On February 9, 2012, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs convened a hearing on "Baluchistan" [sic], chaired by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R - CA). I, along with Messrs Ralph Peters, T. Kumar, Ali Dyan Hasan and Dr. M. Hosseinbor, testified as a witness in that hearing.
When I agreed to participate, I was told that the hearing was intended to be a general introduction to the various crises in Balochistan, their causes and the impact of these issues on U.S. interests. However, as the date of the hearing neared, I learned that the event would serve other purposes.
When I sought guidance about the precise issues I should discuss in my testimony, the committee staff member told me, in some exasperation, that "we want to stick it to the Pakistanis." He continued that for a decade the Pakistanis have been killing us in Afghanistan. While I fully agreed with the sentiment behind his remarks, I grew concerned that the hearing was not genuinely motivated by concern over the human rights challenges confronting the residents of Balochistan. Instead, this was an opportunity to interfere in the administration's ongoing efforts to develop a policy towards Pakistan, as well as Afghanistan.
Barely a week later, Congressman Rohrabacher introduced a Resolution "Expressing the sense of Congress that the people of Baluchistan, currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan, have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign country." Needless to say, this non-binding resolution does not reflect the sense of Congress and no Congressmen have embraced the measure. However, this resolution and the preceding hearing did much to rankle Pakistan and render any rapprochement between Washington and Islamabad (not to mention Rawalpindi) even more difficult.
Many members of the Baloch diaspora who support an independent Balochistan have been extremely excited by these developments. Unfortunately, there are reasons to suspect that Congressman Rohrabacher's actions are not inspired by any genuine concern over ongoing human rights violations perpetrated against, as well as by, the Baloch inhabitants of the province.
There are multiple reasons for my skepticism. First, prior to the hearing, Congressmen Rohrabacher--with Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX)--had already penned an opinion piece in which he suggested that the United States should lend its"....support for a Balochistan carved out of Pakistan to diminish [Pakistan's] radical power". Second, the integrity of the hearing was immediately undermined by the inclusion of Mr. Ralph Peters, who in 2006 argued for the dissolution of Pakistan in a buffoonish essay, "Blood Borders," in the Armed Forces Journal. Specifically, he called in that piece for a "Free Baluchistan." How could an independent observer conclude that the hearing was anything but an attempt to promote the belief in Pakistan that the world's most powerful parliament was seeking to undermine its territorial integrity?
Unfortunately, this is not the first geopolitical exploit Mr. Rohrabacher has orchestrated. In January of 2012, he and Mr. Gohmert, among other Congresspersons, held a controversial meeting in Berlin with several representatives of the now defunct Northern Alliance. The goal of the meeting was to undermine the administration's current, if difficult and tentative, negotiations with the Taliban. In the Op-Ed already mentioned, Rohrabacher and Gohmert called for a new "Constitutional Loya Jirga, or convention, that will draft a new constitution enshrining federalism as the new form of government. This would break the Taliban's ability to dominate Afghanistan by strengthening those communities opposed to the return of the Taliban and their Al-Qaeda allies."
This author agrees that the current Afghan constitution, which reflects the interests of the United States and was written as the U.S. was hastily forging its shambolic policies towards Afghanistan, is inappropriate for Afghanistan today and even agrees that the suggestion makes much sense. However, this initiative by a select number of Congressmen, who do not represent the American Congress, harmed the administration's policy towards Afghanistan and its efforts to extract the U.S. from a deadly and flawed counterinsurgency policy that has borne few fruits. Worse, it inflamed the Afghan government, which saw this move as a deliberate effort to usurp its own primary place in negotiating Afghanistan's future. Needless to say, the fixation with the warlords of the Northern Alliance belies an astonishing ignorance about these men's involvement in war crimes and appalling human rights violations (such as the shocking practices of child rape and child concubinage (bacchebazi). While the Taliban are widely seen as violent and illegitimate actors who have killed tens of thousands, for some reason the militias of the former Northern Alliance have managed to distance themselves in the American mind from their own violent and repugnant pasts.
The Obama administration has been busy trying to limit the repercussions of Rohrabacher and Gohmert's machinations. The State Department has had to bear the brunt of Pakistan's considerable and justified anger over Congressional meddling in what is clearly an internal affair-even if that internal affair is appalling. (Can anyone imagine a comparable hearing on the Indian counterinsurgency campaigns in Kashmir? In each case the actions of the state involved raise uncomfortable questions for the United States.) Given that the duo has limited support in Congress for their efforts to change policy towards Afghanistan or Pakistan, and given also that such efforts have been repudiated by the administration, it remains to ask why they continue to pursue this folly.
The most facile reading is that Rohrabacher and Gohmert are genuinely frustrated, both with failed U.S. policy in Afghanistan and with the fact that Pakistan, while continuing to benefit from a variety of U.S. assistance programs, provides support for a wide array of terrorist groups opposed to U.S. interests. (Both Pakistan and the United States disagree on what the amounts transferred are, where they go and how they are used.) If this is indeed their motivation, I share their vexation. But seeking to force U.S.-Pakistan relations to a breaking point does not serve U.S. interests, or Pakistan's for that matter. After all, no matter how much Pakistanis resent the United States, U.S. support at the IMF is critical to keeping Pakistan afloat despite its severe fiscal problems.
A more cynical interpretation of Rohrabacher and Gohmert's actions might involve the desire for access to natural resources in both Afghanistan and Balochistan. In light of this suspicion, one must ask who paid for the Berlin conference? What private sector entities may have a vested interest in pushing this strange, orphaned agenda?
There are no ready answers to these questions. However, I can say with some certainty that the hearing and the Resolution that followed it have much more to do with partisan politics, and possibly resource-grabbing, than with any interest in the ongoing human rights crises in Balochistan.
C. Christine Fair is assistant professor in the Peace and Security Studies Program in Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. Follow her on Twitter at CChristineFair. Her testimony can be found here.
Follow C. Christine Fair on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cchristinefair
The dirty of US on the resources of the province & access routes via gwadar port, Sardari system and their secret jails, BLA & SSP unatural alliance n logistics and cordination, secetarian issues! #pakistan army fight to protect civilians from terror groups.
The urgent need for Good governance and Management, development, education, employment Health, rights & tapping in to the resources for Richer & Vibrant Balochistan!
These are the real issues that every person lving in Balochistan accepts as reality and not the spin that is being played in western media.
Dear Sir, we accept intellectual like you to condemn these injustice. kindly stop making more hatred... thank you
Professor C Fair, these Baloch diaspora knew long time ago about the United States of America’s decades of history, its support for dictator and ruthless regimes around the world and its wrong policies towards all oppressed nations. Let’s say if United States realized its past mistake then what is wrong with it.
As far as Baloch Diaspora is concerned, the recent change of heart from United States towards Baloch nation is going to be its own long term interest. It’s a win-win game for both sides please take out your dark glasses and see the unfolding situation clearly.
Sadly, your sources are mostly from Pakistani researchers, academias, and officials’ version of the facts about artificial state of Pakistan. Perhaps, you are making your analyses based on these shallow sources which will lack credibility unless you become impartial.
Army and ISI cant be blamed for the poverty since last 64 years. Baloch people specially youngsters need to realize the actual reason of their deprivation and poverty. Their Sardars have been controlling them and paying them to destroy Electricity Towers, Gas Pipelines and fight against Security forces.
First of all, Pakistan will never debate on Balochistan's freedom, even if US raises concern over the situation in Balochistan, it is ONLY and ONLY in US's interest ... they need some place to control Afghanistan and other nearby countries, That's it.
History has taught us whenever US raised their voice for "somebody" ... it was only and only US's own interest, look at Iraq, Egypt, Libya etc.
Also, reason for Afghan war dragging on for 10 years is failure of US to recognize early on that Northern Alliance represents a minority and to achieve peace, they need to deal with the majority Pashtuns and Taliban are Pashtuns.
Prof. Fair knows quite well that even today Pakistan is basically ruled by military generals.
Pakistan military is conducting a secret dirty war in Balochistan. Bodies of 350 best sons of Balochistan soil, writers, intellectuals, doctors, lawyers, students have been dumped since July 2010 by the Pakistani Military Intelligence, I.S.I., Frontier Corps. Let alone commoners, even females from high Baloch families are being brutally killed by Pakistan intelligence services.
The right to self-determination is recognized by the U.N. charter and international law.
A free Balochistan is in the U.S. interests. I think the Baloch are willing to share their rich natural resources 50-50 with the U.S. In Pakistan, they cannot even dream to get five percent.
I advocate the right to live for the Pittbulls that Prof. Fair loves; why can't she defend the right to self-determination of the Baloch people.
I salute the Heroes of Balochistan, the most honorable U.S. congressmen, who have espoused the Balochistan cause against the wrath of the the Taliban in uniform.
These sardar now singing for freedom, years back singing for Pakistan,and sit in miniseries.
You blindly putting every Baloch killings on ISI, fact is this,Baloch tribes are also busy in their internal fights too. I hope, you know, that NP and BNP both have this thing in their memory that BLF killed their leaders,and openly admitted this.
We put this responsible to "Pakistan`s punjabi" only if the Baloch leaders were also poor. They living well established life in Karachi, London, Dubaii etc. What they gave to their own nation?
Majority of Baloch are patriotic Pakistan and are against these Baloch sardars. Who playing their dirty bloody game,while sitting outside the Balochistan.
Baluchistan has been the most resourceful province of Pakistan yet over the past six decades the people of Baluchistan have not benefited at all. I will give a quick example of the Sui Gas, located near Dera Bugti:
Discovered & Explored in: 1952
Reached Karachi: 1954
Reached Lahore: 1956
Reached Peshawar: 1960
Arrived in Quetta, capital of Baluchistan in 1985. Even today most parts of Baluchistan are deprived from this natural resource.
The only way Pakistan has been defending itself by saying that Baluchistan has been neglected because of their own Sardars and Nawabs, a lame excuse.
Of course US is interested in the resources of Baluchistan and we welcome them to support us in getting for independence and help us to build our nation; same way the Westerns helped and developed the Gulf Countries. Pakistan has been exploiting our resources but giving us nothing in return not even employment let alone royalties.
That may be true, but as an expert analyst in world affairs, she must know that no state takes a position on such matters without implied self-interest involved. Our support for getting rid of Saddam, totalitarian system in Iran, support for revolution in Libya, Syria etc. all have deep motives of national self-interest as the basis as opposed to pure humanitarian concerns. Didn't we support Pakistan's position on Kashmir in the past out of our need for Pakistan's support for our interests in the region? So, I don't see anything wrong in what Rohrabacher is doing with respect to Balochistan.
Now that they came up with this hearing they have only made a bad situation worse. Right wingers have always alleged that there was a conspiracy to break Pakistan up. Now they have more reason to strike back in anger. People who were on the fence will now side with the establishment and support more human rights violations. I really hope that our judiciary addresses human rights violations in Balochistan and the world does take notice once and for all. I hope that someone does conduct a hearing about the situation instead of using it to take cheap shots.
Rohrabachar wants a civil war in Pakistan by provoquing such internal issues.
The only people who do not favour Independence in Baluchistan are the immigrants from other provinces especially from Punjab.
I am a resident of Shall (Quetta) Baluchistan and a native Baluch. This is not the first resistance against the Pakistani Draconian government but the fifth one and so far it has been the most intensive of them all; the reason being that the working Baluch class is involved, whether we look at the armed Baluch forces or the peaceful ones, it constitutes of Baluch from all walks of life and tribes not just the dominate tribes of Marri, Bugti & Mengal. Pakistan keeps insisting that this insurgency is instigated by the Sardar but in reality its the people of Baluchistan who are taking a stand for their rights.
Back in 2005 when Musharrafs regime decided to quell the Baluch insurgency by bombarding Dera Bugti, he had contemplated that only couple of Baluch tribes are the cause of this insurgency but obviously it was not; even after the murder of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti the uprising continued to erupt in a unprecedented way.