Quetta, Balochistan

[1980s]

Fortunately for Baluchi journalist Malik Siraj Akbar, he is now no longer at risk from ending up like Syed Saleem Shahzad: Why I fled Pakistan - Blog - Committee to Protect Journalists

[S2]

Thanks, 1980s. Nice find. Mr. Akbar is lucky to be alive. Truly so. I've a journalist friend in Pakistan and I worry about her. She's a good woman and, fortunately, most of her work has thus far not entailed the Baloch unrest. Still, she's a Karachi mohajir that's covered some of the trouble in FATAville. Right now she's guilty of being a female mohajir journalist from Karachi and, for some, that's sufficient indictment to be killed.

My government, and many others, are guilty of not sufficiently highlighting this systematic suppression of independant reporting. I'm sure the Pakistani leadership would simply dismiss such as another in a long list of "do more" complaints.

True enough, I suppose. There's so much there for which the Pakistani leaders must DO MORE.

[1980s]

Al Jazeera World: Balochistan: Pakistan's other war

Baloch politicians and leaders share their vision of self-determination and freedom from Pakistani rule
Al Jazeera World Last Modified: 04 Jan 2012 13:23

In the rugged mountains of southwest Pakistan lies the country's largest province of Balochistan. Far from the bustling cities of Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad, this remote region has been the battleground for a 60-year-long insurgency by the Baloch ethnic minority.

The ongoing conflict is often called Pakistan's dirty war, because of the rising numbers of people who have disappeared or have been killed on both sides.

But the uprising against Pakistan's government has received little attention worldwide, in part because most eyes have been focused on the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in other areas of Pakistan.

Bordering Iran and Afghanistan, Balochistan remains notorious for cross-border smuggling and has more recently been infiltrated by former members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives. Few outsiders gain access or permission to travel in the region.

Al Jazeera's Ahmad Zaidan travelled to Balochistan to meet with key Balochi politicians who explain the history and current circumstances of the region and to get an exclusive interview with the leader of the Balochistan rebel movement seeking secession from Pakistan.

This film offers a glimpse into a region which, in 2010, had the highest number of militant, insurgent and sectarian attacks of any province in Pakistan. It is a region torn apart with separatist organisations attacking the state, sectarian and ethnic attacks, and crime, including kidnapping for ransom.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...372863878.html

====

I found this to be a good documentary. It doesnt add much more to what has already been collected here, but seeing a lot of this in the form of interviews and a documentary is good change from articles. Its just too bad that for whatever reasons, the issue of Taliban sanctuaries in Balochistan was not addressed at all, nor the activity of Pakistani sectarian-terrorists like the Lashkar e Jhangvi which are involved in attacks on Shi'a Hazara's in Balochistan and possibly attacks on NATO convoy's too. But still a worthwhile watch.

[Sparking Neuron]

hmm..tht was a nice documentary.
It is said tht balochistan is a place whr children walk on gold...but they walk barefooted. And i agree tht people of balochistan dont rule balochistan..actually people of pakistan dont rule pakistan. Note the contrast in the life styles of common baloch public and their sardars(lords) in this very vdo...not much different thn wht u'd c in medieval feudal societies. only people who are suffering here r the ones who'v always been suffering. Baloch sardars r enjoying their luxurious lives with children in international universities and the poor r ruining their lives in the mountains.
Resources of the balochistan ARE sucked out of balochistan... to the areas where voters are rather denser. no eye sees a profit in maintaining balochistan..in tht sense the baloch are right.

But story is much complexer in my opinion. It isnt something like guys in white beating guys in black. Or a darth vader sitting in Islamabad.

[troung]

Balochistan resolution: Pakistan summons US envoy, lodges strong protest
PTI | Feb 20, 2012, 06.18PM IST
Article
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 964445.cms
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan foreign ministry today summoned the acting American envoy and lodged a "strong protest" over the tabling of a resolution in the US Congress seeking the right to self-determination for the Baloch people, which has emerged as the latest irritant in bilateral ties.

Richard Hoagland, the US charge d' affaires, was called to the foreign ministry and a "strong protest was lodged with him with regard to the tabling of a resolution on Balochistan in the US Congress", said a statement from the foreign office.

Hoagland was "told in clear terms that the move in the US Congress was contrary to the spirit of friendly relations and violative of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and recognized norms of inter-state conduct", the statement said.

"He was asked to convey the serious concern of the Government of Pakistan to the US Administration," it added.

Over the weekend, Pakistan's top leadership reacted angrily to the resolution moved in the US House of Representatives by congressman Dana Rohrabacher, with prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani describing the move as an attack on the country's sovereignty.

"We condemn it as it is against our sovereignty," Gilani said.

Foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar too took strong exception to the resolution on Balochistan, which has witnessed a spike in violence by nationalist groups that are seeking greater autonomy and a say in the exploitation of the southwestern province's abundant natural resources, including minerals and gas.

[1980s]

Very interesting comments from Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid carried by the BBC on Baluchistan which tie into the original theme of this thread:

Until now, there has been a kind of ethnic peace between the Baloch and Pakistani and Afghan Pashtuns living in Balochistan, but that could end in a bloodbath. Some right-wing American politicians like Dana Rohrabacher talk of an alliance between Baloch separatists and Afghanistan's anti-Taliban former Northern Alliance.

Such an alliance would jointly take on the Taliban. That is dangerous talk because it could end up with the partitioning of both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

BBC News - Waking up to the war in Balochistan

BBC News - How Baloch bloggers are leading dissent

[S2]

1980s Reply

"...Some right-wing American politicians like Dana Rohrabacher talk of an alliance between Baloch separatists and Afghanistan's anti-Taliban former Northern Alliance.

Such an alliance would jointly take on the Taliban. That is dangerous talk because it could end up with the partitioning of both Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Rashid should know better than to direct his wrath at Dana Rohrabacher. It's not within Rohrabacher's abilities to conjure such an alliance between the Baloch and disaffected Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbek elements within Afghanistan. Instead, this is the natural regional outcome of consistent Pakistani meddling within Afghanistan coupled with RAWALPINDI's (please note my exclusion of Islamabad;))willful ignorance of legitimate Baloch concerns that have finally reached the point of irrevocable rupture.

"...The Pakistan army needs to see the writing on the wall and swiftly urge the government to open genuine talks and offer real concessions to the Baloch. The Baloch say they are beyond accepting any compromise with the state, but no Pakistani entity has ever tried talking to them."

Rashid has it right but, I fear, belatedly so for Pakistan. Nothing in Pakistan's past can assure Baloch representatives that the government might be a good-faith bargainer.

[Tronic]

hmm..tht was a nice documentary.
It is said tht balochistan is a place whr children walk on gold...but they walk barefooted. And i agree tht people of balochistan dont rule balochistan..actually people of pakistan dont rule pakistan. Note the contrast in the life styles of common baloch public and their sardars(lords) in this very vdo...not much different thn wht u'd c in medieval feudal societies. only people who are suffering here r the ones who'v always been suffering. Baloch sardars r enjoying their luxurious lives with children in international universities and the poor r ruining their lives in the mountains.
Resources of the balochistan ARE sucked out of balochistan... to the areas where voters are rather denser. no eye sees a profit in maintaining balochistan..in tht sense the baloch are right.

But story is much complexer in my opinion. It isnt something like guys in white beating guys in black. Or a darth vader sitting in Islamabad.

The one thing that is always thrown up by most Pakistanis is that it is not Pakistan, but the Balochi sardars who are exploiting the people and are medieval.

You being a Pakistani, let me ask you, what is the difference between Balochi sardars and Punjabi and Sindhi jagirdars and zamindars? AFAIK, Pakistan never abolished the Jagirdari system after the British left, and that makes all of Pakistan, not only the Baloch, feudal!

How can the Balochi sardars be solely blamed for Balochistan's backwardness, when the Punjabi Jagirdars have the most power?

The Balochis are being exploited by the feudals sitting in Islamabad. The Zardaris, Gillanis, Sharif brothers, Bhuttos, are all Jagirdars, Zamindar, and other elitists.

The Balochi sardars are much lower in that hierarchy system, and thus, even they feel exploited by the Punjabi elite!

Than there are the Balochi Sardars who have been bought over by Islamabad, so they don't have much issues, as they are granted all the perks the Punjabi elitists enjoy. And than there are the sardars who have spilled too much blood of their own families to be able to forgive and forget; the Marri and Bugti tribes are an example of this and thus these two tribes are the current targets of the Pakistan army.

Also, to add; the rise of Islamic extremism, the Punjabi Taliban, can also all be granted to the Punjabi feudal lords, which no one in Pakistan seems to want to admit. Take note, the first targets of the Taliban (after the Pashtun tribal elders), were the houses and mansions of the Jagirdars and Zamindars in the tribal belt!

[S2]

Tronic Reply

"You being a Pakistani, let me ask you, what is the difference between Balochi sardars and Punjabi and Sindhi jagirdars and zamindars? AFAIK, Pakistan never abolished the Jagirdari system after the British left, and that makes all of Pakistan, not only the Baloch, feudal!

How can the Balochi sardars be solely blamed for Balochistan's backwardness, when the Punjabi Jagirdars have the most power?

The Balochis are being exploited by the feudals sitting in Islamabad. The Zardaris, Gillanis, Sharif brothers, Bhuttos, are all Jagirdars, Zamindar, and other elitists.

The Balochi sardars are much lower in that hierarchy system, and thus, even they feel exploited by the Punjabi elite!"

I don't think you'd get much argument from Sparking Neuron or IHM. Nonetheless, Sparking Neuron's (and many Pakistanis) point is well-taken that the Baloch people would likely be as exploited by their own Sardars as they've been by Islamabad. The Sardar sense of entitlement will prove problematic overcoming.

Independance certainly is no guarantor of true choices and democratic freedom. Not, least, in societies where feudal tribalism still reigns.

[Tronic]

I don't think you'd get much argument from Sparking Neuron or IHM. Nonetheless, Sparking Neuron's (and many Pakistanis) point is well-taken that the Baloch people would likely be as exploited by their own Sardars as they've been by Islamabad. The Sardar sense of entitlement will prove problematic overcoming.

Independance certainly is no guarantor of true choices and democratic freedom. Not, least, in societies where feudal tribalism still reigns.

I agree with that S2.

However, singling out the Baloch sardars seems to leave out the main feudal problem rampant in the entire country.

Until and unless Pakistanis as a whole take down the feudal structure in their entire country, blind to the fact if the Sardars are Baloch or Punjabi, the Baloch issue isn't even on the right track to being solved.

In all this, we are putting aside the fact that the modern Baloch independence movement actually has its roots in a Socialist, Marxist, left-leaning secular ideology. Baksh Bizenjo and Gul Khan Nasir, seen as the fathers of Baloch nationalism, were not Sardars, nor had elitist backgrounds, but lower middle class men.

The fact is that the majority of the Baloch Sardars today are not pro-Independence but pro-Pakistan, since it is only through the Pak government from which they derive their feudal power. It has always been the lower rung deprived folks who have formed the backbone of the BLA and BRA of today, and the PFAR and BPLF of yesteryear.

The problem roots itself from Islamabad and that is where real change has to begin. Unfortunately for Pakistan, I don't believe the Pakistani elitists or the Pak army are able to see the country's interests beyond their own.


Edit: To put my collective thoughts in one line; The socialist character and the roots of the Baloch struggle for freedom from Pakistan, is also one, as a struggle for freedom from feudalism.

[S2]

Tronic Reply

"...The socialist character and the roots of the Baloch struggle for freedom from Pakistan, is also one, as a struggle for freedom from feudalism."

Not unreasonable. OTOH, all Pakistanis (and others elsewhere) share in the struggle for independance from feudal overlords. Were Punjabi, sindhi, and pashtun citizens of Pakistan able to achieve such, they could easily view Baloch independance as a threat to the state's union.

Preservation of the union is something understood well by many Americans. In some respects, the most compelling argument that could be made by Islamabad against rebelling Baloch interests might be a pan-Pakistani societal transformation empowering its populace at the expense of the ruling elite. Were such achieved peacefully there'd be little cause for Baloch rebellion and, I suspect, little internat'l support.

Of course, there's little hope for such a societal transformation within Pakistan.

[antimony]

Balochistan resolution: Pakistan summons US envoy, lodges strong protest
PTI | Feb 20, 2012, 06.18PM IST
Article
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 964445.cms
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan foreign ministry today summoned the acting American envoy and lodged a "strong protest" over the tabling of a resolution in the US Congress seeking the right to self-determination for the Baloch people, which has emerged as the latest irritant in bilateral ties.

Richard Hoagland, the US charge d' affaires, was called to the foreign ministry and a "strong protest was lodged with him with regard to the tabling of a resolution on Balochistan in the US Congress", said a statement from the foreign office.

Hoagland was "told in clear terms that the move in the US Congress was contrary to the spirit of friendly relations and violative of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and recognized norms of inter-state conduct", the statement said.

"He was asked to convey the serious concern of the Government of Pakistan to the US Administration," it added.

This is insane. The resolution was brought by Republicans in the Congress. The administration had nothing to do with it. The Republicans in Congress will laugh on the face of the ambassador when he conveys this to them and probably will bring in a few more just to spice things up for the administration.

[Tronic]

Preservation of the union is something understood well by many Americans. In some respects, the most compelling argument that could be made by Islamabad against rebelling Baloch interests might be a pan-Pakistani societal transformation empowering its populace at the expense of the ruling elite. Were such achieved peacefully there'd be little cause for Baloch rebellion and, I suspect, little internat'l support.

Of course, there's little hope for such a societal transformation within Pakistan.

Steve, do you see Pakistan as a union?

It has been imposing a superficial identity by suppressing its own native languages and cultures. The official language of Pakistan is not even native to the country, but a language spoken in a corner of India (Lucknow to be specific). Punjabi, Sindhi, Baloch or Pashto are not even recognized as national languages, despite being spoken by the majority! Hardly how unions are made!

Is it any surprise than that Pakistan has been but a grouping of lawless lands and dissenting peoples?

One of the reasons the East Pakistanis (who spoke Bengali) favoured secession, was that they were not pleased with their language and identity being suppressed!

The same is re-iterated by the Baloch separatists. They consider "Pakistaniyat" to be an attack on their Baloch identity. And they can hardly be blamed since "Pakistaniyat" has been characterized to not accommodate the local native cultures and languages but to placate a superficial identity!

A good option for Islamabad would be to decentralize its powers like New Delhi has done with its various ethnically, linguistically, culturally and even religiously diverse states. Afterall, India is a country no different, rather, even more diverse, and home to all major ethnic groups found in Pakistan (30 million Punjabis, 11 million Pashtuns and 3 million Sindhis) and many more, yet it has still managed to fare much better.

Unfortunately, the only pan-Pakistani societal transformation I've seen tabled so far has been a radical Islamist one led by the Jamaat-e-Islami.

[1980s]

Rashid should know better than to direct his wrath at Dana Rohrabacher. It's not within Rohrabacher's abilities to conjure such an alliance between the Baloch and disaffected Tajiks, Hazara and Uzbek elements within Afghanistan. Instead, this is the natural regional outcome of consistent Pakistani meddling within Afghanistan coupled with RAWALPINDI's (please note my exclusion of Islamabad;))willful ignorance of legitimate Baloch concerns that have finally reached the point of irrevocable rupture.

Absolutely. Not to mention also that Baluch nationalists have long had a good relationship with various Afghan regimes minus the Taliban going back decades, while Baluch tribes as a whole share a similarly close relationship with their Afghan neighbours going back centuries. They do not need people like Rohrabacher to help facilitate or even suggest such a relationship between Baluch rebels with either the Afghan opposition or the Karzai regime; that relationship already exists, with both.

With that said, i see the phrase "beyond the point of return" used frequently in the Pakistani online media when discussing the "deteriorating situation" (another all too common refrain) in Baluchistan these days. Years ago a number of Baluch insurgent factions had declared that their intention was to separate from Pakistan and establish and independent country, this was particularly so after Akbar Bugti was killed in 2006. It has taken the Pakistani media almost 6 years to admit that this is the objective of the Baluch rebellion, whereas before they would insist that Baluchistan was undergoing a mere "law and order" problem with only 3 tribes (the Bugti, Marri and Mengal) fighting for "gas royalties" and "autonomy". I wonder why they've only now finally decided to concede that the Baluch as a whole are indeed rebelling against the state and are seeking independence. Seems like the ISI can no longer control what the Pakistani media can report/say about Baluchistan, and to that, i think people like Dana Rohrabacher have made an impact.

[1980s]

Should the US support an independent Balochistan?

A handful of US congressmen support creating an independent Balochistan, carved out of mostly Pakistani land.
Last Modified: 03 Mar 2012 15:46

Washington, DC - Over the last few months, a small faction of congressmen, minority Afghan groups, Baloch nationalists, and their supporters have laid out the framework for an alternative US policy approach for Southwest Asia.

This alternative policy centres on backing remnants of the Northern Alliance and Baloch insurgents, who seek to carve out semi-autonomous territories or independent states from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.

While supporters of this new approach are motivated by a variety of interests, they appear unified in their rejection of what they see as three cornerstones of the Obama administration's current regional policy approach: 1) Normalising relations with Pakistan's government and military; 2) Incorporating the Taliban into the current Afghan political system; 3) Overly accommodating an emerging Iran.

In one broad stroke, this new approach would attempt to advance US national interests by redrawing the political borders of Southwest Asia - contrary to the the sovereignty and territorial integrity of three existing states.

While its advocates clearly do not yet have broad support for their initiative, the campaign for an alternative Southwest Asian policy approach is maturing and garnering increased attention in Congress and beyond, especially as a result of three recent high-profile events: a Balochistan National Front strategy session in Berlin, a US congressional hearing on Balochistan, and the introduction of a Baloch self-determination bill before the US Congress.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, it's nevertheless critical to understand how this alternative policy approach framework has evolved over the past few months.

The 'Berlin Mandate' as a loose framework

In early January, a bipartisan congressional delegation, led by Representative Dana Rohrabacher (Republican-California), held a "strategy session" in Berlin with Afghan opposition leaders, including the country's former intelligence chief. The meeting addressed constitutional reforms that would make Afghanistan a federal system.

Meeting participants argued that vesting political and economic power in the provinces, instead of centralising power in Kabul, would protect the US' Northern Alliance allies from retribution at the hands of Pashtuns once the Taliban is fully reincorporated into the Afghan political system.

By advancing these policies, the attendees portrayed the Taliban's incorporation into Afghanistan's political system as a greater risk than the threat posed to Afghanistan's territorial integrity by their alternative - which would risk the partition of "Afghanistan between the minority-dominated north and the Pashtun south". This clearly runs counter to the the interests of Hamid Karzai's government.

A few weeks later, Representative Louie Gohmert (Republican-Texas), a Berlin meeting attendee, added fuel to the fire by arguing in a video interview that the US should not just push for a new political system in Afghanistan but go further by rearming the Northern Alliance.

In the same breath, Gohmert provided one of the first definitive links between support for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and Baloch nationalists in Pakistan: "Let's talk about creating a Balochistan in the southern part of Pakistan. They'll stop the IEDs and all of the weaponry coming into Afghanistan, and we got a shot to win over there."

With these remarks, the two pillars of an alternative Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) policy approach were now set: To advance its interests, the US should support the carving out of an independent Baloch state and semi-autonomous Afghan territories - even if it undermined existing US partnerships with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In early February, Rohrabacher convened a public congressional hearing on Balochistan. While human rights violations in Pakistan's Balochistan province were discussed (per the agenda), the hearing also provided a forum to start a larger (and arguably off-topic) national dialogue on the viability of Southwest Asia's state borders.

As a result of the hearing, witnesses - including Ralph Peters and M Hossein Bor - were able to argue that the dismemberment of Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan would serve the United States' long-term strategic interests. But, even more importantly, the hearing allowed the witnesses to inject their views into the larger debate on US foreign policy in Southwest Asia. This included Bor's controversial assertion (which was later censored in Pakistan) that supporting an independent Balochistan stretching from "the Strait of Hormuz to Karachi" would be a better policy approach than ongoing US efforts to counter the Iranian and Pakistani regimes.

Rohrabacher, Gohmert, and Representative Steve King (Republican-Iowa) followed up the hearing by introducing a new bill in Congress stating that the Baloch nation has a historic right to self-determination. With this action, the congressmen went from "familiarising themselves" with Balochistan to calling for Congress to recognise the Baloch nation's right to sovereign independence in roughly a week.

In many ways, this brought the "Berlin Mandate" full circle. In less than two months, a small group of congressmen, minority Afghan groups, Baloch nationalists, and their supporters had gone from voicing displeasure with the current Obama Administration's Af-Pak policy approach to advancing a revolutionary alternative policy approach that called for supporting the minority interests of the Northern Alliance and Baloch against the sovereign interests of Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan.

Reflecting upon this effort a few days after the bill was introduced, Rohrabacher confided to me in an on-the-record interview:

"There is a natural extension from the Berlin meeting with the Northern Alliance to the Balochistan bill. I have always stood for self-determination, but there are certain things that activate me to start pushing more on that philosophy. Clearly, the whole issue of the Taliban being reintegrated in Afghanistan and Pakistan, providing safe haven to terrorists like Bin Laden, are major factors.There is also my support for immediately withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. To do so, we need to have a major policy dialogue on what our policy is in Southwest Asia, how we properly transition out of Afghanistan, and what will be our ongoing relationship with Pakistan. Balochistan is clearly part of that debate."

Cross-linking with other congressional causes

While the introduction of the Baloch self-determination bill marks an important milestone for their cause, it is important to point out that there has been an equally big change in how "Berlin Mandate" supporters have advocated their cause. Over the last month, these supporters - particularly Baloch nationalists in the US diaspora - have increasingly sought to extend their cause beyond US foreign policy in the Af-Pak region. They appear to recognise the need to latch onto larger foreign policy issues as part of their efforts to garner mainstream support for their cause. Four of the most important include:

I. Punishing Pakistan for supporting terrorism and nuclear proliferation

Rohrabacher, Gohmert, and other key supporters of the alternative policy approach for Southwest Asia have been unabashed in overtly linking the need for policy alternatives to Pakistan's "betrayal of America's trust". It is even alleged that the Balochistan hearing was called specifically to "stick it to the Pakistanis" for their arrest of a reported key informant in the bin Laden operation. Even after widespread criticism for his past remarks against Pakistan, Rohrabacher does not shy away from his criticism: "Quite frankly, the Pakistani military and leaders that give safe haven to the mass murderer of Americans should not expect to be treated with respect."

Such rhetoric almost certainly will find a receptive audience in Congress - even among the many members who have never heard of Balochistan or know little about the Northern Alliance's struggles over the last year. For this reason, Peters pointed out to me recently as part of a yet unpublished post-hearing interview that the current high levels of anti-Pakistani sentiment in Congress probably provide the best opportunity that the Baloch may see to advance their cause.

II. Containing a rising China and an emerging Iran, and preventing Pakistan from achieving strategic depth

According to supporters, an independent Balochistan, "extending from Karachi to the Strait of Hormuz", would help to contain a rising China and an emerging Iran, provide a long-term security guarantee against China, Iran, and Pakistan emerging as maritime powers, and undermine the strengthening of strategic relationships between these three potential adversaries.

In an interview after the congressional hearing, Bor made this case:

"There are many interrelated issues at play. When one discusses Balochistan, you are discussing a way to contain China. You are also discussing economic relationships between Iran and Pakistan … If (the Chinese) build their port in Gwadar, they will have a land route from Western China to the Indian Ocean.

This is of strategic interest to the United States because Chinese ships would have a direct route to China and no longer have to transit past the Indian and American navies. It therefore is logical that Balochistan should be concerned as part of the larger shift to the Pacific announced by the Obama Administration. … (Separately,) Iran is an empire and they are using Baloch lands to try to become the dominant regional player. The Iranians are using the Strait of Hormuz as a choke-point for a huge percentage of the world's oil. They also are building a pipeline to Pakistan which violates UN sanctions. Such growing Iran-Pakistan cooperation is a major concern."

Other supporters have advanced similar arguments with respect to Afghan minority groups against the Pashtun-dominated central government. They assert that support for the autonomy or independence of the Northern Alliance serves as an insurance policy against Pakistan's military achieving strategic depth once the Taliban is fully integrated into Afghanistan's political system.

III. Providing the West with an opportunity to profit off of Southwest Asia's natural resources

Recognising "the tremendous deposits of oil, gas, and minerals" found within or made accessible through the Baloch and Northern Alliance territories, some supporters have argued that the West should advance the "Berlin Mandate" if for no other reason than self-serving economic interests.

They have asserted that an independent Balochistan and autonomous Northern Alliance territories would provide Western companies with valuable new economic opportunities, which could help offset the costs of two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and spur economic growth following the global economic downturn. They have also said that the West should do so to prevent potential strategic adversaries, including China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, from profiting off the natural resources of Central and Southwest Asia at their expense.

While Rohrabacher has called this "a bunch of leftist garbage from liberal professors", it must be said that his committee purposely selected a witness whose expertise lies in forging such partnerships in the Middle East region and who remains a vocal advocate for their consideration in the context of an independent Balochistan. Baloch nationalists clearly have started to reach out more aggressively to Western commercial interests on these grounds in recent months as well.

IV. Preventing gross human rights violations and providing post-colonial nations their right to self-determination

While members of Congress have long condemned the Taliban and the Pakistani government for human rights violations, supporters - particularly Baloch nationalists - have used novel approaches in recent months to win over members of Congress. They have increasingly restrained themselves from leading with the genocide argument. Recognising that this argument has failed to win over Congress in the past, they have instead turned to a more complex argument: that the Baloch, like the South Sudanese and numerous minority groups in the former Yugoslavia, have won their right to self-determination because Pakistan and Iran have failed to provide basic human rights protections. Pakistan and Iran have, they argue, thereby forgone their sovereignty over Baloch territories - regardless of historical precedent.

While few in Congress will support their cause on these grounds alone, Baloch nationalists acknowledge the moral power of the argument for members of Congress who may be seeking to justify their support for an oppressed group on other grounds. This argument could become a powerful advocacy tool for Baloch and Afghan minority interest supporters, especially when reaching out to congressmen serving on other minority group interest caucuses with their own claims to self-determination.

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.

Should the US support an independent Balochistan? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English