Round The World

New Delhi, 14 August 2007

COUNTDOWN TO END OF MUSHARRAF  ERA?

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

Pakistan, the most allied ally of the United States in South Asia is the epicenter of anti-American feelings in the region. The US Government is probably closest to the Pakistani ruling regime in 60 years of Pakistan’s independent existence. But it is farthest from the Pakistani people in terms of fellow feelings and mutual admirations.

In a recent foreign policy debate in the Pakistan National Assembly, anti-US statements dominated the proceedings and indicated the degree of indignation the Pakistani political leaders have against the Bush Administration. Significantly, members from the ruling parties and the Opposition were against Pakistan’s alliance with the US in the war against terrorism!

And, still more importantly, the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Tanveer Hussain Syed accused Washington of seeking to take control of “an independent Kashmir” and use it to contain China. He also alleged that the CIA along with the Indian and Afghani intelligence agencies were responsible for the murder of the Chinese nationals in Pakistan.

More. He called for a “jihad” in Kashmir and the recognition of the Taliban in Afghanistan as part of a policy to restrain the US in attaining its goals. According to a Pakistani newspaper, some of the ruling party legislators were competing with the religious party members in reproving the US for following an anti-Muslim and “insincere” policy towards Pakistan.

Three incidents have sparked this latest round of anti-American sentiments in Pakistan. First, the US Congress in its recent legislation made US aid to Pakistan conditional to the latter’s performance in combating terrorism. Second, the conclusion of the 123 Agreement between India and the US, in which India continues to have the “sovereign” right to conduct nuclear tests. Third, the statements by the potential candidates for the US 2008 Presidential elections in recent weeks were highly and clearly disapproving of Pakistan. 

Conditional aid is a fact of life and no one gives aid freely to any one. Instead of cribbing about the US legislation making aid to Pakistan contingent upon President Musharraf’s success in dealing with terrorists, the Pakistani opponents of such aid should ask their Government to refuse aid. But they cannot do it.

As far as the second issue of Washington’s nuclear deal with India is concerned, the Pakistanis have no genuine cause to be concerned. It is a civilian nuclear deal. It is not anti-Pakistan in any sense of the term. If the US is not prepared to offer a similar package to Pakistan, it is largely because of that country’s horrible proliferation record.

Lastly, perceived anti-Pakistani statements by the Presidential hopefuls and the alleged grievances against the US war on terror and its implications over the Muslim World appear to be the critical factors in shaping the Pakistani people’s perception of Washington.

The Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama in a speech at the famous Woodrow Wilson Center said that he would tie-up the US assistance to Pakistan with the latter’s success in eliminating terrorist training camps from its soil, preventing the Taliban from cross border terrorism in Afghanistan and throwing out foreign terrorists.

He also warned: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3000 Americans…. They are plotting to strike again…. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Thus, sending a message to Pakistan that while it has not yet faced any foreign invasion, the US under Obama Administration could order US troops into that country in hot pursuit of terrorists. It was certainly not an empty warning. Obama’s speech must have been drafted and carefully debated by influential advisors. While Obama was widely criticized in the US for his statement, it has sparked off intense anti-US sentiment in Pakistan.

One Pakistan commentator, a former senior officer of the Pakistani Army Naeem Salik in an article in one of the national dailies averred: “Pakistan is a nation with a 160 million-plus population. It also has more than half-million well-trained professional soldiers, a fair-sized operational nuclear capability and a variety of proven delivery systems….

“Many US experts who are suggesting direct US military intervention in the territory of yet another sovereign State and take into account the availability of US military assets based in the region tend to ignore the fact that the same assets also constitute vulnerabilities as they are in turn within the range of Pakistan’s military capabilities.” As Obama’s statement is not inconsequential, Naeem Salik’s analysis is not insignificant.

Similarly, the Republican Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo’s suggestion that the US should use nuclear bombs against Islam’s Holiest Places, Mecca and Medina, to deter a nuclear attack on the US by Islamic militants also evoked sharp reactions in Pakistan.  The PML leader Chaudhry Ejaj Ahmed retorted that: “If anybody ever dared to do it, a million Muslims can become suicide attackers.”

There is no gainsaying, that in Pakistan until recently, anti-US sentiments were confined to religious groups and sympathizers of the Taliban and Islamic militants. Now even some of the members of the ruling establishments are voicing statements extremely critical of the US. The US embassy in Islamabad has taken strong exceptions to some of the statements made in the National Assembly.

Against the backdrop of the fact that Islamabad is a major non-NATO ally of Washington. It has received about ten billion dollars of assistance from the Bush Administration since the September 2001 terrorist attacks on the US. With Washington’s help, Pakistan’s military Government under the leadership of Pervez Musharraf has been able to survive and prosper for more than seven years.

The Bush Administration has not only remained inactive in the face of charges against a Pakistani nuclear scientist of running a nuclear black market, it has also bolstered Islamabad’s conventional military capability by supplying weapons and other hardware related to fighting a war. But for the American economic assistance, Pakistan would have become a failed state by now. It is also true that the al Qaeda raised financial cost for the US by engineering the 9/11 attacks and restored Pakistan’s financial viability at the same time.

Musharraf is now under double pressure. The Bush Administration is no longer bestowing praise on him for catching or killing terrorists, instead it has been asking him to improve his report card. At home the traditional anti-American groups and an increasing number of his supporters are challenging his foreign policy, particularly his anti-terrorism cooperation with the US. Needless to say, the pressure from Washington to do more and the demand from the domestic constituencies to do less have created an insurmountable difficulty for the Pakistani President.

Musharraf, nonetheless, appears adamant to hold on to power. His not-so-secret political negotiations with Benazir Bhutto and his recent attempt to impose emergency in the country are all indicative of the General’s desperation. One can discern a beginning of the end of an era of Musharraf’s rule in Pakistan. ---- INFA

(Copyright India News and Feature Alliance)