Some worrying developments By Tariq Fatemi
Thursday, 17 Dec, 2009 10:00 AM PST
Two events in the past fortnight represent worrying developments for Pakistan’s national security establishment. The first was President Obama’s new Afghan strategy, unveiled on Dec 1, in which the president approved the dispatch of an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
More importantly, Obama declared that US success in the war on terror was ‘inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.’
His strategy was, however, all military, with barely a mention of a political plan. The Americans in Afghanistan are seen increasingly as foreign occupiers, while the Taliban have donned the mantle of Pakhtun nationalism. But where is the plan to bring those who matter on board?
The new strategy is woven around conflicting compromises that includes accepting Gen Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops, while rejecting an open-ended commitment. In publicly calling for an unrealistic and ill-advised time frame of 18 months for the commencement of withdrawal, Obama has placed his generals on notice that having accepted their advice, he will brook no excuses, nor accept alibis.
But having made this commitment, what measures can one expect from the administration to eliminate Al Qaida and weaken the Taliban? Undoubtedly, it will be Pakistan where henceforth the ‘buck stops,’ and which will be held responsible for America’s failure in Afghanistan.
This is also confirmed by inspired leakages that the CIA has been authorised to expand its operations in Pakistan, to include larger and more frequent drone attacks in Balochistan as well. The justification for it is hinted at in Obama’s declaration that the US ‘must deny Al Qaida a safe haven,’ and his warning that the US ‘cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.’
Obama raised the level of concern when he claimed that the stakes are ‘even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan,’ while reiterating that ‘a central plank of my foreign policy would be to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists.’ Is the president implying that elements within our nuclear establishment are in cahoots with the extremists?
Secretary Hillary Clinton has made it clear that the US would also hold us ‘to a different standard than the one that it had met in the past,’ while warning that what Pakistan has done ‘is not enough.’ Defence Secretary Robert Gates ratcheted up the pressure further when he warned that Al Qaida would try to provoke a war between India and Pakistan with the aim of destabilising Pakistan and gaining access to its nuclear arsenal.
But if the Americans are supposed to start withdrawing their troops in less than two years, would Pakistan not be justified in hedging its bets? After all, if we are to live next to a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, why annoy them? Even more worrying is the absence of evidence of US willingness to use its influence to bring India back to the negotiating table, or even of asking it to end its alleged interference in Fata and Balochistan.
In such a scenario, would Pakistan not be justified in wondering why it should ‘play ball’ with the US? This does not, however, mean that we can be complacent about militancy at home. It is not only the world that is no longer willing to ignore our transgressions; terrorism is truly a cancer that threatens to destroy our country.
Moreover, lest anyone take Obama to be a pacifist, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he postulated a new doctrine of a ‘just war,’ declaring that ‘war is sometimes necessary,’ and can go ‘beyond self-defence or the defence of one nation,’ so long as the restoration of peace is the real goal.
Obama essentially echoed what he had stated in a speech to the Illinois state legislature in 2002: ‘I am not opposed to all wars, I am opposed to dumb wars.’ Taken along with his new Afghan strategy, his prize acceptance speech seeks not only to justify recent American military adventures, but to wrap them in a moral cloak.
While Obama’s new strategy deserves a dispassionate analysis, no less important is the likely result of the Indian prime minister’s diplomatic initiatives to reinforce India’s ties with the US and Russia.
Within a fortnight, New Delhi has notched up two major diplomatic successes. Last month, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was the first state guest of the Obama administration, where he was able to get a reaffirmation of the US-India ‘global strategic partnership.’ Though he could not obtain an irrevocable commitment regarding the provision of advanced enrichment and reprocessing technologies, he did achieve success on the issue of counterterrorism.
The two countries expressed their ‘grave concern’ over the continuing terrorist threat ‘emanating from India’s neighbourhood,’ while agreeing that ‘resolute and credible steps be taken to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries that provide shelter to terrorists and their activities.’
Also surprising was US appreciation for India’s role in Afghanistan. This, after Pakistan’s claim that the administration had been asked to use its influence to urge India to reduce its presence in Afghanistan!
Soon thereafter, the Indian prime minister went on an official visit to Moscow, where the two countries signed important agreements, including one on cooperation in civilian nuclear energy. Thus, without having signed the NPT or accepted related obligations, India is now the recipient of nuclear technology from major powers. So much for the West’s ‘moral’ opposition to the Iranian nuclear programme.
Pakistan has officially expressed its concern over the signing of the Indo-Russian civil nuclear deal, claiming that it has a legitimate interest in ensuring that strategic peace in South Asia is maintained. Recalling recent statements from New Delhi from where hints have emanated about the waging of a limited war with Pakistan, our officials have warned that Pakistan cannot remain oblivious to these developments.
This is welcome but more skilful and imaginative diplomacy is required to confront the mounting challenges on our eastern and western frontiers, particularly in negotiations with the US and in rebuilding relations with Russia.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/14-some-worrying-developments-zj-03
Thursday, 17 Dec, 2009 10:00 AM PST
Two events in the past fortnight represent worrying developments for Pakistan’s national security establishment. The first was President Obama’s new Afghan strategy, unveiled on Dec 1, in which the president approved the dispatch of an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
More importantly, Obama declared that US success in the war on terror was ‘inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.’
His strategy was, however, all military, with barely a mention of a political plan. The Americans in Afghanistan are seen increasingly as foreign occupiers, while the Taliban have donned the mantle of Pakhtun nationalism. But where is the plan to bring those who matter on board?
The new strategy is woven around conflicting compromises that includes accepting Gen Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops, while rejecting an open-ended commitment. In publicly calling for an unrealistic and ill-advised time frame of 18 months for the commencement of withdrawal, Obama has placed his generals on notice that having accepted their advice, he will brook no excuses, nor accept alibis.
But having made this commitment, what measures can one expect from the administration to eliminate Al Qaida and weaken the Taliban? Undoubtedly, it will be Pakistan where henceforth the ‘buck stops,’ and which will be held responsible for America’s failure in Afghanistan.
This is also confirmed by inspired leakages that the CIA has been authorised to expand its operations in Pakistan, to include larger and more frequent drone attacks in Balochistan as well. The justification for it is hinted at in Obama’s declaration that the US ‘must deny Al Qaida a safe haven,’ and his warning that the US ‘cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.’
Obama raised the level of concern when he claimed that the stakes are ‘even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan,’ while reiterating that ‘a central plank of my foreign policy would be to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists.’ Is the president implying that elements within our nuclear establishment are in cahoots with the extremists?
Secretary Hillary Clinton has made it clear that the US would also hold us ‘to a different standard than the one that it had met in the past,’ while warning that what Pakistan has done ‘is not enough.’ Defence Secretary Robert Gates ratcheted up the pressure further when he warned that Al Qaida would try to provoke a war between India and Pakistan with the aim of destabilising Pakistan and gaining access to its nuclear arsenal.
But if the Americans are supposed to start withdrawing their troops in less than two years, would Pakistan not be justified in hedging its bets? After all, if we are to live next to a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan, why annoy them? Even more worrying is the absence of evidence of US willingness to use its influence to bring India back to the negotiating table, or even of asking it to end its alleged interference in Fata and Balochistan.
In such a scenario, would Pakistan not be justified in wondering why it should ‘play ball’ with the US? This does not, however, mean that we can be complacent about militancy at home. It is not only the world that is no longer willing to ignore our transgressions; terrorism is truly a cancer that threatens to destroy our country.
Moreover, lest anyone take Obama to be a pacifist, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, he postulated a new doctrine of a ‘just war,’ declaring that ‘war is sometimes necessary,’ and can go ‘beyond self-defence or the defence of one nation,’ so long as the restoration of peace is the real goal.
Obama essentially echoed what he had stated in a speech to the Illinois state legislature in 2002: ‘I am not opposed to all wars, I am opposed to dumb wars.’ Taken along with his new Afghan strategy, his prize acceptance speech seeks not only to justify recent American military adventures, but to wrap them in a moral cloak.
While Obama’s new strategy deserves a dispassionate analysis, no less important is the likely result of the Indian prime minister’s diplomatic initiatives to reinforce India’s ties with the US and Russia.
Within a fortnight, New Delhi has notched up two major diplomatic successes. Last month, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was the first state guest of the Obama administration, where he was able to get a reaffirmation of the US-India ‘global strategic partnership.’ Though he could not obtain an irrevocable commitment regarding the provision of advanced enrichment and reprocessing technologies, he did achieve success on the issue of counterterrorism.
The two countries expressed their ‘grave concern’ over the continuing terrorist threat ‘emanating from India’s neighbourhood,’ while agreeing that ‘resolute and credible steps be taken to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries that provide shelter to terrorists and their activities.’
Also surprising was US appreciation for India’s role in Afghanistan. This, after Pakistan’s claim that the administration had been asked to use its influence to urge India to reduce its presence in Afghanistan!
Soon thereafter, the Indian prime minister went on an official visit to Moscow, where the two countries signed important agreements, including one on cooperation in civilian nuclear energy. Thus, without having signed the NPT or accepted related obligations, India is now the recipient of nuclear technology from major powers. So much for the West’s ‘moral’ opposition to the Iranian nuclear programme.
Pakistan has officially expressed its concern over the signing of the Indo-Russian civil nuclear deal, claiming that it has a legitimate interest in ensuring that strategic peace in South Asia is maintained. Recalling recent statements from New Delhi from where hints have emanated about the waging of a limited war with Pakistan, our officials have warned that Pakistan cannot remain oblivious to these developments.
This is welcome but more skilful and imaginative diplomacy is required to confront the mounting challenges on our eastern and western frontiers, particularly in negotiations with the US and in rebuilding relations with Russia.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/14-some-worrying-developments-zj-03
