A critical turning point?
Secretary Clinton was dour when she warned that there was too much anti-Americanism in Pakistan and that facts were being concealed behind this public emotion. She pointed out that America had given more aid to Pakistan than Saudi Arabia and China put together. She, however, acknowledged the sacrifices Pakistan had made in the war against terrorism, yet adding that most of al Qaeda killers and planners of terrorism across the world had been located inside Pakistan. To lighten the intensity of this accusation she added that there was absolutely no evidence that the higher Pakistani authorities were aware of the presence of Osama bin Ladin in Abbottabad.
Information Minister Firdous Ashiq Awan pointed to the crux of the ‘difference’ that persisted by stating after the meeting: “The people of Pakistan, the government and parliament have made it clear that drone strikes are unacceptable. And if they continue, our bilateral relations with the US could be affected.” The warning contained in this remark was clear. What if the US doesn’t give up its policy on the use of drones which are recognised internationally as an effective response to al Qaeda-linked terrorists? Will the government, ignoring the difference of opinion inside Pakistan over the issue of drones, start doing what the parliament has ordered it to do, that is, somehow interdicting the drones and the Nato supply-line through Pakistan? The minister seemed to convey the impression that the government will probably go back to parliament for another tough resolution. Looking at how the elected politicians are willing to give up a flexible response in favour of a more emotive ‘going-with-the-people’ option, the coming weeks and months could be more dangerous for Pakistan than the US. More and more people, including some heretofore realistic economists, want Pakistan to give up ‘begging for American money’. Writing in this newspaper, a well-respected former president of the State Bank of Pakistan has recommended ending the nexus simply because the disbursements have been scanty, while Pakistan’s losses to acts of terrorism are mounting rapidly. What, however, most Pakistanis forget is that the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act contained clear conditionalities with regard to the banning and abolition of the jihadi organisations now functioning as affiliates of al Qaeda and the Taliban, and action to be taken against foreign and local elements attacking Isaf-Nato forces across the Durand Line. Politicians are massively in favour of going the populist way, meaning that they can blame everyone (India, America, Israel, and so on) but the actual terrorists for such attacks, presumably because that helps their chances for re-election.
The defence committee’s pledge of going after the terrorists in their strongholds — read North Waziristan — and switching off the jihadis in South Punjab still holds, and that actually is the unfinished agenda of Pakistan’s obligations referred to by Secretary Clinton. Pakistan is politically unstable and internally convulsed; and what it really should be doing is coming good on this particular pledge because doing so would be in its own interest. This would help eliminate those striking at its people and installations and would restore its badly-dented image in the eyes of the world and veer it away from an isolationist trajectory.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 29th, 2011.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ