in Balochistan. Rohrabacher who chaired the meeting invited retired Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters, to testify. Lt. Col. Peters was the architect of the infamous 2006 – New Middle East map and is a passionate advocator for the disintegration of the Muslim world along sectarian and religious fault lines. His map shows a number of Muslim countries (including Pakistan) truncated.

Speaking before the committee Peters said, “We need to ask honestly why Baluchis are not entitled to a Free Balochistan, why the Pashtuns – despite their abhorrent customs – are not entitled to a Pakhtunkhwa for all Pashtuns, why forty-million Kurds aren’t entitled to a Free Kurdistan…”

The US government on the other hand was very quick to distance itself from the Congressional hearing conducted by Rohrabacher and Peter’s testimony. The spokesperson for the US State Department Victoria Nuland said, “Our view on Balochistan has not changed. We are aware of this hearing. As you know, Congress holds hearings on many foreign affairs topics. These hearings don’t necessarily imply that the US government endorses one view or another view. I’d underscore that the State Department is not participating or involved in this hearing.”

6- However, denials from the US government do not square well with overwhelming evidence that the US through its think-tanks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), US sponsored websites and dubious Baluchi movements are instigating a domestic uprising in the Balochistan province.

Way back in 2006, the eminent US think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published a report titled, “Pakistan: The Resurgence of Baluch Nationalism.” The report highlights the rich natural resources of Balochistan and then makes the case to use Baluchi rebels against Islamabad and Tehran. Furthermore, the US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the Voice of Balochistan (VOB) have been instrumental in fomenting dissension and nationalistic feelings. NED has been funding the Balochistan Institute for Development (BIFD) which claims to be the leading resource on democracy, development and human rights in Balochistan, whereas the VOB on the other hand, has been active in carrying propaganda messages on behalf of the American government. Also, there is the Baluchi Society of North America, which openly carries messages of support from Rohrabacher. Over the past few years, the US has also been pressing Pakistan to allow it to open a consulate in Quetta the capital of Balochistan. And no doubt the consulate is central to US plans to have a greater say on Balochistan’s relationship with the federal government of Pakistan.

7- Taking all this into consideration as well as what was mentioned in the declaration of the spokesperson for the US State Department, we can say that the recent activity by US politicians in promoting the Balochistan issue is not serious to separate Balochistan from Pakistan at least in the foreseeable future but it is for now putting pressure on the Pakistani army to comply with America’s wish to secure Afghanistan by opening up the NATO supply lines, allowing US soldiers more access to roam freely and conducting operations against militants in Waziristan. During this time the US will continue to build up its influence and assets in Balochistan and use them at a later date to even dismember Pakistan.

As for Britain and India, they continue also to build influence in the province, but their activities are limited and known to the Americans.

Filed under: Asia