Washington Diary
The fallacy of being a frontline state
Columnist Dr Manzur Ejaz discusses how we deluded ourselves over the
years.
The US ambassador to Pakistan, Ms Nancy Powell has let the cat out of
the bag by publicly validating the Indian claim that Pakistan has not
fulfilled its promise of stopping infiltration into Kashmir. Pakistan’s
alleged support for North Korean nuclear programme is taken seriously
in some Washington circles. Furthermore, many in the US governing circles
believe that Pakistan has not done enough to eradicate terrorist groups.
Therefore, behind the scenes, the US is not buying the Pakistani claim
of being a frontline state against terrorism.
The Bush administration, obsessed with Iraq and North Korea, has no choice
but to maintain the status quo with Pakistan for now. However, Pakistan
will be in a lot more trouble when war with Iraq is over. In such circumstances,
despite soothing statements, the US is not going to give any concessions
on new discriminatory immigration rules. Probably, Pakistan’s foreign
minister, Mr Khushid Mehmood Kasuri will listen to a lot of US grumbling — all
behind closed doors, of course — then he can squeeze any concession
for Pakistani immigrants.
Pakistanis may have every reason to believe that their country is used
as a frontline state against terrorism but Americans and many others
have serious doubts about such a designation. The often repeated question
is that if Pakistan’s intelligence agencies have allegedly housed
terrorist outfits in Pakistan, brought and sustained Taliban in Afghanistan
and terrorists such as Ramzi Yusuf, onward nabbed from that country,
then who is it that Pakistan is acting as a frontline state against?
When religious political parties, supporting violent outfits, have been
legitimised and given the power share in the political structure — control
of government in one province and significant leverage in the centre
and other regions — which external power Islamabad claims to be
confronting? Therefore, many believe that Pakistan is a frontline state
against its own internal set-ups, political as well as extra-political.
Actually frontline state designation was self-assigned to start with.
To strengthen negotiating position with the US, some shrewd Pakistani
diplomats borrowed the term from anti-Soviet Afghan war of 80s and used
it so often that most Pakistanis started believing it as an article of
faith. The US diplomats have been using the term ‘partner’ or
ally and term ‘frontline’ is not part of US diplomatic lingo,
according to Ms Teresita Schaffer of the Centre for Strategic and International
Studies. More importantly, Pakistan has been interpreting these terms
differently from the US, she adds. In the present circumstances, Pakistan’s
self-conceived importance is not shared by many in the US despite the
importance attached to its cooperation.
For now, the US has no alternative but to seek the cooperation of General
Musharraf and the military. The US is well aware that without their cooperation
terrorism cannot be fought either in Afghanistan or within Pakistan.
The US does not say it openly but believes that Pakistan is part of the
problem and there is no better alternative but to make it a part of the
solution. Perceptions about terrorists also differ. For the US, jihadis
fighting in Kashmir are the same people it is fighting against while
for Gen Musharraf they are legitimate freedom fighters. Such fundamental
differences have started popping up and may become points of confrontation
between the two countries in the future.
Pakistan’s alleged involvement with the North Korean nuclear programme
is also a landmine in the Pak-US relationship. Seymour Hersh has made
new claims about Pakistan’s involvement in the latest edition of
the New Yorker. Basing his information on a top-secret CIA report, Mr
Hersh asserts that Pakistan provided centrifuge machine to North Korea.
He has quoted a CIA source saying that “It points a clear finger
at the Pakistanis. The technical stuff is crystal clear, not hedged and
not ambivalent.” Mr Hersh has quoted another US policymaker declaring, “Right
now, the most dangerous country in the world is Pakistan. If we’re
incinerated next week, it’ll be because of HEU (highly enriched
uranium) that was given to al-Qaeda by Pakistan.”
Mr Hersh’s credibility may remain questionable for many because
President Bush vehemently rejected his previous assertions. However,
one will have to make a big assumption about Mr Bush’s truthfulness
also after listening to his daily statements on Iraq. Regardless of Mr
Hersh’s credit worthiness, allegations against Pakistan have been
circulating in Washington circles since the last few months. Anti-Pakistan
sentiments are rising slowly and one should not be surprised if the US
re-imposes sanctions.
In the past, Pakistan has never had a realistic understanding about its
relationship with the US. Every time the Pak-US alliance is revived,
Pakistan interprets it as an endorsement of its Kashmir policy. On the
contrary, the US expects that Pakistan has the understanding about divergent
views on Kashmir despite a temporary alliance for a specific purpose.
The US has to accept the blame for such misconceptions. To achieve its
short-term goals, it keeps ignoring many essential issues. For example,
the US was ignoring Pakistan’s nuclear programme during 80s for
obvious reasons. The US kept on tolerating the violation of its law for
so many years. As a result, Pakistan started taking it as a routine matter.
However, when anti-Soviet struggle was concluded the US slammed sanctions,
shocking Pakistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan is in for another shock in
the near future.
Pakistan government and intelligentsia should take a realistic look at
its relationship with the US. For the US, Pakistan is not a frontline
state against terrorism but a part of the problem. Pakistan’s support
for Kashmiri jihad is taken to be part of the terrorist networking. In
addition, Pakistan’s credibility for non-proliferation is also
coming under tight scrutiny. Once the international scene changes and
Afghanistan is stabilised Pakistan will face much severe US sanctions
or may be more.
|