Vilification campaign against Pakistan

The POST, Sun, January,28, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

A systematic campaign against Pakistan’s Afghan policy has been going on for quite sometimes. Its intensity appears to have increased during the last few months. During last few months many stories were put out by the western media in general and American media in particular regarding Pakistan’s handling of Talibans and its Afghan policy. Baseless and fabricated allegations were frequently aired either to support Karazai regime or to malign and pressurize Pakistan unnecessarily. While it is not very uncommon to discover factual mistakes or wrongly perceived situation because of lack of full comprehension of the events along with enormous misperception of tribal environment in western media, systematic targeting of Pakistan’s efforts to check the cross border movement of sympathetic  elements of  Taliban reflect a carefully contrived campaign to vilify Pakistan.

Two aspects of vilification campaign deserve to be mentioned. First, stories were leaked out either by the interested lobbyists or by other sources including intelligence and government sources that Pakistan is not making concerted efforts to stop the Taliban movements across the border.  The propagators even went to the extent of stressing that Pakistan’s is a safe haven for both Al Quaida and Talibans. Repeated assurances and discussions with the concerned officials managed to inject some confidence but the media continued to publish unsubstantiated stories.

Perhaps it is not the fault of the American journalists who invariably claim to have consulted few sources before sending the story. Often those sources that were consulted  turn out to be those who were either not happy with government’s policy pursuits not necessarily related to the topic under discussion or those who often write what the western audience would like to read. Many of these stories originate in Pakistan’s neighboring countries that are deeply involved in maligning Pakistan. The western ignorance about the nature of Pakistan’s western borderland appears to be indeed enormous.

Second aspect of this campaign clearly reflects a carefully carved policy of covering Karazai’s inabilities and watering down of the NATO/ISAF’s failures to control the situation effectively. To begin with if one highlights Karazai’s shortcomings, it implies implicit recognition of a wrong choice of a leader to pull Afghanistan out of its incumbent mess. Already more than five years have passed and prevalent situation in Afghanistan is no different than what was before the advent of western chosen Karazai’s regime.  

In addition, the inabilities of ISAF/NATO forces to effectively curb the resurgence of Talibans are too pronounced to be tucked under the carpet.  Instead of looking inwards and improving the situation, some western journalists seemed to have embarked upon the easy way out and that is to put the blame upon Pakistan’s insufficient help. Such an attitude merely reflects both the insincerity and inability. Some of stories written by western journalists are so astonishing that an ordinary Pakistani would regard them as nothing more than comic writings.  

However it needs to be mentioned here that it does not means that Pakistanis have effectively dealt with the problem on their side of the border. Indeed not all is well in the tribal areas. But no nation has contributed so much as Pakistan has done to effectively deal with the menace of terrorism- a fact that has been universally recognized. Indeed the resurgence of Taliban has certainly created difficulties for Pakistani government. There exist sympathetic elements within tribal areas of Pakistan. To influence the sympathetic elements to desist from extending support requires patience and a long term approach. No short cut is going to work.

Current activities of Talibans are indeed causing worries for all the concerned. In this connection the NATO forces have unilaterally taken actions which have caused deep anger and anguish among the Pakistanis. Flagrantly violating the sanctity of Pakistan borders without taking the incumbent government on board amounts to destroying the trust and confidence built over the years has not gone down well. Not only the recent NATO attack on Pakistani soil has angered the government and people alike but it has further strengthened the hardliners on one hand and increased the number of Taliban sympathizers on the other.

To make things even more complicated the US House of Representatives has passed the bill reviving the memories of an extremely despised Pressler Amendment. The bill has not only invoked strong reactions but has raised many questions. Is the bill passed to further please and strengthen the Indians-the America’s strategic partners? Is it meant to push Pakistan in order to secure total compliance for American policy pursuits? Is it meant to influence Pakistan policy of seeking a secure gas pipeline from Iran or get Pakistan’s blessing or support for American intention of attacking Iran? Is it meant to further isolate the Republican administration which supports the Pakistani efforts against terrorism and extremism? Is it an excuse to explain American failure in Afghanistan? Is it the product of joint Jewish and Indian lobbies?  

Many Pakistanis appear to believe that all the above mentioned elements in these questions are part and parcel of American policy towards Pakistan. Already there exists a body of opinions which vociferously stress that the government of Pakistan is too lenient toward both the American and the Afghans. It was very rare that thinking people in Pakistan would lend hand to the idea of asking Afghans to go back home even if meant annoying the incumbent Afghan government. It appears to be somewhat a logical response to a barrage of Afghan’s government’s accusations as some Taliban are reportedly alleged to be using the Afghan refugee camps. If all the Afghan refugee camps are closed, it would certainly deny the sanctuaries to Talibans.

To further tighten the control of cross border activities, Pakistan is considering seriously the fencing and mining of the border. Since many countries are against the mining and have expressed their concerns, there is a very good chance that the idea of mining may be dropped. But fencing of the border is likely to materialize.  Many countries have already fenced their borders in one form or the other. It might cause some inconveniences to those tribes straddling along the border but a way can be easily found to resolve this issue. Both the fencing and the quick return of the Afghan refugees could certainly curtail the cross border movement.

Already the government of Pakistan has introduced a biometric system in order to maintain effective record of those crossing the border. The Afghans, of course, did not like the system and resisted its introduction. In addition, Pakistan government has stationed more than 80,000 of its troops in the tribal areas (the American media alleged safe havens) and has established more than 650 posts. Compared to the Pakistanis, the Afghan, NATO, ISAF forces have only established around 65 posts.

While it is an acknowledged fact that the government of Pakistan has undertaken so many measures to effectively check the cross border activities of the Talibans and intensified its struggle to curb extremism, yet one finds many western media men not hesitating in leveling charges against Pakistan and the House deemed fit in its wisdom to pass a bill seeking ban on aid to Pakistan. Perhaps that is why many in this region are already expressing that the American policies are increasingly becoming hostage to Jewish and Indian lobbies. Misperceiving Pakistan’s intentions and efforts to fight extremism appears to have invoked and rapidly increasing the belief that American can never be fair to Pakistan because it is an Islamic country and are keen to create and widen gulf among the Islamic world. It is unfortunate that instead of commending, supporting and helping Pakistani efforts in its war against terrorism and extremism, the American legislatures seem to have chosen the course chartered for them by the lobbies.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.