Should we worry about US?

The News, Sun, September,12, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


Should West worry about Pakistan or should Pakistan worry about West? It is not surprising to find some critical articles about what is happening in or around Pakistan. Two shades of opinion are often reflected in West. One group consists of those who are against the Islamic world in general and cannot see any good that may have been pursued by the Muslims. Then there are others who ostensibly try to appear objective and attempt to balance their interpretation of the events. There are still others who would like to see their government to favour a particular government and in so doing get annoyed if their own government’s policy direction are not in congruence with their likings.

Many factors and developments provide sufficient fodder to those who are bent upon the twisting the facts or engaged to please their masters or representing certain lobby. While one does not expect shedding of the minimum level of objectivity by academics and experienced analysts, it is not surprising to find some analysts in the west deem fit in their wisdom to subject Pakistan to a contrived vilification campaign not because they genuine believe in their reflected views but to promote the view of their chosen lobbies. Every one is free to write in any way they feel appropriate to interpret the event but one does not expect the abandonment of a minimum level of objectivity as well as lack of substantiation with logical arguments.

Pakistan has been subjected to biting criticism because of its security policies in general and nuclear weapons acquisition in particular. Initially the major source for vilifying Pakistan’s was its nuclear programme in the west and more specifically in US. The primary objective appeared to be the discouragement of states aspiring to become nuclear weapon states. In fact almost all the recognized nuclear powers were discouraging further proliferation of the nuclear weapons. Even at that time many Pakistanis felt that the campaign to discourage proliferation was more focused on Pakistan than on the other contenders. Neither Israel nor India was subjected to similar levels of biting criticism as was the case of Pakistan’s programme.

It was not surprising that many in the west were quickly reconciled with India’s acquisition of nuclear weapons but felt somewhat awkward when they were confronted with the reality of Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapon status. Although they intensely disliked this development but cognizant of the ground realities in South Asia in which the main actor causing proliferation was India, they had not much choice but to accept the ground realities somewhat grudgingly. In fact not much effort was made to dissuade India and Israel from acquiring the forbidden assets.

In many ways India’s argument justifying the acquisition of nuclear weapons appeared to be fairly convincing. Two aspects of Indian argument deserve to be mentioned here as well. First, India questioned that why something that is considered essential for one nation’s security should not be equally valid for others? Indeed a legitimate and a relevant question. While permanent members of UN Security Council thought that they have the right to possess the weapons of mass destruction but attempted to deny the same right to others. Second, India even suggested that the nuclear weapons states should give a timetable to get rid of their nuclear weapons. But none of the nuclear haves gave any indication when to destroy their own arsenal. This kind of attitude placed India on a high moral platitude. Once India opted for tests in May 1998, it was indeed expected that Pakistan would do the same. In fact it not too far fetched to assume that the onus for proliferation should be upon the west rather than on India and Pakistan.

A comparative analysis of Pakistan’s quest for nuclear weapons and development of nuclear programmes in some other countries, one finds marked differences. For example when India exploded the nuclear device, some in the west expressed surprise and advanced most comic interpretation that they were taken by surprise. How can one believe such an interpretation when one is fully familiar with the comprehensive and sophisticated tracking system they operate? A snoopy satellite is orbiting the earth continuously and sending the requisite information to them.

Currently Pakistan’s contributions towards the war against terrorism are also subjected to unfair criticism by a section of western media. Some writers have even gone to the extent of maligning Pakistan by employing terrorists acts that have take place in Pakistan as a proof to regard Pakistan as a dangerous place. By seriously playing its role in the international coalition to combat terrorism, Pakistan has suffered enormously in terms of human sufferings and material damages. But perhaps the unkindest cut of all is the heavy toll of our image we are paying for our support in this cause.

It may not be necessary to explain in detail the sufferings that the Pakistanis are enduring because of the wrath of the terrorists, the unappreciative attitudes of some in the west certainly forces many Pakistanis to think and even consider review of adopted policies. Should Pakistan worry the West is the question that is being asked frequently? The argument that so many terrorists’ acts have been experienced by Pakistan and Pakistan has done so much in war against terrorism yet in the West and more specifically in US Pakistani efforts are not properly appreciated. The voices that are frequently heard revolve around notions like that Pakistan has not done enough and one should worry about Pakistan.

It would be appropriate to stress here that ostensibly the government of US has been consistently supporting and appreciating Pakistan’s contributions in war against terrorism yet one fails to understand why some other officials of the same administration make adverse noises. Is it meant to provide options or space to the administration or is there some hidden sinister motive at work? Why can’t they see reason and realise the complexity of the situation confronting Pakistan yet it is going all out to play its role in war against terrorism and appreciate rather than continue speaking with what the American Indian use to employ ‘fork-tongue’ expression.  

The argument that since many Pakistanis holds anti-American views, the administration should worry about Pakistan is certainly somewhat ludicrous. Perhaps more appropriate approach would be to analyse why many Pakistanis hold anti-American views despite the fact that the American contributions in many areas are well recognised. Pakistan and US have experienced long association. Many Pakistanis believe that it was US which has consistently let the Pakistanis down such as in 1962 (When Kennedy Promised Ayub to consult Pakistan before sending military weapons to India but did not consult Pakistan and sent the military aid to India and merely informed Pakistan), in 1965 (When US let its alliance partner down and opted for what it called even handed policy knowing fully well that Pakistan was heavily dependent upon US for arms procurement), in 1971 (When Communists were involved in Indo-Pak war and US did not live up to its alliance obligations) and in 1991 (When US let Pakistan lumbered with massive refugees and announced the aid termination), in 1998 (When it tacitly accepted India’s nuclearisation but came hard on Pakistan’s acquisition) etc.

Following the tragic events of September 11, the American policies pursued towards the Muslim world in general and Pakistan in particular have further added complications. Despite being fully cognizant of Pakistan’s extremely useful contributions in war against terrorism and at times these were well appreciated by the incumbent American administration, the punitive measures against Pakistan have been undertaken almost regularly have also invoked concerns among the Pakistanis. These measures include the INS measures, harsh treatment accorded to the Pakistanis at the points of entry, strict measures against the Pakistani community, periodically imposed sanctions etc. Further fuel is periodically added by irresponsible utterances by American officials (both at home and in the region). The reported remarks by a former President that the incumbent administration is ‘contracting out US security to Pakistan’ invoke strong apprehensions and concerns both among the Pakistanis as well as the Americans. One does not accept such statements merely to exploit domestic politics. Currently the Pak-specific sanction bill is also giving birth to new concerns and strengthening old apprehensions about American future intensions. The recently conducted bizarre ‘sting operation’ based on reportedly fictitious instance of money laundering has further enhanced Pakistanis suspicions.

Judged by any yardstick, Pakistan’s contributions to war against terrorism are regarded as massive as compared with any other member of the international coalition. Pakistan has repeatedly demonstrated its resolve to fight terrorism and in consequences has suffered enormously. The domestic impact of Pakistan’s determined policy against terrorism is in fact taking a heavy toll. Instead of appreciating Pakistan’s contribution, one is provided with adverse criticism. In many ways the adverse criticism is not only strengthening the arguments of those opposed to incumbent government’s American linkages but also contributing towards the increasing anti-American sentiments. Perhaps that is why the question whether or not we should worry about American future intensions is being frequently asked.

Admittedly the policies change in congruence with both regional as well as global developments. But one expects more realistic assessments and appreciation then making flimsy accusations in order to please certain anti-Pakistan lobbies. And this become even more disappointing when known academic join such lobbies. One expects the academics to maintain certain amount of balance and objectivity. However when they indulge in a systematic campaign to malign a particular target, it is expected that the argument would be sufficiently convincing. One is indeed disappointed in such indulgence by academic. All one can say that either they are actively enlisted to pursue the objectives of certain lobby or they are not full conversant with the exact contours of the ground realities.