Conduct unbecoming

The POST, Sun, Aug,12, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Apart from some American officials and certain section of the media, the two presidential hopefuls in US also issued extremely disturbing and provocative statements regarding the possible strikes against alleged Al-Qaeda’s hideouts inside Pakistani tribal areas without securing the necessary green light from the government of Pakistan. Such statements reflect not only the disregard for Pakistan’s sovereignty but also indicate the mindset of these individuals. 

A freshman Senator Barak Obama stated that he would send troops into the Pakistani territories violating its sovereignty irrespective of the fact whether or not the Pakistani President approves such a course of action. He expressed the views that he would not hesitate to send troops unilaterally if necessary to protect American people. He also said that there are terrorists holed up in the tribal area mountains and they are plotting to strike against the US again.

Even more disturbing outburst and as some people viewed it as disgusting statement was issued by another presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo who said that the best way he can think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the US is to threaten to retaliate by bombing Islamic holy sites. Indeed this appears to be a case of convoluted logic. Reportedly the Colorado Congressman stated that he believes that a terrorist attack could be imminent and that US needs to hurry up and think a way to stop. He said, ‘ If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Makkah and Madina. 

Not only the above mentioned statements invoked strong condemnatory reactions among the Muslims all over the world but even important responsible individuals in US also vociferously criticized and condemned them. Another presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton viewed Senator Obama’s statement as naïve and irresponsible. Commenting on Congressman Tancredo’s statement a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations Ibrahim Hooper said, ‘Perhaps its evidence of a long shot candidate grasping straws and trying to create some kind of a controversy that might appeal to a niche audience of anti-Muslim bigots’. 

Reaction to such irresponsible and unwise statements has often been swift and strong in Pakistan. While opening the debate on foreign policy in the National Assembly of Pakistan the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs categorically stated that any US operation inside Pakistan would be considered as an attack on the country. ‘Pakistan will take it an aggression if the US led forces try to carry out an operation within the frontiers of our country’. 

Equally forceful statement was issued by the Opposition leader who said, ‘There may be worldwide war like situation in the case US goes for attacks as being stated by the presidential candidates’. He further stated that ‘in the backdrop of these threats, Pakistan will have to review its policy in view of its own national interests instead of continuing to follow the lines of Americans’. 

Perhaps the strongest reactive remarks came from a Parliamentary Secretary who urged the government to announce Jihad against India and US. Reportedly he alleged that the CIA, RAW and Khad were involved indirectly in the latest killing of the Chinese nationals. According to the reports published in most newspapers on the 9^th August the US Embassy officials quickly reacted expressing their outrage over the remarks of the law makers.

For some Pakistanis the American reaction appeared to be somewhat puzzling as the involvement of RAW and Khad is too well known to be totally ignored. Not only the India has already an Embassy in the capital but has also opened four Consulates in Afghanistan during the last few years. Apart from the US, India has not opened four Consulates in any other country. All the four Consulates in Afghanistan are alleged to be involved in nefarious activities against Pakistan. Nothing critical has ever been aired by the Americans regarding the undesired activities of these Indian Consulates. 

Based on the circumstantial evidence, it is not too far fetched to assume that some people in Pakistan would be easily convinced regarding the encouragement or blessing or even the involvement of the Americans in such pursuits. The mixture of anger and frustrations of some of the Pakistanis could be the product of at least four visible factors. Among these operative  factors the first important reason is the recognition of India as a nuclear weapon state though indirectly via Indo-US civilian nuclear deal while denying the same status to Pakistan. 

Second, American deep involvement in Afghanistan and exertion of continuous pressures on Pakistan to do more despite the fact that Pakistan has contributed more than anybody in the coalition formed to combat terrorism. It was only after the passage of more than three years that some of the other coalition partners began to acknowledge the enormous Pakistani contributions. The current pressures on Pakistan are based on Taliban’s activities and their alleged infiltrations into the tribal areas of Pakistan. 

Third, the recently passed bill is not only reminds most Pakistanis of the infamous Pressler Amendment but they also tend to compare the attitude and behavior of the American Congress to Indo-US   nuclear deal and the policy towards Pakistan. Almost everybody in Pakistan knows how the American Congress bent over Backward to accommodate India’s demands in the recently finalized 123 agreement. By not focusing on the likely testing by India in future, the Americans have virtually given the Indians a green light to carry on their experimentation for military purposes. Reportedly one important American official even went to the extent of declaring that conducting more nuclear tests is India’s sovereign right. Two different approaches towards two allies are indeed intensely disliked by many in Pakistan. 

Fourth, the continuous barrage of accusations by the American media, officials and now by the Presidential hopefuls is not only reflective increasing influence of lobbies working against Pakistan but has also nearly exhausted the Pakistanis’ patience. Hence one finds strong reactive streaks of some Pakistanis manifesting in a rather stronger terms. Such accusations become somewhat biting when one realizes that Indian Americans’ tutoring and advice is taken as gospel truth. 

While the quick American reaction to the remarks of the above mentioned Pakistani parliamentarian are understandable, the Americans should also try to assess how the Pakistani Muslims feel rather strongly when irresponsible American Presidential hopefuls make unwise and unnecessary remarks. In fact the American remarks have started a passionate debate in the National Assembly of Pakistan in which many undesired and unpalatable suggestions have been and would be put forward. While the American media under the influence of the various lobbies may publish stories based on hearsay or what is called as ‘inspired leaks’, one does expect a balanced approach from senior governmental officials. And if a candidate striving to be elected as a future President of the US, the highest office in US, begins to indulge in wild accusations and smear campaign and even go the extent of suggesting punitive measures during an electioneering campaign, then one can only describe such a behavior as ‘conduct unbecoming’ as one expects candidates for the highest office in US would demonstrate a reasonable level of decency and balanced attitude towards all issues.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.