Unrealistic assessments

The POST, Sun, Feb,5, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


A recent editorial by an important American newspaper The Washington Post in its editorial entitled ‘The War in Pakistan’ once again managed to reflect its inability to properly comprehend the situation on Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The central theme of the editorial is that Pakistan is not doing enough and the activities of the radical elements including Al-Qaeda and Talibans have not been effectively curtailed. The underneath running theme appears to be dubious but accusative that the Pakistanis are playing a double game. This is indeed not the first time that we have heard this sentence. Somewhat similar sentences are often uttered by the American military as well as civilian officials stationed in Afghanistan especially whenever they were hopelessly unable to make desirable advances in their meticulously worked out plans and strategies.

The question that needs to be explored here is whether or not the newspaper has been unable to grasps the ground realities properly or deliberately indulging in projecting a distorted picture or allowed itself to be used for propagandist’s purposes? This implies three things; limited knowledge regarding the exact nature of a porous border, lack of comprehension of tribal culture, and misusing the power of media by covering ones own inabilities and putting the blame on someone else.

To begin with it would be only appropriate to say few words on the power of media before focusing on the above mentioned American newspaper. The revolutionary developments in media technology has not only raised the significance of media in international relations particularly in shaping the perceptions but it has also become an important tool in blowing up a crisis out of proportion and an effective tool in war fighting strategies. While in terms of positive aspects the access to information has become quick and wide spread, its negative aspects such as propaganda, distortion of factual situation, and advancing preferred recipe could enormously contribute in exasperating the conflict situations. Indeed media can make enormous contributions towards liberation, repression, unity, fragmentation of societies along with retarding social progress.

Undoubtedly the record of American media is a mixture of positive achievements and negative contributions. Its contributions in Vietnam War are too well known to be ignored. The removal of one of the powerful President of the USA is credited to the media men. But in terms of negative contributions, there are no two opinions about its role in the weakening of the UN and Iraq war. The situation in Afghanistan is another case in which one finds more negative contributions rather than projecting positive recipes. Its coverage of war on terrorism is another area where one finds more lopsided and ignorant versions than reflecting the actual complex situation.

Assessing the editorial by an objective yardstick, the thought that immediate strike is that the editorial under discussion reflects little knowledge of the tribal culture and inherent difficulties linked with a porous border. Not only Pakistan and Afghanistan inherited a porous border but in some areas the same tribes inhabits both sides of the border. The entire border belt has Pakhtoon tribe’s men living both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They cross the border at will and it not easy to monitor all movements. During the colonial days, the British never made any tangible effort to exert effective control of the border areas. Large doses of money were injected to the tribal leaders in order to secure their cooperation for looking after the British interests. With the departure of the British, the Pakistanis inherited the area along with British introduced system of political agents. Although the Pakistanis were far more effective in the control of areas then what was the case during the colonial period.   

The factor that has acutely complicated the situation is that after American war against the Soviets, all those outsiders who were encouraged to come and were even hailed at the time as ‘Great Islamic warriors’ by the Americans, did not go back to their respective countries. Instead many of them settled in the tribal belt and shrewdly exploited the tribal code of daily life to their advantage.  Two developments made their return to their homes rather difficult. First, once the Soviets decided to withdraw, the Americans quickly packed up their bags and left without giving due considerations to the plight of the invited fighters. Second, the uncooperative attitude of their own countries also made it almost impossible for them to go back home. Consequently many of them settled on both side of the tribal belt.

During the ensuing civil war and Taliban regime they continued to strengthen their ties with the locals on both side of the border.  This enabled them to cross the border from Afghanistan side to Pakistan and whenever the pressure increased from the Pakistani side, they crossed into Afghanistan without many difficulties. While the government of Pakistan undertook radical measures to evict and to control the illegal movement across the border, the Americans did not play their part effectively either because of their unfamiliarity of the terrain or inability to effectively plug their routes. Whenever they were unable to check this type of traffic effectively the American officials in Afghanistan and their media would find a scapegoat in the form of Pakistan.

Judged by any objective yardstick, the contributions of Pakistan and the sacrifices of the Pakistanis are well recognized by almost all concerned including the high officials of American administration. Pakistan is in the coalition to combat terrorism primarily because of two reasons.

The first and the foremost is Pakistan’s genuine belief against terrorism and the damage terrorism has inflicted upon Pakistan. Not only so many Pakistanis have died either in the terrorist’s acts in Pakistan or countering terrorism on home front including its tribal belt.

Second, Pakistan has been and continues to play its role in the coalition rather sincerely. No country in the coalition has done as well as has been done by Pakistan. Not only it has caught more then 700 hundred terrorists but it has also managed to destroy its effectiveness rather impressively. It is a well known fact that some members of this coalition merely use the coalition to advance their own agenda rather then making substantive contributions towards the overall war against terrorism. However one cannot deny the assistance given by other important members to Pakistan for prosecuting its war against terrorism. Indeed this help is important and continues to improve the effectiveness of the Pakistani efforts.

To undermine such efforts and to blame Pakistan that it is not doing enough merely reflects either one’s own incompetence and inabilities or it is a device to pressurize Pakistan. Perhaps the unkindest cut is to invoke anger streaks among the Indians. Stressing that Pakistan has not dismantled the Islamic extremist groups that carry terrorist attacks against India amounts to employing underhand methods to invoke anger among the Indians as well. Not only many leaders in India have issued categorical statement stressing that infiltration in  to disputed territories of Kashmir has gone down to the bare minimum but also many military officials have acknowledged this fact. Yet the Washington Post found it prudent to flog the dead horse.

It would not be too far fetched to assume that either the editorial was written under the influence of some concerned group or someone is unhappy over the ongoing level of Pak-US relationships and advising the US administration to change its course or covering the inabilities and incompetence’s of the American and Afghan forces in Afghanistan by putting the blame on Pakistan or it could be reflective of sheer ignorance. Either case is not very conducive to sustain the reputation of a paper like ‘The Washington Post’. Perhaps it would have been better if the paper had acknowledged the recent violations of Pakistan’s  sovereignty by the Americans as a blunder and advised the involved party to refrain from undertaking such actions in future especially against a coalition partner. Already the blatant disrespect for the inviolability of the Pakistan’s Afghan border has caused much resentment inside Pakistan. Such editorial not only tend to further fuel the fire but effectively question the American ability to respect the civilized norms accepted by the international community.  
 

The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.