The US’s unwise utterances

The POST, Sun, Jul,29, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Responding to reports that Washington is considering to strike inside Pakistani territory, the official spokes person stated in no uncertain terms that Pakistan would not tolerate any attacks within its territory by foreign forces. She further said that any ill conceived action from any quarter would not only be against international law but would be deeply resented by the Pakistanis. 

Somewhat similar sentiments had already been expressed by the Pakistani Foreign Minister in Washington that incursions by the foreign forces would have adverse impact upon Pakistani public and could seriously alienate the Pakistanis. ‘Whatever counter terrorism action is to be taken inside Pakistan, it will be taken by our own security forces’, remarked the Foreign Minister. The spokes person of the foreign ministry stated that ‘this has been and continues to remain the basis of our cooperation with the US’. 

Whether or not the Americans are seriously contemplating to undertake unilateral strikes against the A-Qaeda targets alleged to be hiding in Pakistani tribal areas remains to be seen, the unwise statements of American officials has certainly upset many in Pakistan. These statements have provided sufficient ammunition to elements already against the government. In fact even the neutral Pakistani has also taken serious note of such wild American statements. In many ways these statements have further intensified anti-American feelings that appears the be already well entrenched. 

Not only a White House aide reportedly reiterated that US would consider using military force if necessary to stem Al-Qaeda growing ability to use its hideouts in Pakistan to launch terrorist attacks. The American officials insist that no actions have been ruled out to address the threat posed by Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. The US intelligence chief Mike McConnell claimed that Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden is alive and sheltering in lawless parts of Pakistan on the border with Afghanistan. However the Homeland Security advisor Frances Fragos Townsend to President Bush stated that US was committed first and foremost to working with President Musharraf in his efforts to control militants in Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. She further stated that US was ready to take additional measures. 

A number of points raised in the statements of American officials and argument advanced by the Pakistani officials deserve comments. First, Al-Qaeda has safe heaven in the tribal areas of Pakistan and Osma bin Laden is residing in those areas. Second, Pakistan is not doing enough in war against terrorism and it needs to do more. Third, the US is free to take any action in its war against terrorism even if it involves violating Pakistan’s sovereignty. Fourth, American military incursions into Pakistan would be counterproductive. 

So far no convincing proof has been advanced by the American intelligence community or for that matter any one in the west that Osama is alive and residing in the tribal areas of Pakistan. What we have are reports based on rumor and fabricated stories with a view to create circumstantial evidence. It is not too far fetched to assume that many of these reports are known to be the product of what is commonly referred as inspired leaks of the involved intelligence community. 

A question is often asked that the US is one of the most scientifically advanced country of the world with extremely impressive snoopy technology, how come they have never been able to track Osama accurately. As opposed to this interpretation the other view, which is quite popular among some sections of various societies, is that Osama is in the safe custody of the American officials who would reveal at an appropriate time but to keep his myth alive, it is necessary to give him fictitious hiding place. A third interpretation is that Osama died in the Tora Bora bombing but to keep him alive, at least, in media is the part of the overall America’s strategy in the war against terrorism. 

An impartial analysis of these inspired leaks or deliberately concocted stories clearly point towards the most logical course of action which is to share the intelligence with your coalition partner Pakistan and assist them to launch the operation with the objective to capture him. Instead of making noises here and there that Osama is living in the tribal areas of Pakistan, which some ignorant western journalists refer as the lawless part of Pakistan, it would only be appropriate to intimate the partners and then embark upon a jointly worked out strategy. 

The second allegation that is often repeated by many western reporters and some American officials is that Pakistan is not doing enough and it needs to do more. It is obvious that most of these people are either extremely ignorant and naïve or part of the cleverly devised strategy to pressurize Pakistan. It is also not too far fetched to assume that most of these people may be under the influence of active Indian lobby. After all it is being increasingly recognized that India lobby is becoming just as effective as the Israeli lobby is with regard to Middle Eastern affairs. In many ways the American regional policies regarding South Asia and Middle East are no longer completely independent but have become somewhat hostage to India and Israel policy pursuits respectively. 

The third question relates to US likely action. Is the US free to take any action in war against terrorism even if it involves the violation of neighbor’s territory? Theoretically all states are sovereign independent states and each of them guards its sovereignty as best as it can afford to do so. No country likes to have its sovereignty violated by another country under any circumstances. However it is possible to undertake such violations in special circumstances but only with the prior consultations and permission of the target country. To issue threatening statement to an ally as has been done by the American amounts to direct pressurization and is invariably viewed as an extremely unwise. Nevertheless such statements could also mean a form of communication to militants and miscreants that US could undertake direct strikes without informing its coalition partner. 

Finally the fourth point revolves around what most Pakistanis stressed that the American military incursion into Pakistan would be counter productive. By and large this seems to be a correct assessment. Given the kind of problems the incumbent government is facing, it is somewhat unrealistic to expect that either the government officials or the people of Pakistan would accept such threatening statements. Unless the objective is to destabilize the situation further or embarrass the incumbent regime, almost every one would regard American approach unrealistic, unwise and irrational. It would indeed be a wiser course of action to refrain from issuing such provocative statements and embark upon a more realistic path and share intelligence information with its partner.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.