US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is always well-informed and is capable of analyzing issues — Afghanistan, Pakistan and the question of what to do about the growing strength of the Taleban in both places being among them. Her stinging criticism of Pakistan’s dialogue with the militants in the Swat Valley — a “mortal” threat to US and world security in her words — should not be seen as a case of sudden American exasperation with the Pakistan government. There has been an explosion of concern in the US about Pakistan’s perceived appeasement of the Taleban, all the more so because it is seen to have failed. Just last week, US special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke said that nowhere else in the world is a more dangerous situation than Pakistan.
The US has every right to make comment about what is happening in Pakistan: It helps bankroll the country. It has given Pakistan $12 billion in aid over the past seven years, two thirds of it security related. Last month, President Barack Obama announced plans to increase the aid to about $2 billion, although he wants more to be spent on civilian projects. Understandably so — the lack of jobs, of opportunities, of basic facilities such as schools, hospitals and roads in areas such as Swat, and the rising cost of living act as a recruitment sergeant for the Taleban. Equally understandable, but misplaced, are the growing demands in the US that aid be conditional on Pakistan taking on militants — misplaced because, as yesterday’s offensive against Taleban militants shows, Pakistan is attempting just that.
However, going so public with its concerns only complicates the situation, even if Hillary Clinton’s language is almost identical to that used by President Asif Ali Zardari at the Pakistan aid conference in Tokyo last week: “If we lose, the world loses,” he told the conference, pledging to use the funds raised to fight the extremists. The American statements make it look as if it is trying to dictate to Islamabad. With anti-Americanism so strong in Pakistan, the last thing any Pakistan government needs is to be seen as kowtowing to Washington’s demands.
Moreover, the volume of concern coming from the US contrasts strongly with the relative silence from other aid donors. Last week’s aid conference produced pledges of $4 billion on top of what the US is giving. Those other aid donors include Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the EU and Japan. But although they are just as concerned as Washington about the Taleban’s spreading power, none of the other donors has been as voluble about it. It is not because they are spineless or uninterested; if that were so, they would not be giving money in the first place. Nor is it that they better understand the difficulties that Pakistan faces; the Americans understand them just as well. The difference is simply Washington’s need to comment on everything and anything at almost every moment of the day. Transparency is commendable but this begins to look like an attempt to pressure Pakistan.
The irony is that Washington’s leverage with Pakistan is extremely limited. It cannot intervene; it dare not stop the funding; and it cannot walk away. All it can do is hope that the Pakistani government and army, with its and other countries’ money, can deal with the threat. It is a recipe for frustration. There was certainly an element of that in Hillary Clinton’s comments.
In the spirit of openness
Excerpts from an editorial in yesterday’s New York Times:
When he was vice president, Dick Cheney never acknowledged the public’s right to know anything. Now, suddenly, he has the full disclosure bug. He told Fox News this week that President Obama’s decision to release memos written by the Bush Justice Department authorizing the abuse and torture of detainees inspired him to ask the Central Intelligence Agency to release transcripts of those interrogations. Cheney was not being entirely honest (he made the request last month), and his logic is confounding. Still, Cheney raised an important point. Did violating the law against torture and abuse, shredding international treaties and destroying America’s global standing actually do any good? Cheney claims that the waterboarding saved thousands of lives. Most accounts that don’t come from officials involved in the formation of those policies suggest that that is not the case. The question needs to be answered so Americans can decide if they want to buy into Cheney’s view that the ends always justify such barbaric means. Americans also need to know who pushed the Justice Department lawyers to twist the law and the Constitution to excuse torture. And we need to know the legal reasoning, if any, behind President George W. Bush’s decision to authorize illegal tapping of Americans’ telephones and e-mail accounts.
We need to know the legal reasoning, planning and authorization behind Bush’s program of “extraordinary rendition” — in which people were abducted and sent to countries where it was obvious to all that they were in danger of being tortured, or would be tortured.
Until these questions are answered, there is no way to ensure that these abuses will never be repeated.
