Two-pronged approach

The News, Sun, July,18, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


Once again the Afghan born American Ambassador in Afghanistan demonstrated to prove his loyalties to both the Afghans as well as the Americans by placing blames on Pakistan for periodic successes of the militants. Unable to show some tangible results of his efforts in Afghanistan he seems to have opted for an easy way out which is to put the blame on Pakistan rather than accepting his own inabilities to adequately cope with the situation.

The American Ambassador in Afghanistan is not alone to utter irresponsible or as some would call it provocative statements. Not only other American high officials have also issued similar statements but even the Afghan President seem to have endorsed such accusation.  According to a recently published report, the Afghan President in an interview said that the militants trained in Pakistan were crossing over into Afghanistan though he dismissed the Taliban threat but placed the emphasis on warlordism and what he calls  ‘other acts of terrorism’.

Compared to both the American Ambassador in Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad and Afghan President Hamid Karazi, the Pakistani leaders have always demonstrated a constructive approach and extended cooperation. Most recently the Pakistani Interior Minister, just before visiting Kabul, stressed that Pakistan wants peace and stability in Afghanistan. The two countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to coordinate their fight against terrorism and extremist forces in addition to enhancing bilateral contacts in order to stop illegal transportation of human and drugs across the border.

Soon after the Afghan President Karazai alleged remarks that the militants trained in Pakistan were crossing into Afghanistan, the Afghan foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah praised Pakistan for its efforts in fighting terrorists. While visiting Pakistan he further added that ‘Pakistan and Afghanistan were fighting terrorism with vigor and resolve’. Similarly the American President praised the efforts of Pakistan in the global fight against terrorism but the American Ambassador in Afghanistan once again demonstrated his preference to repeat his allegation regarding the existence of Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan.

The question that needs to be probed is why Ambassador Khalilzad has been persistently leveling charges against Pakistan. This question becomes all the more intriguing when one takes into considerations the statement of President Bush who stressed that ‘the government of United States and Pakistan are working closely in the fight against terror’. In a recent statement President Bush openly acknowledged that the Pakistani forces are rounding up terrorists along their nation’s western border.

Given the positive assessment that has been aired by the American President, why is a functionary of the same administration persistently leveling charges against Pakistan and repeatedly allege the existence of Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan. A further complications is added when one reads a recent statement of President Karazai who also alleged that trained militants were crossing into Afghanistan from Pakistan but dismissed the Taliban threat and highlighted other sources of threats on one hand and the Afghan foreign minister while visiting Pakistan praised Pakistan for its fight against terrorists including both the Al Qaeda and Taliban elements on the other. What we have here is a twin set of contradictory statements.

President Bush acknowledges Pakistan’s contributions in the global war against terrorism and commends Pakistan’s efforts in tribal areas to flush out foreign elements that are suspected to have indulged in undesired acts of violence but one of his administration’s functionary continues to level charges against Pakistan. Sometimes Ambassador Khalilzad says that Pakistan is not doing enough and at other times he describes Pakistan as the main refuge of the terrorists.

So what is the truth and why is the Ambassador Khalilzad acting in such a manner. Three interpretations immediately strike one’s mind. First, Ambassador Khalilzad may have interpreted President Bush’s praise for Pakistani contributions as somewhat superficial and tactical and in congruence with the requirements of the time. Given his make up, one could conceivably assume that he may have thought that President praise is purely temporary and perhaps motivated by a particular event and in this case it could be the recent operations in tribal areas. Alternatively it could also be interpreted as an extra effort to push Pakistan to undertake even more forceful operations against the alleged militants. 

But then one must not forget that Ambassadors rarely contradict their President’s assertions. Besides, no Ambassador would dare to go against his own President’s interpretation of the situation. Ambassadors are supposed to carry out orders that are handed over to them by their superiors. Ordinarily they don’t contradict the policies of the incumbent administration. If they don’t agree with the policies of their government, they tend to resign. It is a well knows fact that President Bush has somewhat consistently appreciated Pakistani efforts whereas the American Ambassador in Afghanistan has often accused Pakistan in one form or the other.

Another but somewhat linked interpretation could be that reporting has not been very accurate. Out of context quote often give a totally different flavor to what was originally intended to convey.  It is not too far fetched to assume that misreporting is not an unusual phenomenon. Each reporter whether regional or outsider adds bit of his own spice which could also generate a different impression. Sometimes reports are filed in a well thought out way in order to generate an intended impression.

Second feasible explanation revolves around carefully contrived efforts to cover one’s own inabilities and inadequacies. It has been quite sometimes since the Ambassador Khalilzad arrived in Kabul but record of his achievements does appear to be even remotely impressive. A close scrutiny of his work does not paint any rosy picture. The Kabul regime has still not been able to effectively extend its writ beyond Kabul. Twice the elections have been postponed and many warlords still continue to enjoy considerable influence over vast tracts of land in Afghanistan. Admittedly there is some semblance of calm inside Kabul but that is the product of foreign troops presence. This is what is generally referred as imposed stability which can either wither away with the departure of foreign troops or may even take firm root and continue to keep Kabul stabilized.

Apart from regularly criticizing Pakistan and shifting blame for all wrong doings on carefully chosen scapegoat, the American Ambassador in Afghanistan has not much to show. The inability to extend stability beyond Kabul along with some parts of northern areas of Afghanistan and to create conditions facilitating the holding of elections in time may have had influenced him to opt for a diversionary strategy. Despite the presence of US army, NATO troops and Afghan forces, the resurgence of Taliban does expose the weakness of the incumbent influential and tend to generate undesired impression.

Since Pakistan was known to have supported Taliban regime in the past and many tribesmen even extended protection to some Taliban even after the American invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan appears to him a good target for practicing blame-game despite the fact Pakistan is known and acknowledged to have done so much for the war against terrorism. In addition it has also been internationally recognized how much Pakistan did for facilitating and accommodating the Afghan refugees for over two decades. While the recent Wana operation clearly reflects Pakistan’s determination to undertake concerted efforts to flush out the militants and extremists, the question that needs to be pondered over is what have the American and Afghan forces have done to rein in the militants on their side of the border.

The third interpretation could be that the American approach towards the region is two-pronged. It wants to create options. On one hand it appreciates the efforts and contributions that Pakistan is making but it also pushes Pakistan periodically in order to keep pressures on Pakistan. Maintaining continuous pressures tend, in a strange ways, to keep many officials of Kabul regime happy and simultaneously generates the impression that their thinking is in congruence with that of the incumbent regime in Kabul.

The availability of options also enables to maintain pressures on Pakistan to continue contributing towards the overall war efforts against terrorism. What the Americans need to comprehend is that the Pakistanis are in the international coalition to combat terrorism primarily because it is the victim of terrorism. It has experienced tremendous loss of lives and enormous damage of property because of the activities of the terrorists in Pakistan. Efforts to tarnish Pakistan’s image and to minimize its, what otherwise and internationally recognized, contributions as impressive has been promoted by certain vested interests.

A minority that is acutely conscious of majority’s badly tarnished image and is continuously capitalizing over it dominates Kabul regime. The outsiders need to recognize that if the peace is to be restored in Afghanistan, the majority Pakhtoons has to be given their legitimate role. Denying the majority their legitimate place in the polity of Afghanistan would only make things more complex than taking the country towards desired level of stability quickly. The domination of ethnic minority needs to be redressed in order to inculcate a balanced and just approach among the majority ethnic group. While one can see some merits in a two-pronged approach and periodic employment of blame-game, it is unlikely to attain the desired level of stability in Afghanistan.