Widening of distrust

The POST, Sun, Sep,21, 2008.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Undoubtedly there exists a consensus among the most members of the International Coalition to eliminate the menace of terrorism. However some members are genuinely contributing towards the ongoing efforts while others are using the coalition to advance their own agenda. Almost all objective yardsticks indicate that Pakistan has probably contributed more to the collective efforts than any other member.

It is generally believed that both the Americans and the Indians have been using the partnership to advance their own agendas. While the Americans feel committed to establish a democratic regime in Afghanistan, the Indians are using the coalition for exploitation of both Kashmir and situation on Pakistan’s borders. As far as India is concerned one can understand their quest but the American policy sometimes generates enigmatic vibes reflecting the existence of trust and distrust simultaneously.

Initially the American and Pakistani partnership within the ambit of international coalition to combat terrorism was fairly smooth and in many ways impressive but with the passage of time the initially established trust gradually began to wither away. Many factors account for this gradually fading of the much needed trust. Among these are included the change in overall environment and approaching American election, faulty sharing of intelligence, violation of territorial integrity of Pakistan, blame game and interference in internal affairs like asking Pakistani government to reform ISI, action-reaction phenomenon etc.

Since 9/11 and consequent war on terror including the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the war against terrorism has not been able to make impressive strides. On the contrary not only terrorism has spread at an unanticipated pace but the civilian casualties also registered an alarming rise. Not only the Americans have poured in billions of dollars in both Iraq and Afghanistan in pursuits of their policies but they have also managed to get their NATO partners involved in Afghanistan’s mess. Because of the approaching US presidential election, the candidates are regularly expressing, though unconvincingly, their interpretations regarding how to carry on the war on terror in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Theoretical the coalition appears to be working fine but many reports indicate that the sharing of intelligence between members has been somewhat faulty. Either the mechanism employed to gather intelligence is faulty or important information is deliberately withheld or the requisite technical assistance is not provided to the partners. This appears to be the case as far as the Pakistanis and the Americans are concerned. Reports indicate that at many occasions intelligence provided by the Pakistanis to their partner, the Americans did not act and allowed the opportunity to pass. On the other hand the Americans appeared to have expressed their concerns about leakage of information to the militants by the Pakistanis without giving any convincing proof. An examination of recent aerial attacks by the Americans on the Pakistani soil with the professed objectives of hunting down Al Qaeda and militant Taliban clearly proves that the intelligence was faulty as the American attacks have only killed large number of civilians including women and children along with negligible number of militants.

The Americans have not only repeatedly violated Pakistani air space but have also undertaken ground operations inside Pakistani territory. The repeated ground and aerial incursions have invoked strong reaction among the Pakistanis. Not only the anti-American sentiments have rapidly multiplied but the Pakistani government had to react rather strongly and condemned the repeated raids in no uncertain terms. A recent poll demonstrated that around 74% Pakistanis did not support American actions in the tribal areas. However the raids continued and the government of Pakistan was left with no choice except to order retaliatory strikes if the US launches another air or ground attack. In consequence once again the Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff dashed to Islamabad and once again gave assurance to the Pakistani authorities that no further incursions would take place and reiterated the US commitment to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty. It is ironic that few hours after Admiral Mullen’s departure missiles were fired from US drones on a house in South Waziristan.

During last one year one has witnessed increased indulgence in blame game between the two partners. The Americans insists on the existence of safe heavens in FATA area and often justify their raids with the objective of eliminating the Al-Qaeda militants and Taliban. So far the Americans have neither provided a definite proof regarding the safe heaven nor have they been able to stabilize situation in Afghanistan. On the contrary the popular belief among the Pakistanis is that both the Afghans and the Indians are engaged, with the blessings of the Americans, in efforts to destabilize areas of Pakistan including FATA and Baluchistan.

Over the years not only the overall atmosphere has become highly charged but the continuous blame game along with periodic irresponsible statements has further complicated the situation. The latest statement by Richard Boucher in which he stressed that ISI must be reformed is reflective of utter disregard for the partner’s sovereignty. Many in Pakistani are raising questions about CIA’s role. Has the American raised similar objections to what the Afghan and Indian intelligence agencies are doing in FATA and Baluchistan? The American official has no right to indulge in such a blatant interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan and at the same time claim to respect the sovereignty of country.

The belief that the Americans are actually using both India and Afghanistan to destabilize Pakistan with the ultimate aim to secure control over Pakistan’s nuclear assets is rapidly gaining grounds. Besides, all the above mentioned factors have already taken a very heavy toll of existing level of trust. To retain what ever trust is left between the two partners, it is imperative to refrain from action that could rapidly deteriorate the situation and enlarge the existing mess. The US would do well to scrupulously refrain from undertaking hated incursions into Pakistani territories and provide the actionable intelligence to its Pakistani partners and facilitate them to initiate action. To fight terrorism effectively both need each other and both should sincerely collaborate with each other. The Americans must also ensure and effectively prevent both the Indians and the Afghans from undertaking undesired pursuits against Pakistan. Besides, it is imperative that the American offer apologies to the Pakistanis for the loss of civilian lives (caused by aerial and ground attacks) on somewhat similar lines as the American Defense Secretary has recently apologized from the Afghans. A collaborative effort to contain and reduce the creeping distrust would indeed be beneficial for both partners.
 

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.