Contrived policy pursuits

The News, Sun, April,11, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema



Once again the American Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad blurted out thoughtlessly and tactlessly stressing that the ‘ the US led forces in Afghanistan will move into Pakistani territory to destroy Taliban and other extremist groups if Islamabad cannot do the job by itself’. ‘We have told the Pakistani leadership that either they must solve this problem or we will have to do it ourselves’. He further stressed that ‘one way or the other this problem will have to be dealt with’.

Although Ambassador Khalilzad retracted his statement following protests from the Pakistanis but it seems that he is either in the habit of issuing irresponsible statements at will or he cleverly carries out the instructions of his masters in such a way that the availability of varied options is not restrained or he is heavily prejudiced by the excessive influence of the dominating northern alliance cabinet members. Known for his anti-Pakistan attitude, this is indeed not the first time that he has shot poisonous arrows at Pakistan. Few weeks back the he charged Pakistan that both Al-Qaeda and Talibans are using Pakistani territories to launch attack against Afghanistan. While recognizing Pakistan’s recent action in its tribal areas as ‘positive and hopeful’, yet he found it fit in his wisdom to issue veiled threat.

Similarly it is not too far in recent history that another important official of the current US administration Paul Wolfowitz expressed somewhat similar thoughts when he stated (Far Eastern Economic Review-March 18, 2004) that Pakistan’s military is cooperating with the US in getting Al Qaeda but it is not cooperating in getting the Taliban. ‘There is a wide spread belief in Pakistan that the Americans want Al Qaeda but Pakistan continues to turn a blind eye to support the Taliban’, remarked Wolfowitz.

Taking full cognizance of such statements issued by important American officials in the recent past, the question that strikes one’s mind is whether or not these statements were part of a carefully prepared policy aimed to subject Pakistan to intense pressures or the product of frustrations that may have caused by number of factors including inability to extend the writ of the government beyond Kabul, to control the warlords, to eliminate Taliban and Al-Qaeda threats, to accelerate reconstruction of Afghanistan etc. One needs to differentiate between a contrived policy pursuits and the inadvertent blurting of irresponsible utterances.

If these statements are part of the carefully carved out policy pursuits, then it can be quite easily construed it as a form of pressure on Pakistan to do more against the Talibans without according full respects to Pakistan’s contributions in war against terrorism. Most Pakistanis feel that they have done much more than what was expected if it. No other partner in war against terrorism has contributed so much as has been done by the Pakistanis.

Not only Pakistan had already captured more than 500 terrorists but has also sent more than 70,000 Pakistani soldiers in the tribal areas to flush out the terrorists. In pursuit of this objective many Pakistani soldiers died. Despite being fully cognizant of tribesmen feelings as well as those of their sympathizers in and outside the parliament along with being acutely conscious of its role as a coalition partner in the international coalition against terrorism, the incumbent government of Pakistan is actively playing its part.

Despite Pakistan’s contributions, the application of such types of pressures would indeed generate two distinct interpretations. One is that while one major official of the US administration is offering Pakistan a status of a Major Non NATO Ally (MNNA) whereas the other important officials of the same administration are accusing Pakistan for not doing enough. This indeed makes a mockery of MNNA offer on one hand and clearly communicates why Pakistan is not included in PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative) and further complicates situation for the incumbent regime on the other especially in view of not very enviable level of existing American credibility in Pakistan.

It is not too far fetched to assume that the Americans do not enjoy a high level of credibility as many Pakistanis feel that the current American support for Pakistan is the product of regional situation. Many writers and opinion makers openly highlight that the American support would quickly dry up once the Afghanistan situation stabilizes despite the fact that the American officials have repeatedly stressed that they are working for a long-term relationships. Many Pakistanis continue to express their reservations about American future intentions.

Another interpretation, which has a substantive support among the Pakistanis, relates to Pakistan’s nuclear capability. The belief is that once the Americans are free from their entanglements in both Iraq and especially in Afghanistan, they are likely to target Pakistan’s nuclear program. Already in the recent past the American media hardly missed any opportunity to target Pakistan’s nuclear assets.  The dangers of its falling into wrong hands were exaggeratedly and repeatedly projected. A systematic campaign against Pakistan’s nuclear assets appeared to have been undertaken by elements that intensely disapprove of Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Two opposing statements also reflect the recently adopted Indian techniques of maintaining different options. For years the Indian leaders have been issuing contradicting statements with a view to maintain options. The senior minister would issue opposing statements, which provides options to the leader to opt for the most suitable one keeping in view the dictates of the ground realities.

To make things even more difficult for Pakistan, American close strategic partnership with India along with the offer of making India a regional policeman has provided substantive ammunition to the opponents of the incumbent regime.  If such a policy is meant to further generate pressures on incumbent regime, then they are certainly contributing towards the weakening of Pakistanis resolve to fight terrorism in its different forms.

If the statements are inadvertently issued and are not part of carefully planned policy pursuits, then one is likely to interpret them within the context of existing situation of Afghanistan. One interpretation would be that the American Ambassador is demonstrating his excessive bias against Pakistan. Alternatively it could also be interpreted that it was a diversionary statement aiming to hide one’ own inabilities to show anticipated results.

The threat to intrude into Pakistan’s areas has invoked strong reactions among the Pakistanis. An important opposition leader of one of the leading religious party was not only outraged at this statement but also stressed that such a statement could easily be construed as ‘intentions to declare war’. The statement was also viewed and referred ‘as a mirror in which the Pakistani leadership can see the real face and intentions of the America in the region’. The government of Pakistan have repeatedly stressed that it would not allow any outsider to operate on our soil yet one finds American officials in Afghanistan rarely refrain from issuing statements that would embarrass the incumbent regime on one hand and injects doubts whether or not the Americans are really contemplating to enter Pakistani territories on the other. To remove creeping doubts and to convey Pakistan’s resolve, the Pakistani Foreign Office issued statement categorically rejecting all possibilities of allowing foreign forces to operate on Pakistani soil and referred to American Ambassador’s recent statement as ‘unwarranted and uncalled for’.

The report published in leading daily implicitly also referred to the likely ignorance of the Ambassador as it has been stressed that the US administration at the highest level has greatly appreciated Pakistan’s efforts in eliminating and rooting out terrorist network and Al Qaeda elements from its soil. When the higher American officials are appreciating Pakistan’s efforts to fight terrorism, a loaded statement by an Ambassador like one that was recently issued by Ambassador Khalilzad does tend to generate doubts even about the higher American officials intentions.

It would indeed be advisable for the American Ambassador in Afghanistan to refrain from issuing such irresponsible statements as such utterances can not just embarrass his own government but would also make things difficult for the government of Pakistan especially if one realizes that opposition to Pakistan’s recent operation in the tribal areas also exists. Instead of appreciating and facilitating Pakistan’s earnest fight against terrorism, such statements tend to inject more doubts and complications. Therefore it is imperative to refrain from issuing such provocative statements. But if the statement were meant to hide one’s own shortcomings, then such statement would keep appearing periodically.