ISLAMABAD, 10 April 2004 — Right now neither the US nor Pakistan is at peace on the home front. Nations going through transition never are. Hence statements alone tend to take the relationship to a “boiling point.” Pakistan’s strategic course correction, some on objectives and others on means, has involved internal political and security commotion. The rollback now taking place is dangerously chaotic. It is necessary for internal peace and security as was the tackling of the tragic A.Q Khan case. However legitimate these actions, public resentment against continued US pressure on Pakistan for not doing enough exists. Whether it is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz’s statement or US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad’s threat of US military conducting anti-militant operations in the tribal areas if Pakistan fails, Pakistanis are livid. Even with their own government. Yesterday’s mujahedeen are today’s terrorists and yesterday’s financiers of the jihad are today’s men with the proverbial “big stick.” These are complex perceptions, not easily tackled. Also they are rooted in some truth.
Given the international context, the issues of proliferation, anti-terrorism, growing Muslim resentment in major geographical zones toward the US, Pakistan’s nuclear power, military force and strategic location, a relationship with Pakistan’s is indispensable for the US. The recent decision to give Pakistan the non-NATO ally status illustrates the point. Pakistani establishment, like most political parties, recognize the compulsions of this relationship. The public watches the US-created killing fields of Iraq, the dehumanization of innocent men in Guantanamo Bay and the unfair demands on Pakistan to bring peace to Afghanistan. Innocent deaths and the controversial Wana operation too were credited to the US account. Often the internal logic and necessity for much of this is lost. But these are realities unlikely to change within the immediate context.
Naturally in this election year the Bush administration is deeply troubled. Its policies that earlier enjoyed bipartisan support may now cause a Democratic victory. There is the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq, the incontrovertible evidence of fabrication on Iraq’s WMDs to justify invasion, the continuing problems of warlords, drugs and security in Afghanistan, the allegation that instead of tackling terrorism the neocons opted to invade Iraq and above all the growing unemployment in the US.
The Bush administration is under heavy criticism for withholding thousands of pages of Clinton administration papers from the bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 events. No less is regular criticism by sections of US’s policy community of Bush’s policies towards Pakistan. They want penalties imposed on the Pakistan government that sections of Bush’s own administration claims is responsible for continuing trouble in Afghanistan, global proliferation, support for “fundamentalists” within Pakistan and failure to restore democracy. This is then the unending “wish list” of accusations that the US must continuously address.
The United States generally and the Bush administration specifically is dealing with crises largely of its own making. During his March interview with PTV the US Secretary of State Colin Powell had maintained that for the US the lesson from their extremist and militarized Afghan policies of the eighties was that dialogue was key to settling disputes. In Iraq, despite global pressure to the contrary, the US abandoned that lesson. The result is the continuing mess. From Iraq body bags will flow to grief-stricken Iraqi and US homes. Anti-US guerrilla warfare will continue.
Afghanistan is no “success” either. Even Powell maintains that the warlords are the main problem. Big powers however blame others for their shortcomings. The complaining Khalilzad and Wolfowitz, who subsequently retracted their statements, know this truth. Pakistan hence is caught in the cross-fire of US’s election campaigns and the competing disasters of Iraq. Bush and his top advisers including Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld , CIA chief George Tenet and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton are all voting in favor of Pakistan as a responsible state. That is what gives Pakistan common ground on which to build a relationship on terms that are mutually acceptable. Benefits for Pakistan range from security to development.
— Nasim Zehra is an Islamabad-based security analyst and fellow of the Harvard University Asia Center.
