Irresponsible or undiplomatic utterances

The News, Sun, April,25, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema



Once again the American Ambassador in Kabul Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad has blurted out his cynical remarks aimed at tarnishing Pakistan image. While recognizing complexities of fighting terrorists and even admiring Pakistan’s efforts in war against terrorism, he still deemed fit in his wisdom to imply that Pakistan was not doing enough and insisted that it should do more in this regard. He stated that remnants of Al Qaeda and Taliban and members of Gulbidin Hekmatyar’s Hizb Islami were still in Pakistan and were involved in cross-border activities.

He stressed that ‘Al Qaeda and Hizbe Islami are in Pakistan and are crossing from Pakistan to attack our forces, attack Afghan forces and NGOs’. He more or less asked Pakistan to do more implying that he was not really satisfied what Pakistan has been doing in this regard. When asked specifically by Pakistani journalists whether or not he believed that Al Qaeda and Taliban were still in Pakistan, his response was in affirmative.

Many in western media have periodically referred to the presence of Al Qaeda and Talibans on Pakistani soil but it was often put in a contextual framework, which conveyed the intended message. Besides it was a well-known fact that Taliban has many Pakistani sympathizers but as far as Al Qaeda is concerned, Pakistan has worked hard to capture them. Indeed some disgruntled elements may have given some protection or even hiding place to few Al Qaeda members but the government of Pakistan has always been firmly engaged in apprehending them.

Al Qaeda was and still is regarded a menace as it has caused so much destruction of properties and loss of lives in Pakistan. The government, through its untiring efforts, has managed to apprehend almost of Al Qaeda operators in Pakistan. But it is possible that some of them may still be hiding. However one thing is absolutely clear that government of Pakistan is deeply committed in its fight against terrorists. So far no other government has done more than what has been done by Pakistan. This is the only member of international coalition against terrorism, which has captured more than 550 terrorists. Inevitably Pakistan has suffered a lot in its campaign against terrorists. Not only many Pakistanis have lost their lives but it has also incurred enormous damage of properties.   

Being in the habit of putting the blame on other, statements like the latest one issued by American Ambassador in Kabul does not seem all that surprising especially when one takes into account that these statements were originating from someone who probably is still searching his own identity. However what surprises us is that he is working as a responsible official of the American government whose other officials and even the leaders have been consistently praising Pakistan’s concerted efforts and contributions to the war against terrorism whereas this particular officials consistently appears to be engaged in downgrading Pakistan’s bold efforts to curb terrorism.

It is indeed a matter of some satisfaction that even the government of Pakistan has taken a serious notice this time and described his remarks as ‘foolish and irresponsible utterances’. ‘We regret all these allegations and especially reject this  ‘Pakistan should do more’ expression. Pakistan is doing more than anyone else and in fact the Ambassador should do less by talking less. We will protest to the US government about the foolish and irresponsible utterances that he has made’, said the Foreign office spokesman. He further stated, ‘ We have very good relations with the US leadership and what is more important is that both nations attach importance to this vibrant relationship’. The spokesman advised the US Ambassador to Afghanistan that if he has anything to convey to Islamabad he could do so easily through American Ambassador in Pakistan.

It needs to be stressed here that the American Ambassador in Afghanistan appeared to have reacted to Pakistani spokesman’s remarks and termed them as undiplomatic. Strange though it may seem to many in South Asia that a diplomat who frequently issues undiplomatic statements tends to blame those who are observing diplomatic niceties rather seriously. Indeed the American Ambassador in Afghanistan seems to have forgotten that the major motivating factor which influenced Pakistan to join international coalition to combat terrorism was that fight against terrorist viewed in Pakistan’s own interests. Perhaps that is why it was somewhat aptly put in its editorial by a leading Pakistan daily which stated that Islamabad joined the fight against terrorism not for the benefit of Mr.Khalilzad and therefore it did not require a certificate of good conduct from him’.

The terrorists have committed many heinous acts against the people of Pakistan. They have killed innocent civilians, violated the sanctity of worship places by spilling blood insides mosques and churches, murdered foreigners who were helping Pakistan, such as the French engineers, on submarine project, made repeated attempts to assassinate the head of state, generated fear among the ordinary citizens etc. Besides, period efforts to bomb were also made against foreign consulate. All such acts not only tarnished Pakistan’s image but it also took a heavy economic toll.

Since this is not the first time that Mr. Khalilzad has issued such unexpected and undesired statements contrary to the thinking of his leadership, one wonders why is he persisting on this path. A response to three questions could clarify the situation. First, is he giving such irresponsible statements to cover his own incompetence and inabilities to inject stability in Afghanistan? It was expected that the Americans would be able to control Afghanistan and maintain a certain minimum requisite level of stability soon but unfortunately because of faulty assessment of the situation and too much reliance on one particular faction of the parties involved did not allow the Americans to have totally accurate assessment which in turn has lengthened the time span in terms of securing the desired level of security in Afghanistan.

One cannot escape the fact the American ambassador in Kabul would be the key man to send accurate assessment of the evolving situation. It appears that either he was unable to attain the desired objective which could have been the product of his own mistakes or his faulty calculations. To cover ones own mistakes and weaknesses, the tendency to employ the technique of placing the blame somewhere else is not a very uncommon phenomenon.

The second question that deserves some examination deals with whether or not he is too much under the influence of northern alliance. Given the kind of statement he gives against Pakistan, it is not too fetched to assume that he may be under the influence of the strong anti-Pakistan element within President Karazai government. Again one does not have to dig too deeply to find out the gravity and intensity of hatred against Pakistan that some members of northern alliance have been constantly generating.

For many Pakistanis it is still very difficult to comprehend that why some members of northern alliance have developed such an apathy level against a country which had given them shelter and extended much help for so many years. Mr. Khalilzad is ostensibly an American of Afghan origin and he must have been confronted with national interests of US on one hand and his own sympathies and preferences for his own Afghan faction on the other. It would not be all that surprising to many if he is engaged in extending all kind of covers for ills and blunders of preferred faction. The line of thinking that reflects from the statements along with the tone and manner in which these are communicated appears to be no different than that of members of northern alliance.

Less than a month ago Mr.Khalilzad used the language, which no Pakistani appreciated. He said that US forces could cross into Pakistan to hunt the terrorists. ‘We have told the Pakistanis leadership that either they must solve this problem or we will do it ourselves’. Is this a diplomatic language? Whether or not he is a spokesman of northern alliance or guardian of their interest is not yet clear but judging from his recent statements, it is not too difficult to ascertain his inclinations.

The third question that is plaguing many analysts revolves around whether or not it is the official American policy with its two opposite stances. On one hand the American leaders openly and continuously acknowledge and appreciate Pakistan’s contributions in war against terrorism but in order to facilitate their own pursuits that may have been caused by unforeseen developments, they apply more pressures on Pakistan through one of their officials. But the exercise of damage limitations is also strictly adhered to. However this present a dilemma for the locals Pakistanis who get little bit confused especially in view the past history of Pak-American association. More specifically they tend to take into considerations the way the American parted or abandoned their associates once their own objectives are attained.