| |
Pakistan squarely behind US
shield
By Seema Sirohi
WASHINGTON - At a recent hearing on the
"Challenges of terrorism in Asia" on Capitol Hill,
several Congressmen persistently raised questions about
Pakistan and its commitment to fighting Islamic
fundamentalism, curbing the resurgence of the Taliban
and clamping down on the thousands of madrassas
(religious schools) which continue to be incubators for
militants.
But these concerned congressmen were
stonewalled equally persistently by Bush administration
officials who gave their assessment of the current
situation. It was as if the two sides were talking about
a different country, a different time and a different
place. On every question about Pakistan's failure to
honor its pledges to stop cross-border infiltration into
India, or to arrest Taliban leaders moving about in the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas, administration
officials walked a fine line, declining to even admit
the premise of the questions that terrorists were
walking across from one country to the other. The long
and tedious dance went on for nearly three hours, during
which congressmen continued to throw punches and the
witnesses continued to successfully duck them.
Representing the Bush administration were Christina
Rocca, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, and
Cofer Black, the department's coordinator for
counter-terrorism.
Efforts by Democrats to
cajole the Bush administration to put conditions on US
aid to Pakistan met with opposition, and suggestions for
closer scrutiny were ignored. The message was clear: it
is a Republican White House, a Republican House of
Representatives and a Republican Senate. They don't need
or want ideas from the opposition. Sources on Capitol
Hill said that this White House brooks no dissent or
discussion on foreign policy issues, and this hearing
was no different. Since the Democrats don't have the
legislative clout, all they can do is make some noise.
The Congressional hearing raised wider questions
about where the "war on terrorism" is headed and how
best to prosecute it. It also became clear that the
State Department is not prepared to put any public
pressure on Pakistan to adhere more assiduously to
promises made by none other than President General
Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Since Pakistan is a key
ally in the "war on terrorism", the Bush administration
is keen not to embarrass the leadership and ruffle
feathers. US officials claim that they are putting
enormous pressure on Musharraf to do more and better to
stop infiltration into Kashmir, but in private. But
Democrats on Capitol Hill don't want US taxpayers' money
flowing to Pakistan without public accountability and
clear markers of progress on the ground. They would like
conditions put on the US$3 billion aid package for
Pakistan announced by President George W Bush in June.
For the past six months, US media reports have
consistently criticized Pakistan for failing to arrest
Taliban leaders who live openly in Quetta.
But
the State Department has strongly resisted any overt
conditionality. During the Congressional hearing,
Congressman Eni Faleomavaega, the ranking Democrat on
the House sub-committee on Asia and the Pacific, once
again tried to push, but failed to elicit a response. "I
do not believe we should provide billions of dollars of
aid to Pakistan with no strings attached," he said. The
three unwritten conditions that have been talked about
are for Pakistan to stop proliferation of all nuclear
technology and material, end cross-border terrorism into
India and return the country to democracy. Of the three,
the only condition Pakistan is close to obeying is the
one on nuclear proliferation, because US officials have
drawn a clear red line, according to analysts.
As for shutting down terrorist camps and
preventing terrorists from crossing into India, it
appears that Pakistan and the Bush administration have
reached an accommodation - while the goal may be
desirable, it is not attainable for now. The Bush
administration appears willing to live with terrorism in
Kashmir as a price for Pakistan's continued cooperation
on hunting down al-Qaeda. Evidence of this can be seen
in Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage's public climb down
in holding Musharraf's feet to the fire on the question.
In 2002, Armitage publicly announced that he was
confident that infiltration into India would end
following Musharraf's personal assurances to him. But a
year later, both Armitage and Musharraf backed off from
their clear public pronouncements.
Brad Sherman,
a Democrat from California, said that it was not just a
matter of porous borders. "There is significant evidence
that the Pakistani intelligence service provides
critical support to terrorists operating in both India
and Kashmir. The US cannot solve the Kashmir problem,
but it can do more to impress on our Pakistani friends
that their opposition to terrorism must be universal and
apply to its relationship with India, not just its
relationship to the United States and its concerns in
Afghanistan," he said.
Musharraf asserted during
a visit to Washington in June that he was doing the best
he could, but if the Indian army couldn't plug its
borders, he couldn't guarantee a sealed border.
Armitage, a tough diplomat, seemed to accept the
explanation during his trip to Islamabad in July this
year, while admitting that terrorists were still coming
across the Line of Control into India.
"India
has not crossed the line of control since 1972. In fact,
India has exercised incredible restraint in not waging
full-scale war to defend itself against these terrorist
acts," noted Faleomavaega, who has tried to attach
conditions to US aid, but so far his amendment has
languished in legislative wilderness.
Rocca, the
State Department's representative, defended Pakistan's
efforts and cooperation in the "war on terror". "We've
seen the government of Pakistan take on efforts against
these groups [operating in India]. I think it's harder -
these groups may be harder to go after than al-Qaeda and
the Taliban, because they have a fair amount of domestic
support. But we've also seen them take action against
them. We would like to see more."
Independent
South Asia analysts say that the US might be making a
mistake by handling Pakistan with kid gloves. Unless
there is some public pressure, Musharraf will not feel
the heat and will not take the action necessary against
jihadis operating in Kashmir. Walter Andersen, a former
State Department official and now deputy director of the
South Asia program at Johns Hopkins University, says
that the message to Musharraf is too mild to be taken
seriously. Musharraf knows the Americans will back him
so long as he occasionally delivers al-Qaeda operatives.
Andersen is particularly upset by the conclusions
Pakistan's government may draw from this policy -
terrorism against the US is bad, but against India, or
lately against Afghanistan, is acceptable.
A
senior Afghan diplomat said that Pakistan had crossed
the Durand Line - the border between Pakistan and
Afghanistan - recently and taken vantage positions deep
inside Afghan territory. "We alerted the Americans
immediately and they saw it with their own eyes. They
have the record of the troop movement," the diplomat
said. The issue was also raised this summer in the
trilateral commission - a group of officials from
Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US crafted to discuss
differences and common goals.
"We have asked the
US to ensure that these incursions don't occur. We see a
lack of sincerity on Pakistan's part," the Afghan
diplomat said in an interview. Other analysts say that
Pakistan is playing too clever a game with these
short-sighted tactical moves while radicalism breeds on
its own territory. Manipulating militant elements to
serve its purpose in India while hoping they won't gain
political ground in Pakistan is a mirage. Musharraf has
told US officials privately that he can't push religious
parties too far because they will come back against him
with more vigor.
But as Jim Leach, a Republican
and chairman of the House sub-committee said in his
opening statement: "As we think about what must surely
be the long-term nature of the terrorist challenge in
Asia and its implications for the United States, it's
critically important that we strive to maintain the
right balance of our policies. In this region and
elsewhere, policymakers would be wise to remember Teddy
Roosevelt's admonition that America should speak softly
but carry a big stick."
(Copyright 2003 Asia
Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
